Rule 3-4-3 - Unfair Game Tactics

[NTXRef]

Having a debate with crew over the interpretation of Rule 3-4-3.

Play situation:   Team A ahead 14-7, 2nd and 8 on A40 with 1:50 left in 4th quarter.   At snap, Team A illegally in motion (live ball foul) and gains 3 yards.   What are your options and what is the status of the clock in each of the options?

[JasonTX]

Team B can choose to either accept or decline the penalty.  The clock will start on the ready for play.  You can compare this to Approved Ruling 7-3-2 VIII. 

[DD]

Start it on the snap.  Team A will get an unfair clock advanyage with just that amount of time on the clock. If it were the middle of the quarter start it on the ready.

[NTXRef]

Let me elaborate a little more.   The rule states "The referee shall order the game clock or play clock started or stopped when either team conserves time or consumes time playing time by tactics obviously unfair.  This includes starting the game clock on the snap if the foul is by the team ahead in the score."  This second sentence is the issue and taken out of context causes a lot of confusion.  I believe the rule as written coincides with obviously unfair.   A minor live ball fall certainly is not obviously unfair.  

I believe when the rule was written and all of the associated AR's indicate obvious scenarios - delay of game, throwing the ball backwards OOB, etc.   Somehow this has evolved into any offensive foul with team ahead even though there are no AR's to support that.   We even got a ruling from Rodgers Redding a few years ago that suggests a false start in this scenario warrents start at snap status.  So, my point to Rodgers is that if he wants us to call it that way then clarify the rule, and define a definitive time frame (there is none in the rule).

Now, with all of that said, I can see the logic if the penalty is accepted that the clock is not started until the snap (even with the crappy rule), but what about if the penalty is declined.   What advantage has the offense gained in this case - they lost the down, the clock was actually stopped to deal with the penalty (losing at least 15 seconds).  So, why would we penalize them more by not starting the clock until snap.

Just for the record this is in Texas HS which is still using 2005 timing rules (no 40 sec), but the effect is the same in both cases.   Also, for the record, C. Stephenson's interpretation is that it only applies to obvious situations.

What do you guys think?

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'd certainly agree with the start on the ready if the penalty is declined.  That agrees with the rule, since the major factor here is not so much the penalty yardage, but the clock advantage.  If B declines the penalty, then A has not used any tactic that resulted in a down that " ... consumes time playing time ...".  Using the same reasoning though, if the penalty is accepted, then we go on the snap.

[Kalle]

I agree with NTXRef. As long as the rules don't define any time frame when we should always start the clock at the snap when a foul is by the team ahead in score, I'm not going to start the clock at the snap for every such foul - I have to perceive an intent to consume time illegally.

[NTXRef]

For those interested, we got a response back from Rogers:

"The clock would start on the referee's signal unless the referee judged that the foul was committed to gain a clock advantage.  In that case by 3-4-3 the clock would start on the snap.  (I am assuming that the ball carrier did not go out of bounds.)"

Based on this response and discussing with top Referees in our chapter, you have to read intent.  I think that a lot of us have somehow evolved (with no rule to support) that any foul by A when ahead and a clock advantage is gained in some nebulus time frame, then we automatically deem that as a case to apply 3-4-3 and start on snap.   I'm now convinced that approach is incorrect, we must read intent.   So, if we have a false start, that probably doesn't apply unless it is very obvious.   Now, if there is second false start, then we can probably read intent.  Delay of Game appears to be the one foul where it is automatic, plus that is the one situation captured in the AR's.

[Kalle]

I would really love if the rules were changed so that after any foul by the team ahead in the score during the last five minutes of the fourth quarter the game clock is started on the snap. Would make it much easier and much more consistent.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree with NTXRef. As long as the rules don't define any time frame when we should always start the clock at the snap when a foul is by the team ahead in score, I'm not going to start the clock at the snap for every such foul - I have to perceive an intent to consume time illegally.

So B's just used their last time out in the 4th quarter and we've got a score of A-14, B-13.  Clock is running and the down is 3rd & 10 at the A-12 yard line with 45 secs left.  We're in very noisy stadium.

A-QB is watching the clock run down and starts his snap count at 30 secs.  Just before the snap, tackle A-71 clearly picks up and we've got a blow & throw False Start.

Do we really need to judge that team A "intended to consume illegally" when the result of the play would be that A in fact has actually gained a very significant clock advantage by fouling.  IMO we must make a value judgment whenever we're at crunch time and we cannot allow a team to gain an extra full play clock period after they have committed a foul.

By starting the clock on the snap, team A gets exactly the amount of clock time they would have gotten had they not fouled to begin with.  If we start the clock on the ready, A benefits significantly from their own foul, IMO we can't allow that to happen.

[Kalle]

By starting the clock on the snap, team A gets exactly the amount of clock time they would have gotten had they not fouled to begin with.  If we start the clock on the ready, A benefits significantly from their own foul, IMO we can't allow that to happen.

I agree with you, and this is why I'd like this to be codified instead of using vague language requiring us to judge if there's intent or not. A Finnish coach I respect said recently that the less judgment required from the officials the better - it makes for more objective decisions everybody can understand.

Take OPI for example. 3rd and 20 from A-30. Team A leads 21-20 in the fourth quarter, 30 seconds left in the game, game clock is stopped. A12's legal forward pass is caught at A-40 by A88 who forcefully shoves B30 down before catching the pass. A88 is downed at A-45. 20 seconds remain on the clock. With the current rules, are you going to start the clock on the ready or on the snap?

[NTXRef]

If B declines the penalty, then A has not used any tactic that resulted in a down that " ... consumes time playing time ...".  Using the same reasoning though, if the penalty is accepted, then we go on the snap.

The problem with this and other examples posted is that the " ... consumes time playing time ... " is succeeded with " by tactics obviously unfair."  So, yes, we have to read intent.   Getting an advantage alone is not grounds for this.   Once again, I understand the thinking along these lines, there just isn't any rule that supports doing that.

With that said, somebody pointed out to me that there was a rule that had very specific timing and effect spelled out either in the late 70's or early 80's, but was removed after only a couple of years.   This sounds like what people are asking for, but as written we have to read intent.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The problem with this and other examples posted is that the " ... consumes time playing time ... " is succeeded with " by tactics obviously unfair."  So, yes, we have to read intent. 

Why isn't the fact that the action by A is a violation of the rules, therefore a foul that qualifies for penalty enforcement, enough to then say that by definition it is a tactic (whose result) is obviously unfair (to B - the opponent) when A would gain an "obviously unfair" clock advantage?  I for one don't need to have any other rule for that decision when the timing of a penalty against the team "in control" of the clock obviously leaves the opponent with an unfair clock disadvantage.

Are you trying to say that even though A has fouled we have to decide that the foul was intentional???  There is no "intentional" in front of "tactics obviously unfair". 

[Kalle]

Are you trying to say that even though A has fouled we have to decide that the foul was intentional???  There is no "intentional" in front of "tactics obviously unfair". 

When does a foul by team A become "obviously unfair tactic" that you are going to start the clock on the snap in a one score game? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 10 seconds? Start of the game?

[With_Two_Flakes]

I've used this rule twice in my entire career. Both times were DOG pens inside the last 2 mins when A were only one score ahead. Both were clearly (to me) the QB milking the clock as much as possible. Marched 'em back 5 and signalled my BJ (who is a smart cookie and was way ahead of me ) to start it on the snap.

[NTXRef]

I've used this rule twice in my entire career. Both times were DOG pens inside the last 2 mins when A were only one score ahead. Both were clearly (to me) the QB milking the clock as much as possible. Marched 'em back 5 and signalled my BJ (who is a smart cookie and was way ahead of me ) to start it on the snap.

Yes, this situation applies and in fact has a AR to support it.    There are no AR's to support doing just because there is penalty and they get additional time off without reading intent.

Are you trying to say that even though A has fouled we have to decide that the foul was intentional???  There is no "intentional" in front of "tactics obviously unfair". 

Yes.  How can you say "tactics obviously unfair" means anything other than intentional.  How can you say that a false start is "tactics obviously unfair" automatically?  You may have something that it is obvious, if you read intent, but not obvious.  Now, if they do it 2 times in a row, then that appears to be obvious.

Once again, until we get a rule that states that in this situaion team A gains from fouling, therefore, you start at the snap then you got to read intent to apply this rule.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Yes, this situation applies and in fact has a AR to support it.    There are no AR's to support doing just because there is penalty and they get additional time off without reading intent.


Yes.  How can you say "tactics obviously unfair" means anything other than intentional.  How can you say that a false start is "tactics obviously unfair" automatically?  You may have something that it is obvious, if you read intent, but not obvious.  Now, if they do it 2 times in a row, then that appears to be obvious.

Once again, until we get a rule that states that in this situaion team A gains from fouling, therefore, you start at the snap then you got to read intent to apply this rule.

There is no use of the words intent or intentionally in the rule - where does it state intent or intentionally in the rule?  If A gets an extra RFP period (25 seconds) as a direct result of a foul when the clock is critical that's the result of a tactic that's obviously unfair.  If the result of the action is obviously unfair - then IMO the tactic is also obviously unfair.  The rule requires us to make a simple judgment decision - just make it.

[Kalle]

If the result of the action is obviously unfair - then IMO the tactic is also obviously unfair.  The rule requires us to make a simple judgment decision - just make it.

In my understanding, the word "tactic" requires intent. A simple snap count error is not a "tactic". I may be wrong, English is not my first language.

[Atlanta Blue]

There is no use of the words intent or intentionally in the rule - where does it state intent or intentionally in the rule?  If A gets an extra RFP period (25 seconds) as a direct result of a foul when the clock is critical that's the result of a tactic that's obviously unfair.  If the result of the action is obviously unfair - then IMO the tactic is also obviously unfair.  The rule requires us to make a simple judgment decision - just make it.

The use of the word "tactic" means intentionally.  A tactic is something that is PLANNED, it doesn't happen by accident, it's not a "result".

Just getting an extra 25 seconds is NOT justification for starting on the snap unless you judge that the offense PLANNED the penalty in order to take advantage.  Therefore, intent IS an issue here.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So just the fact that a direct result of a foul gives the fouling team a clear advantage at crunch time (the clock), is not enough to make a judgment that we will not allow the fouling team to benefit from the foul, and we'll start the clock on the snap or the ready depending on which team fouled?

So how would you judge intent here?  Maybe we should just ask them?  I'm sure that the head coach, or the team captain, would come clean and answer the question of "intent" truthfully.  And then if they say it wasn't a "tactic" we give them an extra 25 seconds to burn irrespective of the impact against opponent, and thereby allow them to directly benefit from the foul?

[Kalle]

So just the fact that a direct result of a foul gives the fouling team a clear advantage at crunch time (the clock), is not enough to make a judgment that we will not allow the fouling team to benefit from the foul, and we'll start the clock on the snap or the ready depending on which team fouled?

As the rules currently are, no, it is not enough.

I actually would most likely start the clock on the snap after any team A DB foul with the game clock running, but I don't claim that there is any rules support for it - I would love to have the support.

[Atlanta Blue]

So just the fact that a direct result of a foul gives the fouling team a clear advantage at crunch time (the clock), is not enough to make a judgment that we will not allow the fouling team to benefit from the foul,

That's exactly right.  The RESULT is not the issue, it's HOW it came about that is of issue.  Which means the first time they do it, they're probably going to get away with it.  If they do it more than once, now I think you can judge intent.

So how would you judge intent here?

Same way you judge it any other time.

Maybe we should just ask them? 

Feel free, but I'm betting the official is a little smarter than that.

I'm sure that the head coach, or the team captain, would come clean and answer the question of "intent" truthfully.

They might, or they might not, or they might ignore the question altogether.

  And then if they say it wasn't a "tactic" we give them an extra 25 seconds to burn irrespective of the impact against opponent, and thereby allow them to directly benefit from the foul?

The first time, yes.  This is why the NFL put in specific language regarding fouls in the last two minutes.  If you would like more specific language, suggest it to the NCAA.  So far, they seem to believe that officials can do a decent job of judging intent.

[KB]

"Obviously unfair" in my view doesn't depend on intent. If I see B unfairly (read: illegally) deprived of a chance to get the ball one more time, it is obvious to me that they were dealt with in an unfair way, so I have no problem to start on the snap if it is clear to me that without the foul B would have gained possession of the ball with time left on the clock.

Maybe I have a problem with the semantics because I'm not a natural English speaker, though.

[Kalle]

"Obviously unfair" in my view doesn't depend on intent.

Yes, but the rules say "tactics obviously unfair" (emphasis mine). And I claim that tactics do depend on intent. If the rules simply said "obviously unfairly", I would have no problems starting the clock on the snap.