More Unfairness

[TXMike]

A 24 - B 17  25 seconds left in the 4th qtr.  4th and 10 for A at the A-30.  A punts, all of Team B was up to block the kick but failed to do so.  Ball hits at the B40 and starts rolling.  Clock is running down but there are still 15 seconds on the clock as it starts to roll to a stop at the B35.  Team A  gently (but deliberately) kicks the ball further.  Ball continues to roll, clock continues to tick.  This is repeated several times until Team A finally picks up the ball at the B-15 and :00 on the clock.   Ruling?

[NVFOA_Ump]

1st thought is to note the time on the clock when the first IK foul occurs and enforce that first foul and reset the clock to the time when the it occurred.  Use R's rule to support resetting the clock due to the intentional fouls.

Raises an interesting scenario though in that what if A was just "touching" the ball enough to keep it moving, multiple times, until the clock ran out?  No foul, just illegal touching (multiple times), so game would be over.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Mike

My take on this is that it is not something specifically covered in the rules and is an unfair act that carries a 'what ever the Ref decides' enforcement.

If it was a kick to try and affect field position only then I would simply enforce it as the rule book says for illegal kicking but this is more than that as you have made clear by the use of the word deliberately and it was done to waste time at a crucial point in the game.

So if can do what I want then I would enforce the penalty and reset the clock back to the time when the foul was committed (assuming anyone knows). To me this is an equitable use of my discretion.

I am happy to hear if others have a different view.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Did you come up with this play after the end of the game last night?  Seemed like the ball came to rest and no player attempted to secure it.  A&M, in fact, was deliberately keeping their guys from securing it while it was at rest and the clock ticked down.

[TXMike]

Yep.  That play spurred this.  Although I am still wqondering why UT did not play the ball. At that point there is nothing to lose. Might as well go for broke

[JasonTX]

Did you come up with this play after the end of the game last night?  Seemed like the ball came to rest and no player attempted to secure it.  A&M, in fact, was deliberately keeping their guys from securing it while it was at rest and the clock ticked down.

What made this play look worse was the B took his eyes off the ball and appeared to look back at the clock before stopping the clock.  To me, that looks the same as a HL coming in to spot the ball and looking back to see were the LTG is.  When he signalled I thought there should have been 1 second left.  Of course the TV clock may have been different than the stadium clock.

[TXMike]

Saw that.  Obviously we don't know for sure but I thought he was looking for zeros before he signalled.

[Kalle]

A smarter team A would bat the ball slightly backwards multiple times.

I agree that this is an obviously unfair act not specifically covered in the rules, so I'd enforce the 15 yards from the spot of the first downfield kick with a LOD and reset the game clock to the time of the same, if known. If not known, then I guess I'd have to go with an untimed down.

[NTXRef]

Saw that.  Obviously we don't know for sure but I thought he was looking for zeros before he signalled.

I thought that was pretty weak not calling it dead when the ball stopped.   There was a good 2 or 3 seconds when the ball stopped.   I don't think the rule reads "wait 3 seconds after the ball stops (or game clock expires) before stopping the clock."  I'm not a Longhorn or Aggie fan, but c'mon.

[TXMike]

The ball quit moving at :04. The rule of thumb I have always been told is to let it lay motionless for no more than 3 seconds before whistling dead. I noticed the back judge appeared to be looking at the clock so he likely was going to wait until it hit :00 before signalling dead. If nobody from receiving team is making any move at all in the direction of the ball, just whistle it dead after the 3 seconds. The rule technically says a kick becomes dead when it "comes to rest and no player attempts to secure it. " Therefore, 3 seconds, 4 seconds, 2 seconds, whatever is immaterial. All that matters is when an official determines nobody will attempt to secure it, he can whistle it dead.

[ballhog]

A couple of the post have indicated they would put time on the clock. What rule would support your action?  I guess if you call it an unfair act not covered by rule then you could justify an un-timed down. If you call it Illegal kicking how would you justify the time put on the clock since you could not enforce until the ball is dead.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Ballhog

My view is as this is an unfair act not specifically covered in the rules I can do what I feel is equitable. If it is clear that the illegal kicking is designed to run time off the clock then the fairest thing to do is not let that happen. By only awarding the yardage for the kick as per the normal enforcement you may get a situation where the fouling team benefits from using an unfair tactic.

As I said above if it was simply an illegal kick in an attempt to gain yardage then I agree that is covered in the rules and you enforce accordingly. However, the rule makers did not include a specific provision for a team keeping the ball alive until time runs out. Hence putting time back on the clock.

[NVFOA_Ump]

A couple of the post have indicated they would put time on the clock. What rule would support your action? ......

Rule 9-2-3-c works just fine.  Putting time back on the clock IMO is covered by the wording "The referee may take any action he considers equitable ......".  Certainly any team repeatedly fouling with a clear intent to gain a game clock advantage should have that "advantage" removed when enforcing the penalty.  If actual time of the foul can't be determined then I'd go with the alternate suggestion here and award an untimed down.

[chymechowder]

I don't think this play deserves a special enforcement as "something not covered in the rules."

None of the 3-4-3 AR's in the current book suggest that time can be put back on the clock. Instead, they address whether to go on the start/snap after a team has obviously fouled in order to conserve/consume time.  And most important, in the ARs, the offending team is taking advantage of a situation in which the offended team is powerless. (Delaying the game when the ball is dead, jumping offside, etc.)

But keeping a live ball live is different, in my opinion.  In the play in question, Team B needs to conserve time. And they can do something about it (unlike the offended teams in the ARs).  They can have someone back there to fair catch the punt. Or field it and return it.

If the ball bounces near a sideline and Team A bats it back into the field where it rolls around for 5 seconds, are we putting time back on the clock?

Or let's even say Team B does a have a return man, and Team A commits KCI, after which the ball bounces/rolls for 8 seconds. Are we putting time back on the clock??

Of course not. Granted, those scenarios aren't as "obvious" as the original one. But the original play, while obvious, isn't obviously unfair in my opinion. Team B opened the door to a time-consuming bounce/illegal touch/illegal kick when they didn't take steps to conserve time.

I do, however, think that the clock should be stopped as soon as the ball comes to rest. Team A shouldn't be allowed to breathe new life into it by kicking a motionless ball.  But until then, if Team B wants the clock to stop, they can down the kick.

[chymechowder]

Rule 9-2-3-c works just fine.  Putting time back on the clock IMO is covered by the wording "The referee may take any action he considers equitable ......".  Certainly any team repeatedly fouling with a clear intent to gain a game clock advantage should have that "advantage" removed when enforcing the penalty.  If actual time of the foul can't be determined then I'd go with the alternate suggestion here and award an untimed down.

Invoking "any action he considers equitable" would be stretch here, in my opinion. (Besides, isn't that only supposed to be used when something crazy happens, like the mascot runs on the field and jumps on the back of a ballcarrier who was running free towards to the goal line?  )

[NVFOA_Ump]

Invoking "any action he considers equitable" would be stretch here, in my opinion. (Besides, isn't that only supposed to be used when something crazy happens, like the mascot runs on the field and jumps on the back of a ballcarrier who was running free towards to the goal line?  )

I disagree - this scenario IMO is a perfect fit for a 9-2-3 enforcement.  One of the specific references in 9-2-3 is "b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced only by halving the distance to its goal line."  Certainly any intentional and repeated fouling to gain a specific identifiable advantage should have that specific advantage eliminated as part of the R's choice of enforcement.

[Morningrise]

Devil's advocate. Team A, in addition to fouling, is committing lots of illegal touching violations. Team B can freely attempt to recover the kick and end the down without risk (as long as they refrain from fouling themselves). But since Team B isn't bothering to try, I'd say it's their own fault if time expires.

Worst case scenario, Team B gets an untimed down anyway, don't they? Team A's illegal kicking foul is enforced from where the dead ball belongs to B, namely the spot of A's illegal recovery. IIRC, the period is extended because the penalty statement says there is *no* loss of down if the kicking foul occurs while a scrimmage kick is beyond the NZ.

Then again, as has been pointed out, Team A could always pull the same stunt with backward bats instead of kicks.