Incomplete Pass Clock Stop/Start

[Ia-Ref]

Deep thinkers and I ask, why does the clock stop with an incomplete pass and not start again until the next snap?

I can understand when there was only one ball per game and someone had to retrieve it before the next play could start after an incomplete pass.  Same could be today.  OK so stop the clock to get a ball set for the next snap, I'll go along with that.

But why not start the clock on the ready-for-play just like a run or pass that ends up inbound?

[TxSkyBolt]

This has been discussed in the past and I think this is another way to speed the game along. Much like starting the clock after a ball carrier goes OOB.

[AlUpstateNY]

Deep thinkers and I ask, why does the clock stop with an incomplete pass and not start again until the next snap?
But why not start the clock on the ready-for-play just like a run or pass that ends up inbound?[/b]

Just guessing, but perhaps the time stops to allow receivers, and their defenders, who may be far afield, to rejoin their huddles.  Other than that it may have just, "seemed like a good idea at the time".

[pjsaul]

The forward pass has a long, and at times bizarre, history in the rules of football. When you consider that an incomplete pass use to be an automatic turnover, it makes sense that the clock stopped for one.

There is no reason it cannot change. I would say the same for another sensible but seemingly antiquated rule - a forward fumble by the offense that goes out of bounds in the end zone (I think this should return to the spot of the fumble as opposed to being a touchback).

[Rulesman]

...a forward fumble by the offense that goes out of bounds in the end zone (I think this should return to the spot of the fumble as opposed to being a touchback).

With possession going to whom?

[pjsaul]

With possession going to whom?

Possession remaining with the offense (the team who fumbled). Yes, I know this violates a number of rule maxims on balls becoming dead behind goal lines, but it seems to me to be a more "fair" ruling, as opposed to a turnover.

I will admit I have not fully thought through all possible cases here. What if the offense touches the fumbled ball in the end zone prior to it going out of bounds? We wouldn't want to encourage offensive players to "purposefully muff" the ball out of the end zone. A full implementation would require such considerations.

[Rulesman]

I can think of several scenarios where your fairness theory will blow up. But we're off topic here.

[JasonTX]

Possession remaining with the offense (the team who fumbled). Yes, I know this violates a number of rule maxims on balls becoming dead behind goal lines, but it seems to me to be a more "fair" ruling, as opposed to a turnover.

I will admit I have not fully thought through all possible cases here. What if the offense touches the fumbled ball in the end zone prior to it going out of bounds? We wouldn't want to encourage offensive players to "purposefully muff" the ball out of the end zone. A full implementation would require such considerations.

If the offense touches the ball in the end zone nothing changes.  It's still going to be a touchback.

[Ralph Damren]

Starting the clock on the RFP for incomplete passes, OOB plays and COP have appeared on the docket several times, in different forms, over the years. As I recall, only OOB plays ever made it out of committee with marginal support but failed easily on the floor. States have ran a mixture of these as experimental rules over the years with the following results : Strong support from the coaches ONLY IF the last two minutes of a half is timed the "old way". Strong support from the officials ONLY IF the new timing rule remains intact throughout the entire game. IMHO, prior to our state adopting a running time rule, with coaches agreement we would run the clock as mentioned above by cranking on every RFP. Via this method, a half would last approx 30-35 minutes. IMHO, that would shorten the game too much. IMHO, length of game no longer seems to be a very hot item.

While returning the ball from OOB to the spot of the fumble has also been on the docket several times. It has never gained much support as the majority seems to feel the probability of a fumble bouncing OOB in advance of the runner is the same as a fumble bouncing OOB behind the runner. An IFP flag should fly if you felt a forward fumble was intentional. Balls going OOB in the end zone have to be something. A touchback would be that something unless a new force was added to a grounded fumble by B's muff in the field of play.

FEVER...PENNANT FEVER....
                    GO RED SOX!!!