RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: ETXZebra on February 25, 2013, 08:03:17 AM
-
Was there any interesting news from the board meeting, or the chapter meeting with the board?
-
Check the minutes posted to the website
or the itinerary posted to the website
Or the action plan of the organization
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
-
They are going to change the website this year! deadhorse: deadhorse: deadhorse: deadhorse: deadhorse: LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
-
Why didn't I think of that!
It all be there right? LOL LOL LOL LOL
-
Actually we saw a preview of the new website. 40/25 play clock is now up to the Coaches Association. UIL and TASO are ready to go with it.
-
The coaches will not go for the 25/40 sec play clock.
-
Actually we saw a preview of the new website. 40/25 play clock is now up to the Coaches Association. UIL and TASO are ready to go with it.
Then the 40 sec clock is probably not going to happen. I mentioned it to every coach last year in our pre-game conferenece and all were against it.
-
It was my impression from the meeting that the coaches were for it. They just needed to make it official by going to the association.
-
I've heard from several folks that the change will give consistency to the game. The starting and stopping of the clock (current NCAA rules) would not be instituted, just the 40 sec clock would be added. It works for teams who love the hurry up and also for those traditional huddle offenses. I think if it's up to a vote of the coaches, it passes.
-
It was my impression from the meeting that the coaches were for it. They just needed to make it official by going to the association.
Hope you are right....................
Now if they can only train the local clock operator who has been doing this for "twenty years" and get some decent ball boys or gals (usually better than the boys).
-
The coaches will not go for the 25/40 sec play clock.
Allegedly the THSCA has already made it known they will support the proposal if UIL offers it
-
Allegedly the THSCA has already made it known they will support the proposal if UIL offers it
That would be good, but without adoption of the other timing rules, what's the use. I guess it makes the game more consistent, but that's about it. I would sure like to see the other timing rules go into affect as well if they adopt this.
-
That would be good, but without adoption of the other timing rules, what's the use. I guess it makes the game more consistent, but that's about it. I would sure like to see the other timing rules go into affect as well if they adopt this.
You said the magic word...consistency...that appears to be the main reason the change has support. As it stands now, there is apparently way too much inconsistency among our R's. Sure there are some coaches who run a breakneck offensive pace and they would want it so they could run that offense but not enough of them yet to make that the main thing behind support for the change.
-
so we are going to have some hybrid situation between 2005 and 2013 NCAA rule books.... hEaDbAnG
-
We already have many UIL exceptions, this would be no different. In fact, I suspect you might even see a move like was done with the fighting rule where it says just ignore this section of the NCAA rulebook and use this section instead. I don't see a problem with doing the timing rule the same way.
-
What exceptions? Why, if adopted, would we not go to the NCAA timing rule as written?
What am I missing?
-
Main one: NCAA restarts the clock after ball goes OOB and is then placed ready for ready for play.
I understand there is oposition to the 10 sec runoff rules also
-
We need to start on the ready on OOB, except in the last 2 minutes of each half. Hell, I'd go so far as to say start it after incompletions as well. These timing rules were written during a time when passing was infrequent (5-10 times a game max for BOTH teams) and there were only 4 officials at the most on the field to get the ball back to the previous spot. Things have changed drastically.
-
We need to start on the ready on OOB, except in the last 2 minutes of each half. HECK, I'd go so far as to say start it after incompletions as well. These timing rules were written during a time when passing was infrequent (5-10 times a game max for BOTH teams) and there were only 4 officials at the most on the field to get the ball back to the previous spot. Things have changed drastically.
I agree. I think the original reason for stopping the clock on incomplete forward passes and out of bounds plays was so the officials could get the ball set without running more time off the clock, and that was during a time when three or four officials would work a game. Does someone have that book about the history of the rules of the game? Mike might have it.
-
I agree with Joe. I would love to see a clock on ready after incomplete passes and run on ready after OOB plays prior to two minutes in the half and at the end of the game. 3 hour plus games when we have tons of passing and runs going oob are not fun at all.
-
Good luck getting that passed. Didn't it last just a year in the NCAA? 3 hour games became 2 and 1/2 hour games and the coaches revolted.
-
"Anatomy of a Game" is not much help here. While there is some general info about timing changes, there is not a lot of specifics as to the why of them. Appears there were several changes in the 1890's directed at preserving time whenever the "game was delayed unnecessarily." This included after scores and touchbacks. In 1947 a rule was put in that said anytime the clock had been stopped it would start on the next ready for play. Again, no explanation as to why this was done. In 1968 there were several timing related changes and it appears they were made out of concern for maintaining a stable length of game more than any conceren about unnessary delays. There were many changes in 1971 but some of them would increase game length and some would reduce game length so no rhyme or reason there. (It does seem there was always great concern on the Committee about maintaining "balance". )
With so many teams now running offenses that are designed to take advantage of clock stoppages on incomplete passes I wonder how fair it would be to those teams to make any changes that could seriously affect their game plans.
-
I agree with Joe. I would love to see a clock on ready after incomplete passes and run on ready after OOB plays prior to two minutes in the half and at the end of the game. 3 hour plus games when we have tons of passing and runs going oob are not fun at all.
While I'm not a Texan, I would love to see this too.
12:00 quarter HS games taking 3+hrs (as long as 15:00 NCAA/NFL games) - AND HS does not have commercial breaks either..
-
teams now running offenses that are designed to take advantage of clock stoppages on incomplete passes
I know what you're trying to say, but its a little strange reading this and realizing few, if any, teams plan for or practice incomplete passes (other than spikes).
-
I know spread teams that drop passes with such precision it must be practiced. ;)
-
I know what you're trying to say, but its a little strange reading this and realizing few, if any, teams plan for or practice incomplete passes (other than spikes).
Just to be clear, I am saying there are teams that throw, throw, throw, knowing that even if they do not complete and make 1st downs, they have not lost much game time. They can then rely on defense to get them the ball back and throw, throw, throw again
-
Did the THSCA adopt the 25/40 sec clock?
-
It is not up to them to adopt. It is up to the UIL. I think UIL has their rules meeting in April so it will likely be posed then
-
I know it is up to UIL but normally all three entities ( TASO, UIL and THSCA) have some input.
-
So if we did go to the 40, I guess we'd almost have to keep it on the field in subvarsity and actually enforce it, unlike now were most of us don't use a hard 25 clock.
-
Why would it have to be enforced any harder?
-
I think I remember hearing this weekend that is wasn't going to be used for the upcoming year.
-
Why would it have to be enforced any harder?
We're going from 25-30 with teams sometimes trying to milk the clock to 40+, 32-35+ when the ball is set. With short passes and ground games, I can see a team run only 5 plays in 4 minutes under these timing rules. 8 and even 10 minute quarters will go by REAL FAST.
All I'm saying is that if we do go to this (or when, I guess, is the better qualifier), TASO needs to set firm guidelines on how we enforce this (or if at all) in subvarsity games without a stadium clock. Right now, its up to the chapter if any attention is given to it at all.
-
I am not understanding the issue?
Before, R's should have been getting the ball marked RFP within 12-15 secs after ball becomoing dead. Then Team A had 25 secs (or perhaps a bit longer when there was no visible play clock) to snap. So they were getting 37-40 secs (or longer when no visible play clock) to snap. That is the same as what they will get under a 25/40 scenario.
-
I am not understanding the issue?
Before, R's should have been getting the ball marked RFP within 12-15 secs after ball becomoing dead. Then Team A had 25 secs (or perhaps a bit longer when there was no visible play clock) to snap. So they were getting 37-40 secs (or longer when no visible play clock) to snap. That is the same as what they will get under a 25/40 scenario.
You are correct. That's the whole purpose of the 40/25 clock. What I found it accomplishes more than anything else is consistency from play to play and once you get used to it I think you will like it. Admittingly, it make the whole crew work harder in that there is less "down" time -- you really have to hustle from the end of one play to the beginning of the next -- and decent ball boys/girls are ESSENTIAL.
-
The issue is coaches complaining that we're letting a team who's in a running game and milking the clock use too much time. A lot of times with a 3 or 4 yard run play, we can have the ball spotted in a few seconds rather than 8-10, so now the 25+ becomes 35+ in some cases. I've heard coaches start yelling as soon as 18 seconds that they're already using too much time; I shudder to think what might happen under the new rule.
All I'm saying is that let's be prepared and have a guideline that's consistent for the play clock on subvarsity games where the actual clock isn't turned on.
Is there anyone in the state actually using a turned-on play clock in subvarsity games? I never have.
-
Moot point this year. 40/25 is dead until possibly 2014
-
I would like to see a running clock in sub varsity games.
-
Moot point this year. 40/25 is dead until possibly 2014
So this was voted against for sure?
-
Will formally be done on Apr 8 at their Rules Committee meeting.
-
Will formally be done on Apr 8 at their Rules Committee meeting.
Has anyone heard the results of this meeting?