3-4-6 ?

[BetweenTheLines]

If A’s passer late in the game or half muffs a snap then secures it and then spikes it, should we use rule 3-4-6 and start the clock on the ready?

[Curious]

Yes!  If you believe the QB is attempting to conserve time (which seems to be implied here), start the clock on the RFP.  The fact that he muffed the snap, recovered the ball prior to the IFP really has no significance. Enforce from the spot of the IFP and count the down...












fp

[CalhounLJ]

The fact that he muffed it and then spiked it is what made it an IFP. Otherwise, it’s legal. Flag it, mark off 5 from the spot, Down counts and start on RFP.

EXCEPTION: It is legal for a player positioned directly behind the snapper to conserve time by intentionally throwing the ball forward to the ground immediately after receiving the snap that has neither been muffed nor touched the ground.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

Remember that "...to conserve time" is an important part of making the spike legal. If it occurs in mid-first period, as the QB spies a heard of Bubbas closing in, he ain't conserving time  . He's conserving his health  !

[ncwingman]

Remember that "...to conserve time" is an important part of making the spike legal. If it occurs in mid-first period, as the QB spies a heard of Bubbas closing in, he ain't conserving time  .

But what if A's coach let you know, pregame, of their new "Maximize the Game Clock" strategy intending to run as many offensive plays as they can throughout the game by ensuring the game clock stops after every down? If they fail to get out of bounds, they'll spike the ball to kill the clock rather than burn 20 seconds in a hurry up offense.

 

I'm not saying this is a *good* strategy...

[Ralph Damren]

But what if A's coach let you know, pregame, of their new "Maximize the Game Clock" strategy intending to run as many offensive plays as they can throughout the game by ensuring the game clock stops after every down? If they fail to get out of bounds, they'll spike the ball to kill the clock rather than burn 20 seconds in a hurry up offense.

 

I'm not saying this is a *good* strategy...
IMHO, the word "immediately" would then come to mind  . I would then ask if there was a healthcare professional  in the area as the coach (mental) would certainly need one  !

[CalhounLJ]

Or what about this: A’s team is having a horrible time getting a play called. The play clock is ticking away and he tells his QB, “just spike it.”  He’s technically conserved time.

Then there’s the ole spike it to catch Bubba with too many on the field trying to substitute ploy. Technically a foul. Do we offset and replay?  Or, do we listen to A’s coach as he tries to convince us that B was running too much time off the clock with their slow subbing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

But what if A's coach let you know, pregame, of their new "Maximize the Game Clock" strategy intending to run as many offensive plays as they can throughout the game by ensuring the game clock stops after every down? If they fail to get out of bounds, they'll spike the ball to kill the clock rather than burn 20 seconds in a hurry up offense.

 

I'm not saying this is a *good* strategy...

Good point. At what point do we determine A’s intent to conserve time? Does it have to be late in the game/half? Does the attempt to conserve time even have to make sense to the official?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

Good point. At what point do we determine A’s intent to conserve time? Does it have to be late in the game/half? YES Does the attempt to conserve time even have to make sense to the official? YESSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

So then, let's say we have a 50+ tailwind and A has the ball nearing the end of the 3rd quarter, behind 2 points. They are extremely confident that if they make the 40 yard field goal they are face with, their defense can hold the lead. it's 3rd down, and they have no timeouts left. The game clock is ticking quickly to zero, and if it runs out they will have to swap ends and kick into a 50+ headwind. Are you saying they can't legally spike the ball in that situation? 

[Ralph Damren]

So then, let's say we have a 50+ tailwind and A has the ball nearing the end of the 3rd quarter, behind 2 points. They are extremely confident that if they make the 40 yard field goal they are face with, their defense can hold the lead. it's 3rd down, and they have no timeouts left. The game clock is ticking quickly to zero, and if it runs out they will have to swap ends and kick into a 50+ headwind. Are you saying they can't legally spike the ball in that situation?

I'll give ya' that one ,Calhoun  . When we put this exception in back in 1996 it was stressed that it needed two components, it had to be immediate and it had to be to conserve time. When we expanded it to allow from the shotgun those didn't change.

POTENTIAL  >:DCASE PLAY : 1st and goal at B 's 7, 0:07 left in 1st period. Prom queen, as a senior class prank, decides to have a  " wardrobe malfunction" and is standing directly behind B's goal post. A's QB yells : "REF, WE CAN'T MISS THIS  !!" and spikes the ball to stop the clock.

RULING : Where A1 had a reason to conserve time and stop the clock, it is not considered a wholesome one. Intentional grounding will not be applied, BUT unsportsmanlike conduct will be charged to A1 under 9-8-1 : "Examples are, BUT NOT LIMITED TO....". The referee will instruct both teams to return to their sidelines and not peek until the malfunction is corrected or the prom queen is removed. A's ball ,2nd and goal at B's 22.

                                                     

[AlUpstateNY]

Of course, we can all "What if" ourselves to death, but it most often boils down to YOUR understanding of the rule (exception) and judgment and common sense, the game situation and whether, or not, you're willing to accept the consequences of your decision.

[CalhounLJ]

I'll give ya' that one ,Calhoun  . When we put this exception in back in 1996 it was stressed that it needed two components, it had to be immediate and it had to be to conserve time. When we expanded it to allow from the shotgun those didn't change.

POTENTIAL  >:DCASE PLAY : 1st and goal at B 's 7, 0:07 left in 1st period. Prom queen, as a senior class prank, decides to have a  " wardrobe malfunction" and is standing directly behind B's goal post. A's QB yells : "REF, WE CAN'T MISS THIS  !!" and spikes the ball to stop the clock.

RULING : Where A1 had a reason to conserve time and stop the clock, it is not considered a wholesome one. Intentional grounding will not be applied, BUT unsportsmanlike conduct will be charged to A1 under 9-8-1 : "Examples are, BUT NOT LIMITED TO....". The referee will instruct both teams to return to their sidelines and not peek until the malfunction is corrected or the prom queen is removed. A's ball ,2nd and goal at B's 22.

                                                     

lol. now that's a good illustration!!. I can see the rationale for only allowing the spike to conserve time. I guess in the case of catching the defense with too many, the QB could just take a knee. I'm probably in the minority here, but my approach is if A wants to waste a down with a spike I'm ok with it, as long as he's not trying to prevent a sack...

[CalhounLJ]

Of course, we can all "What if" ourselves to death, but it most often boils down to YOUR understanding of the rule (exception) and judgment and common sense, the game situation and whether, or not, you're willing to accept the consequences of your decision.

Yes, thank you very much for that astute observation..

[CalhounLJ]

Of course, we can all "What if" ourselves to death, but it most often boils down to YOUR understanding of the rule (exception) and judgment and common sense, the game situation and whether, or not, you're willing to accept the consequences of your decision.

One comment in re: to the what if exercise. That type of in depth thinking actually produces a better understanding of the application of a rule and it’s consequences. Much better than an “it’s all up to you, depends on what you think see hear and judge.”  There are actually objective principles that can and should be applied to the discussion of football rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

my approach is if A wants to waste a down with a spike I'm ok with it, as long as he's not trying to prevent a sack...

This.  (As long as they execute it correctly)

[BetweenTheLines]

Let's do a 180 on the play CalhounLJ posted with the 50+ mph wind. A has been using the numbering exception on their try's all night, only using the tackles numbered 78 & 79 on their line everyone else numbered 1 thru 49. Now to catch the great tailwind they try a field goal on third down. Is the formation legal or not on third down?

[CalhounLJ]

Let's do a 180 on the play CalhounLJ posted with the 50+ mph wind. A has been using the numbering exception on their try's all night, only using the tackles numbered 78 & 79 on their line everyone else numbered 1 thru 49. Now to catch the great tailwind they try a field goal on third down. Is the formation legal or not on third down?

No. Only the snapper can be in under the numbering exception on any down other than 4. In this situation A would need 4 linemen numbered 50-79.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

No. Only the snapper can be in under the numbering exception on any down other than 4. In this situation A would need 4 linemen numbered 50-79.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our scrimmage kick formation is complex and easy to miss. The first year that we had the new definition, I goofed one :

(1) Seconds to go in first half, B recovers fumble @A's15;
(2) In comes FG team and kicks 32 yarder;
(3)   
(4) halftime arrives and I began to  did they have proper numbers  ;
(5) before the 2nd half started, I asked kicker's coach :"Who was on the line for your FG  "
(6) He answered : " 38,55,25,41,63, 22 & 40 (or something theresuch) ."
(7) I responded : " It wasn't 4th down, that would have been illegal. "
(8) He quizzed : " Can we keep the points    ? "
(9) I answered : "Yes  , once the period ended, it was too late  ."

[/JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, YOU FIND OUT YOU DON'T
            b]

[BetweenTheLines]

Let us continue to extrapolate; on third down into the teeth of this blistering wind A wants to take advantage of the wind and punt it away with their long snapper being the only one using the numbering exception. Punt formation, the punter is 10 yards behind the snapper. Legal or not???

[AlUpstateNY]

Score yet another one for honesty, and accuracy, with a couple of bonus points for knowing ALL the details relating to the situation.  Bad news has a lot less sting, when it's able to end with instructional "good" news.

[GA Umpire]

Let us continue to extrapolate; on third down into the teeth of this blistering wind A wants to take advantage of the wind and punt it away with their long snapper being the only one using the numbering exception. Punt formation, the punter is 10 yards behind the snapper. Legal or not???

No.    2-14-2b;  7-2-5b1

If a team punts on 3rd down, or any down other than 4, Team K must have five players on the LoS numbered 50- 79.

[CalhounLJ]

No.    2-14-2b;  7-2-5b1

If a team punts on 3rd down, or any down other than 4, Team K must have five players on the LoS numbered 50- 79.

I think that if the long snapper is the only one in under the numbering exception, he’s implying that the other linemen are wearing numbers in the range of 50-79. If that’s so, it’s a legal formation, as long as there are 4 numbered 50-79. A scrimmage kick is a scrimmage kick no matter if it’s a field goal attempt or a punt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

I think that if the long snapper is the only one in under the numbering exception, he’s implying that the other linemen are wearing numbers in the range of 50-79. If that’s so, it’s a legal formation, as long as there are 4 numbered 50-79. A scrimmage kick is a scrimmage kick no matter if it’s a field goal attempt or a punt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disregard this post. GA is correct. Exception is only for a field goal attempt, not a punt. #brainfart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fudilligas]

Disregard this post. GA is correct. Exception is only for a field goal attempt, not a punt. #brainfart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To the best of my knowledge, a punt and a field goal are both scrimmage kicks and there is no difference between the two as far as the numbering exception is concerned....on downs 1,2 and 3 you must have 4 players numbered 50-79 on the line and if the numbering exception is used that player must snap the ball and be an interior lineman....7-2-5b, exception 1....it does not state field goal attempt only...on 4th down there is not a numbering requirement