3-4-3 under 2:00 wrinkle

[Morningrise]

"If the game clock is stopped only to complete a penalty for a foul by the team ahead in the score inside the last two minutes of a half, it will start on the snap, at the option of the offended team."

99% of the time, this means the clock would normally start on the ready, but the offended team can change it to start on the snap.

But could it work the other way? In the rare event that the clock stops only for a penalty but would thereafter start on the snap, can the offended team change it to start on the ready? Or is that an incorrect interpretation of the wording?

4/9 @ B-25. 2Q 1:01. Game clock running. Team A (leading by a point) is in a field goal formation, but they snap the ball just after the play clock hits 0. This is a foul that causes the clock to stop, and normally, it starts on the snap after a delay of game foul by a team in scrimmage kick formation (3-3-2-d-11). The BJ blows his whistle to shut it down, and B99 then commits a dead-ball personal foul. Team B's personal foul has no effect on the clock status since it was already stopped. Both penalties are enforced in order. It ends up 1/10 @ B-15. Team B quotes Rule 3-4-3 and requests that the clock now start on the ready, since Team A just got a fresh set of downs with a whole minute to play with. Do the officials grant the request?

[ChicagoZebra]

No - it is a one way street. You can only go to snap.

What specifically in the wording makes you think that they can go on the RFP?

However, do note that Zap 10 timing rules trump all others - if a Zap 10 is elected, the clock will always start on the RFP.

[Kalle]

What specifically in the wording makes you think that they can go on the RFP?

"At the option of the offended team." This implies that there is always an option. I'm not even going to guess which way the rules committee wants this ruled, as I can think of valid reasons both ways.

[ChicagoZebra]

"At the option of the offended team." This implies that there is always an option. I'm not even going to guess which way the rules committee wants this ruled, as I can think of valid reasons both ways.

Well, there is always an option. They do not have to have to have the clock start on the snap. May be helped by moving the phrases around. Is this better?

"If the game clock is stopped only to complete a penalty for a foul by the team ahead in the score inside the last two minutes of a half, and would subsequently start on the referee's signal, the offended team has the option to have the clock start on the snap."

[Kalle]

Well, there is always an option. They do not have to have to have the clock start on the snap. May be helped by moving the phrases around. Is this better?

Yes, IF this is what the rules committee wants. It is entirely possible that the RC wants to have 3-4-3 to trump 3-3-2-d-11.

[ChicagoZebra]

Yes, IF this is what the rules committee wants. It is entirely possible that the RC wants to have 3-4-3 to trump 3-3-2-d-11.

I feel their intent is pretty clear in the wording of the rule.

Otherwise, it would say something like: "it will start on the snap or the referee's signal at the option of the offended team".

[ElvisLives]

"If the game clock is stopped only to complete a penalty for a foul by the team ahead in the score inside the last two minutes of a half, and would subsequently start on the referee's signal, the offended team has the option to have the clock start on the snap."

John Adams always tried very consciously and deliberately to write the rules as concisely as possible, and I believe this goes back to his days.  The rule, as currently written, already means that the game clock would start on the Referee's signal, as with any other situation in which the only reason the game clock stopped was to complete a penalty.  The option is strictly for the offended team to elect to have the game clock start on the snap, instead.  If they want it to start on the R's signal, all they have to do is say, "No thanks."

Robert

[ChicagoZebra]

John Adams always tried very consciously and deliberately to write the rules as concisely as possible, and I believe this goes back to his days.  The rule, as currently written, already means that the game clock would start on the Referee's signal, as with any other situation in which the only reason the game clock stopped was to complete a penalty.  The option is strictly for the offended team to elect to have the game clock start on the snap, instead.  If they want it to start on the R's signal, all they have to do is say, "No thanks."

Robert

Good point! I didn't think to interpret the first part of the statement that way.

[bossman72]

They need to change this rule.  The stopping of the clock should have nothing to do with if you have an option or not.  So if they gain a first down or not, it should have nothing to do with your option.

[ElvisLives]

They need to change this rule.  The stopping of the clock should have nothing to do with if you have an option or not.  So if they gain a first down or not, it should have nothing to do with your option.

Actually, it should.
3-4-3 is designed to prevent a team from gaining a timing advantage by committing a foul.  It is not intended to change the natural flow of the game.  For those situations in which the clock would have stopped anyway, for some other reason, the team ahead in score gains no advantage that they would not have had by natural flow anyway.  This 'option' for the offended team keeps an opponent from committing fouls inside the last 2 minutes of a half that would give that opponent the ability to simply run the clock out, unfairly disturbing the natural flow of the game.  This rule removes judgment by the R, inside 2 minutes in each half.  Outside of 2 minutes, the R has to make a judgment regarding the intent of the offending team.
With current timing rules, the offending team (ahead in score) would typically hurt themselves by committing a live-ball foul, because the play clock would be 40 seconds, and running - even if a first down.  Since the 'goal' for a crew in spotting the ball for the next play is by the 32-second mark of the play clock, the offending team would "shoot themselves in the foot" by some 7 or more seconds if a penalty is completed.  So, it would be unusual (perhaps foolish) for a team to intentionally commit a live-ball foul in this situation.
But, without this rule, a winning Team A could get to 4th down with the game clock running, then start committing delays of game, false starts, etc., and keep burning 25 seconds off the game clock until it expired.  That is certainly not right for the game.  This rule DIRECTS the clock to start on the snap, unless the offended team (behind in score) elects to let the clock run.  That might only be in a blowout situation, but they should be allowed that privilege.  But to give the offended team that privilege in all circumstances is not right for the game, either.

[bossman72]

That doesn't make sense.

2nd and 3 at A30.  Clock reads 1:20.  Team A gains (a) 1 yard, or (b) 5 yards on a run up the middle.  Team A also commits holding on the play.

So in (a) you get an option, but (b) you don't.  Why?  The clock is going on the ready in both scenarios.

The purpose of the rule is so that Team A doesn't get a timing advantage by fouling.  Gaining a first down should not void that rule.  Yardage gained has nothing to do with what the rule is trying to prevent.

[ElvisLives]

As I mentioned, Team A (ahead in score) would be foolish to commit a deliberate live-ball foul.  If they earn a first down, they are not just trying to burn the clock - they are still advancing the ball.  A live-ball foul would be counterproductive toward running out the clock.  So, they are not abusing the timing rules if they commit a live-ball foul AND earn a first down.  The game clock should just run as normal.

Without this rule, a pre-snap foul - or a series of pre-snap fouls - could allow the team ahead in score (could be either team) to burn a few seconds off the clock with each foul, which could be critical if there are only a few seconds remaining.

The rule is fine as it is.

Robert

[NVFOA_Ump]

That doesn't make sense.

2nd and 3 at A30.  Clock reads 1:20.  Team A gains (a) 1 yard, or (b) 5 yards on a run up the middle.  Team A also commits holding on the play.

So in (a) you get an option, but (b) you don't.  Why?  The clock is going on the ready in both scenarios.

The purpose of the rule is so that Team A doesn't get a timing advantage by fouling.  Gaining a first down should not void that rule.  Yardage gained has nothing to do with what the rule is trying to prevent.

The first sentence of Rule 3.4.3 gives the R virtually absolute control over starting/stopping the clock if in his judgment the actions of either team result in unfair manipulation of the game clock.  The remainder of the rule gives detailed guidance for specific conditions but does not change the first sentence.  I don't see any need to fix something that IMO is not broken and I don't see any sense in adding endless verbiage to a rule that already has it covered in a single clear sentence.

[bossman72]

As I mentioned, Team A (ahead in score) would be foolish to commit a deliberate live-ball foul.  If they earn a first down, they are not just trying to burn the clock - they are still advancing the ball.  A live-ball foul would be counterproductive toward running out the clock.  So, they are not abusing the timing rules if they commit a live-ball foul AND earn a first down.  The game clock should just run as normal.

Without this rule, a pre-snap foul - or a series of pre-snap fouls - could allow the team ahead in score (could be either team) to burn a few seconds off the clock with each foul, which could be critical if there are only a few seconds remaining.

The rule is fine as it is.

Robert

But you have to replay the down, which lets you run an additional 25 seconds off the clock.  The whole point of this is to not gain a timing advantage by fouling.

[ElvisLives]

If Team A (ahead in score) reach the line-to-gain, there is no point in purposely committing a live-ball foul.  They would be screwing themselves out of as many as four more plays in which to burn time off the clock.  That is as much as 2:40 worth of time they could run off the clock.  If they do commit a live-ball foul (and reach the line-to-gain), they are only hurting themselves.  They gain no timing advantage.  Penalties are designed to offset advantages gained by circumventing the rules.  The distance penalty will offset the yardage advantage gained by the foul.  To then punish Team A with a second penalty by starting the clock on the snap would be an unearned and unjustified advantage to their opponent.

If Team A does not reach the line-to-gain, and their live-ball foul is the only reason for the clock to stop, then a foul would, in fact, give them a timing advantage.  Thus, the distance penalty (if accepted) AND the timing penalty are justified.   If they run OB (inside 2 mins in half) or throw an incomplete pass, the clock stops until the next snap.  So there is no incentive there.  The only situation (inside 2 mins) to be concerned about is a down that stays inbounds, and the foul is the only reason that the clock stops.  The current rule covers when the Team A ball carrier is down inbounds, fails to make the line-to-gain, AND Team A commits a live-ball foul, which is the only live-ball situation in which they would gain an unnatural timing advantage. 

The rule also covers dead-ball fouls that are the only reason that the clock stops. 

The current  rule is good, as is.

Robert

[Kalle]

Considering the new rulings about multiple intentional fouls to consume time, I think all supervisors would support applying 3-4-3 in such a way that you start the clock on the snap at least for those fouls where you gain the advantage to actually reach the LTG (eg. blatant holding at the point of the attack, illegal shift to confuse the snap count, illegal motion to gain a route advantage).

[bossman72]

The rule isn't about intent.  We've already had a rule covering that for a long time.  It's about not giving the offense a timing advantage by fouling.  They cheated to get the LTG.  So they should not get an extra 25 seconds to run off the clock too.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I agree with Bossman here. It shouldn’t matter if they made the line to gain or not.  Nor should it matter which team is winning, especially in the first half. 

Just always give the offended team the option in the last two minutes. Simple and fair.