Another note from RR on 10-second runoff

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't think we can use "anytime" as a guideline - it's possible that A didn't break the huddle with more than 11, nor keep more than 11 in formation for more than 3 seconds, and the 12th player is trying to get off the field - to me that's a live ball foul.  I believe we'll hear from RR that he wants it that way.

That doesn't seem to reconcile with the somewhat ambiguous wording in the proposed 3-5-3-c that reads:   If officials do not detect the excessive number of players until during the down or after the down is over, the infraction is treated as a live-ball foul.

That pretty clearly seems to imply that if we do detect the excessive number of players prior to "during the down" that we have a whistle at the snap and a dead ball foul.   In any case the changes posted so far and the existing rules that overlap appear to require some fine-tuning. As noted, we'll just have to wait and see the rest of the story when the final version comes out.

[Diablo]

We've all had this happen at one time or another...So for example you have 11 break the huddle (or maybe no-huddle) and head to the line of scrimmage. Thinking the offense only has 10 on the field, a coach sends the 12th player out there. The coach or 12th player then correctly counts and realizes he's #12. So he immediately turns and runs back toward the sideline. He doesn't get off in time at the snap.

Perhaps there is insight from Play 9 in 2010 Bulletin 3.

The ball is dead following a play that resulted in a first down at the B-40. Eleven players of Team A, which runs a no-huddle offense, are going to their various spread-offense positions in preparation for the next play. The ball is ready for play when A22 runs onto the field from his team area, and after he passes the top of the numbers, he or the coaching staff apparently realizes that he is the 12th player. He then turns and runs back to his team area. The ball has not been snapped.
RULING: Dead-ball foul for a substitution infraction. By interpretation A22 has become a player by entering his team’s “effective huddle” and thus must remain in the game for one play. Five-yard penalty. Team A will have first and 15 at the B-45. (2-27-9-b, 3-5-2-d).

The ruling for this Play is in contrast to the wordings of the present 3-5-2-d and AR 3-5-2-VI.

[Hawkeye]

Ok so back to the original few posts in this thread...

If the game clock is running and the offended team accepts the yardage penalty but declines the 10-second runoff, we still start the game clock on the snap (even though that's not specifically stated in the rule)?

I'm also having a hard time understanding the start the clock on the snap part of the Ruling to play situation 4. If the game clock is running and team A false starts, why are we going to start on the snap if the 10-second subtraction part of penalty is declined?  Isn't that giving team team A what they want?  Or because team B declines the 10 second subtraction part only if they need to get the ball, we start on the snap thus conserving time?

There is nothing I see in the new 3-5-3 that states that the clock starts on the snap if the 10-second subtraction part of the penalty is declined, so is this some weird reverse use of 3-4-3?  In other words, team A is conserving time when they foul (intentionally or unintentionally), team B is OK with that because they want as much time as possible if they are going to get the ball back, so they decline the 10-second subtraction, then we start on the snap giving team B the advantage of team A fouling.

[ref6983]

I'm also having a hard time understanding the start the clock on the snap part of the Ruling to play situation 4. If the game clock is running and team A false starts, why are we going to start on the snap if the 10-second subtraction part of penalty is declined?  Isn't that giving team team A what they want?  Or because team B declines the 10 second subtraction part only if they need to get the ball, we start on the snap thus conserving time?

There is nothing I see in the new 3-5-3 that states that the clock starts on the snap if the 10-second subtraction part of the penalty is declined, so is this some weird reverse use of 3-4-3?  In other words, team A is conserving time when they foul (intentionally or unintentionally), team B is OK with that because they want as much time as possible if they are going to get the ball back, so they decline the 10-second subtraction, then we start on the snap giving team B the advantage of team A fouling.

Yes, this is a use of 3-4-3, but nothing weird at all about it.

This is nothing more than we would have done last year without a 10 second subtraction. Last year if team A committed a false start under one minute and they would have gained an advantage by starting the clock on the ready then the referee would have invoked 3-4-3 and started the clock on the snap.

Here, if team B declines the 10 second subtraction, then they obviously want as much time on the clock as possible, which, under any plausible scenario, infers that team A would gain an advantage if the clock starts. Therefore, *ALWAYS* start the clock on the snap if team B declines the 10 second subtraction.