Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion

Rule 3-4-3 - Unfair Game Tactics

(1/5) > >>

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page