Taking a POE seriously.....

[Ralph Damren]

I've been a vocal opponent to the proposed 40" clock being adopted by NFHS as I don't feel it would be a good fit for football in Maine. With the "Pace of Play" being a point of emphasis in both or rules book and officials manual, I decided it was time to stop yapping about it and start doing something about it. IMHO, if we can develop a consistent pace on our own, we won't need a rule change.

THEORY : It takes about month to develop a habit - both & bad. Once a habit is developed, it becomes a second nature and can be repeated without thinking. I've asked our officials to focus on a consistent pace and track by.....

(1) Once the ball is dead, the Ref should mentally record the clock time if he is facing a running clock. If not, count by thousands (one thousand one - one thousand two - etc).
(2) Under 10" to spot is acceptable - if not, try to remember what the delay was.
(3) Once the ball is spotted, count and give RFP in 5" -if not, try to remember why.
(4) At halftime ,discus the results and possible improvements if necessary.
(5) In the 2nd half just focus on game.
(6) In post-game, discus if the habits developed in first half continued into the second half.
(7) After a month, discus if the habits have begun to stick.

My crew followed this format last Friday with the following results :
 Spotting the ball in 10" - all but 3, 2 OOB incomplete passes and a 50 yd+ pass & run with a slow chain crew.
 RFP within 5" of spot - all.

Our officials seem receptive of this and hopefully it will develop into a habit that will deem a rule change is not needed. You guys may want to consider this , too. Any suggestions or comments are welcome.

PS : The coaches , that were all attending our clinics along with the officials, had NO concern with pace of play.

[bbeagle]

As a fan, and a wingman who gets yelled at....

The "Pace of Play" in spotting of the ball, and RFP doesn't matter most of the game. Nobody cares.

It's only inside the last 2 minutes of the half or 5 minutes of the game...

The team winning on offense wants to use as most of the play clock as possible. If they're able to snap the ball at :01 left on the play clock instead of :05... it could be the difference between winning and losing the game.

The team losing on defense wants to make sure the offense doesn't use too much time. If the clock is at :40 when the player is tackled, and the referee waits around until :24 to signal RFP, when he could have signaled at :30, this is not fair at all. I see referees doing this all the time. 4th down. The ball is set down around :32,  then the referee intentionally watches the clock and blows the RFP at :24 so the game is over. Of course the losing coach notices this and thinks he was cheated. I agree with the coach, and hate walking off the field as a wingman when all of us are getting yelled at.

A play clock would solve both these problems.

And these are major problems for team coaches thinking we are screwing them, fans thinking we are, and officials' morale.

[TampaSteve]

seems like the same theory NCAA officials did soon before the 40 clock rolled out.
to paraphrase: when the play was blown dead, the R will silently count to 15 and blow the play in.

[zhntr]

Opinions on this situation: A is down by 6 at the B-8, 1st and goal, 15 seconds left in game. A runs the ball up the middle to the B-1. The play clock has 10 seconds left when the play ends. A has no timeouts.

Are we to delay blowing the RTP and let the clock run out?

[VALJ]

Opinions on this situation: A is down by 6 at the B-8, 1st and goal, 15 seconds left in game. A runs the ball up the middle to the B-1. The play clock has 10 seconds left when the play ends. A has no timeouts.

Are we to delay blowing the RTP and let the clock run out?

If we can get the play off reasonably within 10 second, let them play.  The head coach of B would want us to do the same if they are on offense.

Our association has been stressing pace of play for a couple of years, so I'd like to think we're a bit ahead when it comes to this POE.  We've been shooting to blow the RFP within 12-15 seconds after the previous play ends for three years now (maybe more), so we've gotten pretty solid on that. 

[FLAHL]

Opinions on this situation: A is down by 6 at the B-8, 1st and goal, 15 seconds left in game. A runs the ball up the middle to the B-1. The play clock has 10 seconds left when the play ends. A has no timeouts.

Are we to delay blowing the RTP and let the clock run out?

My opinion - We’re going to set the ball, blow the rfp, and get another play off. 

[bbeagle]

My opinion - We’re going to set the ball, blow the rfp, and get another play off.

I agree. I adjust my pace of play to what the offense wants. My philosophy is that it's up to us to administrate the game - not create a hinderance to the teams playing.

If a team wants to run a no-huddle in the middle of the 1st quarter, or it's nearing the end of a half or game, I'll hurry up and get the ball ready earlier for them. We still need a few seconds for administration, like what down it is, get us back into positions.

What I DON'T like is some officials who adhere to "pace of play" during these times as well. The middle of the 1st quarter is NOT the same as the end of the 4th.

[AlUpstateNY]

I wouldn't think there's really any legitimate doubt, that game officials, in general are NOT trying to favor either team as to how they manage the game clock, initiating or stopping play  Perhaps I'm just blessed not to have encountered, or been exposed to a lot of "other officials" who inject their personal preferences and biases into pressure situations to benefit, or hinder, particular teams.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but I'm afraid High School Football is a somewhat different activity than Collegiate or Professional football, simply because it's played by younger (High School age adolescent and younger) athletes than those having reached "advanced", higher levels.  (In essence, no matter how much technology you wrap HS football in, it will still be played by HS students)

Continued effort to achieve consistency in many phases of officiating is an ongoing, and constant, valuable pursuit.  However, as reality strongly suggests; no two football PLAYS, much less entire games, have EVER been EXACTLY alike, and management of the game (being observed) should be based on complying with existing standards, that are consistently applied based on what is actually being observed.

We should all understand that football participation is a performance pyramid that tests and excludes participants at each level, based on knowledge learned, skills developed and abilities and potential identified.  What may work at one level, may not prove appropriate at other levels.

Currently, a practical standard is recommended of; declaring a ball RFP within 12-15 seconds of it becoming previously dead, UNLESS OF COURSE some valid reason for delaying the RFP surfaces and requires dealing with.  This sounds like a reasonable, practical and appropriate objective worthy of our attention and compliance WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

Situations than interrupt being able to comply with that (or other reasonable) standard exceptions, are most often, unique to the game they occur within and the existing standard allows the flexibility to deal with unique situations, individually and appropriately.

Managing sidelines, that allow emotions to sometimes cloud their behaviors, is an extremely valuable ACQUIRED SKILL, that although time consuming, is well worth the effort and patience of acquiring.  Additional concentration on mastering those skills, may prove a more effective method of dealing with a greater variety of frustrations than try to deal with each frustration individually, with an additional technology.

We often discover that persistent problems are caused less by perceived ineffective performance than simply unreasonable expectations, and focus on performance alone may not ever provide satisfaction.   

[HLTN]

In Tennessee, this year, we are using the 40 second play clock.  We're two weeks into the season, and by all accounts, it's working out well.
There have been, and will be, some unintended consequences.  But, so far, so good.

[Fiji07]

As an official in Indiana who has been using the 40 sec play clock, this is our 3rd year, I love it.  Keeps things consistent throughout the game and tends to move them along at a more reasonable pace without games being played at a different pace week to week.  Data, according to our State Association, has shown that it doesn't speed up all games but does limit the extremes and move most of the games into the same range of game time.

I guess I don't understand why you guys who are opponents don't like it.  Please explain your exact dislike for this rule other than that you don't like change.

Only problem I can see is cost of the play clocks for the schools. But from what I understand that is not very expensive compare to something like getting artificial turf.  Lucky part for Indiana was the majority of schools already had the play clocks installed prior to adopting this rule experiment.

[prab]

Only problem I can see is cost of the play clocks for the schools. But from what I understand that is not very expensive compare to something like getting artificial turf. 

I believe tat in my area, cost ALONE is enough of a problem to make the 40 second play clock a pipe dream.

[Kalle]

Only problem I can see is cost of the play clocks for the schools. But from what I understand that is not very expensive compare to something like getting artificial turf.  Lucky part for Indiana was the majority of schools already had the play clocks installed prior to adopting this rule experiment.

Also, you can easily work 40/25 second clock without visible play clocks. It is no different than working the 25 second clock without visible game clocks. Most of my games are on fields without visible play clocks (actually without visible game clocks) and we don't have issues with running the 40/25 second clock on the field.

[AlUpstateNY]

Most of my games are on fields without visible play clocks (actually without visible game clocks) and we don't have issues with running the 40/25 second clock on the field.

Having the ability to manage either/both 40 second(ish) play intervals as well as 25 second RFP intervals on the field, without the assistance of visible field clocks, adds a potential level of game management flexibility especially suitable for Interscholastic level play.

[SouthGARef]

I've never done an actual count. If the ball is placed down and all crew members are in their correct position, we are ready to play. I blow it in. Sometimes that takes 8 seconds. Sometimes it takes more. For instance, if the pass is incomplete on the opposite sideline of the offensive team, it's going to take some time for us to relay that ball all the way across the field.

I'm anxious about the 40s play clock. There are advantages that the NCAA and NFL guys have that we don't have - namely, properly trained chain crews, ball boys, ball boys on both sides, etc etc etc. I'm not wholly opposed to it, and think the "match up" rule is badly needed in NFHS. I just have concerns. I also think that some games need a slower pace. If you're calling a game between two teams with 25 players each - and let's face it, that happens a lot in rural areas - the Referee being able to slow the pace down to save those players some snaps isn't the worst thing in the world. We've got to remember that the NFHS rule book has to work not just for the larger states and the larger schools, but also the smaller states and the smaller schools. It's a hard needle to thread.

[Ralph Damren]

I hear you, SouthGAref, and have similar worries. Some of mine:

(1) No high schools in Maine have visable play clocks;
(2) If 40" rule passes, no high schools in Maine will have visable play clocks;
(3) without a RFP whistle, it will become confusing for all involved - if one is tweeted, we have an IW;
(4) all sub-varsity games are worked by 3 0fficials - a R & 2 wings- the R usually spots the ball and will need to "git outa' town" quickly as the ball is ready to be snapped.

I run the game clock for a NCAA school. In 2007 they adopted the 40" clock. With a crew of 7 and 2 attentive ball boys on both sidelines, I didn't notice a change of pace of the game and inquired how their new rule helped. The consistent reply was: "Well...it keeps us 'honest'  ".

I have asked several current NCAA officials with careers that began on Maine high school fields. To a one : "It would NOT be a good fit for Maine high schools."

I agree.
 

[scrounge]

Totally get that the 40 sec play clock doesn't sound feasible or desired in Maine, and in general am very wary of change "just" to be like college or NFL, but why not have it in the book as a potential state association adoption? For those states equipped for it and wanting it, let them have at it. For those that don't, no change necessary.

This doesn't seem like something that absolutely has to be uniform. It's common in basketball for some states to go with halves vs. quarters, shot clock or not, etc.

[prab]

Totally get that the 40 sec play clock doesn't sound feasible or desired in Maine, and in general am very wary of change "just" to be like college or NFL, but why not have it in the book as a potential state association adoption? For those states equipped for it and wanting it, let them have at it. For those that don't, no change necessary.

This doesn't seem like something that absolutely has to be uniform. It's common in basketball for some states to go with halves vs. quarters, shot clock or not, etc.

+1 Makes sense to me!

[Ralph Damren]

I proposed it as a 1-7 rule (state adoption) last year, but gained little support. The general feeling was that this was a big potential rule change and should not be a state's choice.

[Eastshire]

I run the game clock for a NCAA school. In 2007 they adopted the 40" clock. With a crew of 7 and 2 attentive ball boys on both sidelines, I didn't notice a change of pace of the game and inquired how their new rule helped. The consistent reply was: "Well...it keeps us 'honest'  ".
 

I proposed it as a 1-7 rule (state adoption) last year, but gained little support. The general feeling was that this was a big potential rule change and should not be a state's choice.

Personally, I have a hard time reconciling these two things: 1) It doesn't change anything 2) It's too big of a change.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem the argument against it is a little incoherent.

[colorado_lines]

I primarily work in Colorado, which is on its 3rd year of experimenting with the 40 second play clock, but I also do a few games each year in Wyoming, which is the old play clock rules, so I get some very nice comparisons between the two, often on back-to-back days.  Overall I prefer the 40 second play clock as I think it does help make things more consistent and helps things run smoother once everyone has some experience with it; there is definitely a learning curve though for officials and teams.

To address some of Ralph's concerns:

1 & 2. I haven't been to a field yet in Colorado that has a visible play clock and I haven't heard of any schools in my part of the state that are planning on getting one.  You don't need it.
3. In the first couple games there might be some confusion as to the 40 second clock but overall it gets worked out pretty quickly and everyone adapts to it.  The toughest are the middle school and freshman games that first year but for those it is easy to use some sort of flexibility.
4. That model of three man would definitely be a potential problem.  Most of our sub-varsity games in Colorado are 4 man but if we have to work 3 man, we tend to use an R, a U, and one wing with the R and U favoring the empty sideline.  This helps avoid the issue with the play clock.

A few people have commented about the lack of ball boys in HS football.  The way we've handled games without ball boys is that on long incomplete passes we delay starting the 40 second clock for a few seconds until the ball is closer to being retrieved; this is a bit of a learning curve to get it right but I haven't seen many coaches have an issue with it as you rarely need to delay for more than 5 or so seconds and we don't see that many long incomplete passes where someone really has to go chase the ball.  Fortunately for varsity games we normally have at least one ball boy per team making these situations even more rare.

Slow chain crews can be an issue but we just have the HL drop a bean bag at the spot and when the chains finally get there they set on that; also a very rare issue.

There may be some nuances for games in some states that would create extra issues but the change really isn't that hard to make overall.  I would support Ralph's suggestion that this be up to the individual states for adoption.  I definitely hope that Colorado sticks with the 40 second.