Clock question

[bama_stripes]

If R chooses PSK enforcement, they get a new series following a legal kick, and there’s no question that the clock starts on the snap.  The only reason for the case play would be to clarify the clock status when R chooses previous spot enforcement.

The case play obviously needs to be updated to reflect R’s option to hold the clock until the snap since they’re under 2:00.

[CalhounLJ]

Help me out with this one:


3.4.2 SITUATION D:

There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.

RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]


It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?

The case play has that option in the ruling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

If R chooses PSK enforcement, they get a new series following a legal kick, and there’s no question that the clock starts on the snap.  The only reason for the case play would be to clarify the clock status when R chooses previous spot enforcement.

The case play obviously needs to be updated to reflect R’s option to hold the clock until the snap since they’re under 2:00.

Agreed 100%.  We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted.  By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY.  They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.

[CalhounLJ]

Agreed 100%.  We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted.  By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY.  They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.

Agreed 100%.  We should not have to assume how the penalty options were offered and accepted.  By definition this is a CASE PLAY and IMHO the details including ALL options need to be actually stated in a CASE PLAY.  They are not and if they were we wouldn't be discussing the original post.

Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.

BAMA is right that the case play is in the book to clarify that exact point. There is more than sufficient information to come to that conclusion. The only reason I posted this case was to clarify that if R were to accept succeeding spot enforcement, the clock would start on the snap.

I don’t know how it could be more l
Clear?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.

BAMA is right that the case play is in the book to clarify that exact point. There is more than sufficient information to come to that conclusion. The only reason I posted this case was to clarify that if R were to accept succeeding spot enforcement, the clock would start on the snap.

I don’t know how it could be more l
Clear?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine, we'll agree to disagree.  For a new official reading that case play IMHO it's miserably inadequate.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Are you not reading the ruling? It specifically says that if R chooses previous spot enforcement, they may elect to start clock on snap because they are inside 2 minutes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually that's not what it says, that was in fact your question in the original post.

"It’s unclear whether R accepted this penalty from previous or succeeding spot. If it’s succeeding spot, wouldn’t the new series after legal kick mean we start clock on snap?"

That's what the case play should say!

[CalhounLJ]

Help me out with this one:


3.4.2 SITUATION D:

There are 55 seconds to go in the game when K11 punts the ball from a fourth and 10 situation. R1 catches the kick and returns 10 yards. During the down, but prior to the catch, K3 holds R2. R accepts the penalty.

RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half. [3-4-2b(3)]

My goodness. It’s right there in the RULING.

[NVFOA_Ump]

For those of us who are responsible for training new officials the minimally correct wording for an enforcement statement would read:

RULING: After enforcement FROM THE PREVIOUS SPOT, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half.

[CalhounLJ]

Ok.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KWH]

How about this?

RULING: After enforcement, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half or unless the offended team chooses 10-4-2 Exception enforcement . [3-4-2b(3), 10-4-2 Exception]


Obviously this Case play got missed when 10-4-2 EXCEPTION was added.

[CalhounLJ]

Yes that is my assumption.

[KWH]

After further review:
(This one is much cleaner as it pretty much says it all)

After enforcement If R chooses to enforce the penalty from the previous spot with a replay of the down, the game clock starts on the ready-for-play signal unless the offended team R also chooses to start the game clock on the snap inside the last two minutes of either half.  If R chooses to enforce the penalty from the succeeding spot, the game clock will start on the snap because a new series has been awarded to R following a legal kick.  3-4-2b, 10-4-2 Exc., 3-4-3b.


Good catch CalhounLJ,
Look for a revision in the 2021 Case Book!

[AlUpstateNY]

Just wondering, now that we've had a couple of years to experience the "40 second play clock" (at the NFHS level) has it's addition really been worth all the confusion, argument, discussion and COST, it was promised to eliminate?

Memory suggests the objective was to create some magical consistency, that might well have been attained by simply restating and encouraging elimination of some bad habits that had crept into "some" field official's management & control over certain dead ball situations that were occasionally allowed to fester. 

Were all the changes, rules, situations and management of "dead ball time" taken out of the hand's and responsibility of an effective Referee, really worth all all this ongoing effort, or has it proven to be just another, "Much ado about nothing"? 

[CalhounLJ]

A thousand times YES!  I was one of the most vocally opposed to the :40 but after experience on the field, I’m a HUGE fan. I never want to go back to the old way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

Other than getting the PCO's up to speed and getting officials to remember to give the dead ball signal, I don't think it has been that big a deal.

[KWH]

Just wondering, now that we've had a couple of years to experience the "40 second play clock" (at the NFHS level) has it's addition really been worth all the confusion, argument, discussion and COST, it was promised to eliminate?

Memory suggests the objective was to create some magical consistency, that might well have been attained by simply restating and encouraging elimination of some bad habits that had crept into "some" field official's management & control over certain dead ball situations that were occasionally allowed to fester. 

Were all the changes, rules, situations and management of "dead ball time" taken out of the hand's and responsibility of an effective Referee, really worth all all this ongoing effort, or has it proven to be just another, "Much ado about nothing"?

I was absolutely against it and I agree that all that was needed was training and encouraging eliminating bad habits!
Now that the change has been made I am a huge fan. I would strongly encourage visible play clocks as this really helps clarify what is going on to parents, coaches, fans, players and officials.
Alas  - A confused play clock operator can make a simple game into a nightmare.

[AlUpstateNY]

I was absolutely against it and I agree that all that was needed was training and encouraging eliminating bad habits!
Now that the change has been made I am a huge fan. I would strongly encourage visible play clocks as this really helps clarify what is going on to parents, coaches, fans, players and officials.
Alas  - A confused play clock operator can make a simple game into a nightmare.

No question, confusion abounds, not only with clock operators.  As for parents, fans, and especially coaches and players, honestly, has the availability of ultra-precise playclock time really "improved" anything?  Leaving the judgment, of when to start and stop a consistent, exact time requirement, visible to all (paying attention) especially when it came to unique and unusual circumstances and situations, worked pretty well for over 100 years, at all sorts of different venues all over this Country.

There were a couple of specific situations where bad (sloppy) habits reared their ugly head, but they were usually correctable with a minimum of effort and specific focus.  Absolute consistency is important within a specific game, within a league and even within a region, but expecting ABSOUTE, MINUTE consistency, of otherwise consistent application of a rule, on a Nationwide basis has shown to be a pretty consistent "pipe dream".

However, "It is what it is" and hopefully we'll be smart enough to go back to the practice of, "when the cure, presents far more confusion and problems, learning to deal directly with correcting specific problems, rather than reinvent the game, seems a much shorter and direct path to eliminating problems".  Just a thought.

[CalhounLJ]

I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.

[AlUpstateNY]

I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.

I hope you play Lotto, although that begs the question, was everything as precise as you choose to imagine, or, was nobody paying that much attention because they really weren't all that concerned?

[CalhounLJ]

I hope you play Lotto, although that begs the question, was everything as precise as you choose to imagine, or, was nobody paying that much attention because they really weren't all that concerned?

So you resort to speculation? How can u speculate on my experience?  The play clock operators I’ve had were well prepared and did an excellent job. All of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

So you resort to speculation? How can u speculate on my experience?  The play clock operators I’ve had were well prepared and did an excellent job. All of them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wasn't questioning the quality of your specific clock operators, but you didn't address the question about whether or not the addition of a play clock, to the extent it now applies, really contributes to the importance, purpose or interest of the game.

[CalhounLJ]

Yes I did. It most definitely contributes to the quality, competitiveness, consistency, and enjoyment of the game. Both the officials and the coaches love it. The fans love it too, because it looks more like the football they see on Saturday. I have not encountered one bad comment from anyone concerning the :40. Certainly not the “confusion abounds” that you suggest. 

[bama_stripes]

I’ve called at least 15 varsity games since implemented without one single issue. Confusion does not abound in these parts.

Ditto.  Of all the timing rules changes I’ve experienced during my career, this has had the least confusion of any.

[AlUpstateNY]

Yes I did. It most definitely contributes to the quality, competitiveness, consistency, and enjoyment of the game. Both the officials and the coaches love it. The fans love it too, because it looks more like the football they see on Saturday. I have not encountered one bad comment from anyone concerning the :40. Certainly not the “confusion abounds” that you suggest.

Oh, "because it looks like the football they play on Saturday", EVERYBODY "loves" it.  Forgive me, but exactly how does it "improve quality, competitiveness and enjoyment of the game".  strange, I interact with a lot of game officials  who seem to think it created a lot more headache, than other, less confusing means available to correct what had become simply somewhat sloppy management habits, for a few isolated situations.

There are some rules and practices a little different at each major level of football, usually for pretty logical reasons based on player/coach maturity & experience, venue, location & facility differences, overall objectives, financial capabilities and general expectations, under which "the game" has flourished at each level, for over 100 years.

"What's good for the goose, doesn't necessarily apply as well for the gander" and  "One size doesn't necessarily fit all, as well as presumed, or hoped for."

[CalhounLJ]

Oh, "because it looks like the football they play on Saturday", EVERYBODY "loves" it.  Forgive me, but exactly how does it "improve quality, competitiveness and enjoyment of the game".  strange, I interact with a lot of game officials  who seem to think it created a lot more headache, than other, less confusing means available to correct what had become simply somewhat sloppy management habits, for a few isolated situations.

There are some rules and practices a little different at each major level of football, usually for pretty logical reasons based on player/coach maturity & experience, venue, location & facility differences, overall objectives, financial capabilities and general expectations, under which "the game" has flourished at each level, for over 100 years.

"What's good for the goose, doesn't necessarily apply as well for the gander" and  "One size doesn't necessarily fit all, as well as presumed, or hoped for."

It’s obvious you are just trying to pick a fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk