40 Second clocks

[HLinNC]

Honestly, no. Any time there's rabid fans disagreeing with a call/no-call the explanation would have to devolve into a rules clinic about the differences between NFHS/NCAA/NFL rules. I don't think explaining how "the tackle box" is not a thing in high school would really quell the crowd.

Usually when the crowd reacts to us "not knowing the rules", I just think to myself, "Well, that's why I'm making the big bucks here"

I had pretty much the exact same thought.  Honestly, in the few schools that we have that still use it, I really don't recall hearing the R's announcements.  Maybe I tune it out.

As to the wireless clocks, the rival HS about 10 miles down the road has a wireless game clock that I swear skips sometimes. 

[AlUpstateNY]

I do agree with this statement from the ad:
"Clock Systems greatly improve the flow of football, lacrosse, and baseball games played in your stadium or field of play."

Speaking ONLY for Football, I agree "Game Time Visible Clocks" serve a distinct advantage to players, coaches, spectators & field officials, but what specific improvements do "play clocks" provide that a competent crew of game officials don't already provide, including their ability to adjust and respond to unanticipated, or temporary situations?

[CalhounLJ]

Speaking ONLY for Football, I agree "Game Time Visible Clocks" serve a distinct advantage to players, coaches, spectators & field officials, but what specific improvements do "play clocks" provide that a competent crew of game officials don't already provide, including their ability to adjust and respond to unanticipated, or temporary situations?

They greatly improve the flow of the game. That’s why I like that statement. That’s what it said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

They greatly improve the flow of the game. That’s why I like that statement. That’s what it said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apologies, perhaps I was unclear in my request for further detail.  Can you describe any specific benefits/advantages that "Visible PLAY clocks" provide that "greatly improve the flow of the game", that are not equally attainable from a competent field crew following current mechanics rigorously?

[CalhounLJ]

The improved flow of the game is the benefit. I don’t know how I could be more clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

A playclock is obviously more visible to players and officials.  BJ doesn't have to look at a watch and a QB and his sideline don't have to search him out to watch him count.   Less fouls lead to less stopping of the clock which leads to a more efficient flow of the game; but somehow I think you know that.

Not every innovation to the game is meant to &^%$ us over as officials.

[JasonTX]

Ask back judges if they'd prefer a playclock or keep it on the field.   I'd expect the vast majority would choose to have a playclock.  We have many teams who are slow tempo and don't snap the ball until there is 1 second left on the playclock.   Without a visible playclock they won't know what the time is.

[AlUpstateNY]

A playclock is obviously more visible to players and officials.  BJ doesn't have to look at a watch and a QB and his sideline don't have to search him out to watch him count.   Less fouls lead to less stopping of the clock which leads to a more efficient flow of the game; but somehow I think you know that.

Not every innovation to the game is meant to &^%$ us over as officials.

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, actually important.  Justifying spending bazillions of dollars retrofitting tens of thousands of HS playing fields across the country to avoid the handfulls of DOG fouls, or sidelines and QBs not being able to find BJs signaling details of play clock status, seems an overly expensive way to deal with some pretty innocuous, otherwise simply correctable, "issues".

The commitment of schools to provide more effective, consistent Chain Crews and Ball retrieval personnel is a welcome addition to reduce unnecessary "dead time" clock stoppages and excess other dead time delays during change of possession, after scores and change of periods could/should be easily corrected by emphasized mechanics and enforcement.  Somehow, HS officiating crews (often smaller in number than some used today) were able to effectively eliminate the majority of unnecessary timing mishaps for the past 100+ years, without this ancillary equipment.

[JasonTX]

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, actually important.  Justifying spending bazillions of dollars retrofitting tens of thousands of HS playing fields across the country to avoid the handfulls of DOG fouls, or sidelines and QBs not being able to find BJs signaling details of play clock status, seems an overly expensive way to deal with some pretty innocuous, otherwise simply correctable, "issues".

The commitment of schools to provide more effective, consistent Chain Crews and Ball retrieval personnel is a welcome addition to reduce unnecessary "dead time" clock stoppages and excess other dead time delays during change of possession, after scores and change of periods could/should be easily corrected by emphasized mechanics and enforcement.  Somehow, HS officiating crews (often smaller in number than some used today) were able to effectively eliminate the majority of unnecessary timing mishaps for the past 100+ years, without this ancillary equipment.

So why not eliminate game clocks as well?

[CalhounLJ]

Just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, actually important.  Justifying spending bazillions of dollars retrofitting tens of thousands of HS playing fields across the country to avoid the handfulls of DOG fouls, or sidelines and QBs not being able to find BJs signaling details of play clock status, seems an overly expensive way to deal with some pretty innocuous, otherwise simply correctable, "issues".

The commitment of schools to provide more effective, consistent Chain Crews and Ball retrieval personnel is a welcome addition to reduce unnecessary "dead time" clock stoppages and excess other dead time delays during change of possession, after scores and change of periods could/should be easily corrected by emphasized mechanics and enforcement.  Somehow, HS officiating crews (often smaller in number than some used today) were able to effectively eliminate the majority of unnecessary timing mishaps for the past 100+ years, without this ancillary equipment.

Actually, this redundant argument you keep posting is great support for play clocks. Why do you think schools spend these bazillions or dollars on play clocks? They must be getting some benefit from it. It’s not the officials demanding them, it’s the schools.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

So why not eliminate game clocks as well?

Its what separates us from the lower lifeforms, to wit: soccer.

Sometime in the 1930's Al was probably posing that argument

[AlUpstateNY]

Its what separates us from the lower lifeforms, to wit: soccer.

Sometime in the 1930's Al was probably posing that argument

Even back in the 1930s some people insisted on having the latest baubles, regardless of whether they made them look better, or accomplished anything.  All I was asking was a simple question, "Does the visible play clock really add anything necessary to the game, that doesn't already exist.  Other than "every other level uses them, so they must (somehow) be necessary" isn't very explanatory. I just thought I may be missing something important, apparently not.

[CalhounLJ]

Even back in the 1930s some people insisted on having the latest baubles, regardless of whether they made them look better, or accomplished anything.  All I was asking was a simple question, "Does the visible play clock really add anything necessary to the game, that doesn't already exist.  Other than "every other level uses them, so they must (somehow) be necessary" isn't very explanatory. I just thought I may be missing something important, apparently not.

Simple answer. Yes. They add necessary flow to the game. That’s why eveeevybody but you likes them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Simple answer. Yes. They add necessary flow to the game. That’s why eveeevybody but you likes them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk//quote]

I understand, in this election year, "ducking & dancing" has become fashionable, but I'm simply asking you for some/any specific examples of actually how, or why, play clocks, "are necessary, or significantly, add flow to the game", that would not be equally available through focused attention to the already effective mechanics currently practiced across the NFHS environment, including both Varsity and sub-Varsity levels (at virtually NO COST - or "flow" degradation)?

Using already available visible "play clocks" ALREADY INSTALLED FOR HIGHER LEVEL RULE CODES is fine (if teams agree), but retrofitting the entire NFHS universe is ridiculous.

[CalhounLJ]

Simple answer. Yes. They add necessary flow to the game. That’s why eveeevybody but you likes them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk//quote]

I understand, in this election year, "ducking & dancing" has become fashionable, but I'm simply asking you for some/any specific examples of actually how, or why, play clocks, "are necessary, or significantly, add flow to the game", that would not be equally available through focused attention to the already effective mechanics currently practiced across the NFHS environment, including both Varsity and sub-Varsity levels (at virtually NO COST - or "flow" degradation)?

Using already available visible "play clocks" ALREADY INSTALLED FOR HIGHER LEVEL RULE CODES is fine (if teams agree), but retrofitting the entire NFHS universe is ridiculous.

Great. You have an opinion. So do I. I simply agree with the statement “visible play clocks improve the flow of the game.” I agree with that statement based on my personal experience. I have called games without play clocks and games with play clocks. The games with play clocks flowed better.  That is all. Stop making it more than it is.

We all understand you do not like play clocks or the implementation of the :40. Fine. I’m ok with you not liking it. Don’t try to force your dislike on me though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

We all understand you do not like play clocks or the implementation of the :40. Fine. I’m ok with you not liking it. Don’t try to force your dislike on me though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not that "I don't like" the concept of regulating time between downs more consistently, but necessitating visible play clocks in thousands of NFHS playing fields, when tightened focus on existing (workable) mechanics seems like a wildly cost effective, and immediately available alternative.

[JasonTX]

It's not that "I don't like" the concept of regulating time between downs more consistently, but necessitating visible play clocks in thousands of NFHS playing fields, when tightened focus on existing (workable) mechanics seems like a wildly cost effective, and immediately available alternative.

Teams that like a slow pace are hindered when they can't see the time remaining on the playclock.

[HLinNC]

Al, I'm not in favor of a mandate for play clocks but if the schools want them, I'm not standing in their way.

The right connections with the area soft drink bottler will take care of the expense in most cases anyway.

[CalhounLJ]

It's not that "I don't like" the concept of regulating time between downs more consistently, but necessitating visible play clocks in thousands of NFHS playing fields, when tightened focus on existing (workable) mechanics seems like a wildly cost effective, and immediately available alternative.

We are having a comprehension problem here. Nobody suggests you don’t like regulating consistency between the downs. From what I’ve read I would say you are very much in favor of consistency.

What we have is a method issue. You believe the key to consistency is training, mechanics, and application of principles long accepted in the profession. I don’t disagree that those things could help football games flow better and be more consistent between downs.

The problem is that the rest of the football world has decided the BEST way to help the flow and provide consistency between downs is by way of visible clocks and the implementation of the :40.

There’s an old saying I use to check my self and my opinions: when your opinion goes against the opinion of everybody else, more times than not it’s not everybody else’s opinion that is wrong. This may apply here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Teams that like a slow pace are hindered when they can't see the time remaining on the playclock.

Unfortunately, COVID wiped out the 2020 NFHS season in our area, postponed it, as possible for Spring 21 (which seems highly doubtful) so my thoughts are related to existing mechanics, which dealt with the issue you raise.  Mechanic related to the previously Referee public  (whistle/chop) RTP declaration: BJ would monitor the 25 second countdown, at 10 seconds remaining, raise one arm straight up, at 5 seconds visibly signal individual per-second count down for the benefit of the signal caller (and/or sideline).

Mechanic seemed effective, as DOG has NOT been a recurring problem, and would/should not require serious modification (if any) to accommodate a 40 second interval, although providing some sort of a revision of an RFP signal would be helpful (to everybody) and address both venues with/without visible play clocks, which will likely take multiple decades to universally provide.

[AlUpstateNY]

The problem is that the rest of the football world has decided the BEST way to help the flow and provide consistency between downs is by way of visible clocks and the implementation of the :40.

There’s an old saying I use to check my self and my opinions: when your opinion goes against the opinion of everybody else, more times than not it’s not everybody else’s opinion that is wrong. This may apply here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eureka, I think you may have uncovered the real thorn here.  There is NO universal "Football World", there are 3 separate, independent although closely related, progressive "Football Planets" each designed to support the individual requirements, purposes and distinct needs of their unique constituents.  Each unique higher level has distinct objectives requiring special handling, which often (BUT NOT ALWAYS) can be helpful to lower levels.

What works well for the goose, doesn't always make sense for the gander, but the two can learn (or remember) from each other to live in perfect harmony.

[CalhounLJ]

Eureka, I think you may have uncovered the real thorn here.  There is NO universal "Football World", there are 3 separate, independent although closely related, progressive "Football Planets" each designed to support the individual requirements, purposes and distinct needs of their unique constituents.  Each unique higher level has distinct objectives requiring special handling, which often (BUT NOT ALWAYS) can be helpful to lower levels.

What works well for the goose, doesn't always make sense for the gander, but the two can learn (or remember) from each other to live in perfect harmony.

Well, using your metaphor, there is a “football universe” made up of three football planets. Each one of those planets has decided play clocks and the :40 is the best way to regulate time between downs, thereby improving the flow and providing more consistency.

OMG, somebody post a rule question. I’m going nuts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Well, using your metaphor, there is a “football universe” made up of three football planets. Each one of those planets has decided play clocks and the :40 is the best way to regulate time between downs, thereby improving the flow and providing more consistency.

OMG, somebody post a rule question. I’m going nuts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There are ALWAYS different ideas about how best to "Skin a cat", let's see how well accepted and practical this one turns out to be.  It's been over 50 years since visible GAME clocks were introduced, and there are still locations choosing to play without them.  It seems despite even the most sincere best efforts, sometimes, "ONE size NEVER/EVER fits all, at least well", and not everybody is willing to pay the price of buying a Jaguar, although they'd like the luxury of the ride.

Even "Football Planets" change, alter, revise, adjust ideas (rules) EVERY year, because "The road to Hell is often paved with really good intentions", that don't seem to work, or be as necessary, as well as FIRST presumed.  The question is not just "a 40 second play interval", but how to rationally/practically/consistently manage it. 

Nuclear bombs are an indisputably effective means of eliminating rodent problems from an area, but would they be practical?

[CalhounLJ]

I've spent way too much energy on this insane argument, but I can't let this last sentence go unanswered. Calling the implementation of visible play clocks and the :40 a nuclear bomb is asinine..

[AlUpstateNY]

I've spent way too much energy on this insane argument, but I can't let this last sentence go unanswered. Calling the implementation of visible play clocks and the :40 a nuclear bomb is asinine..

I didn't suggest that play clocks were nuclear bombs, rather that "overkill", and/or over presumption, can be problematic, YOU made that direct equation.

Play clocks are not "the Devil", but they just as likely are not the ULTIMATE, EXCLUSIVE, ONLY PRACTICAL answer to the question of improved "play time" management.  For 50+ years there have been issues with consistently providing competent "GAME Clock" operators.  Many areas have chosen to deal with those issues by providing assigned certified officials as Timers, other areas by increased training and/or certification of non-official Timers.

As I understand, both NCAA and NFL games utilize separate (trained and/or certified) Game and Play clock operators.  Some (NFHS) schools prefer using a single operator to mange BOTH functions (personal opinion: "An accident waiting to happen"). 

Serious consideration weighing; ACTUALLY how big a problem (@ NFHS level), how significant the improvement provided,  the cost of implementation & ongoing necessary operation including competent manpower, the value of the benefit provided, the comparable cost of other available remedies & possible solutions are viable alternatives worth considering BEFORE adapting the MOST expensive, PERMANENT solution.