Clock Operations w/ a Late Review

[TexasProud]

Interesting chain of events at the ending of the Camellia Bowl (Buffalo vs S. Georgia).  Team B has 1 timeout remaining while trying to stop Team A on a 3rd down conversion with approx. 3:35 to play in the Q4.  Team A completes the pass to gain the 1st down with the 40 second play clock appropriately starting.  The game clock starts to appropriately roll after setting the ball.  With 3 seconds remaining on the play clock and 3:03 minutes on the game clock, pagers go off to review the play.  Review comes back as a confirmed completion and 1st down.  Now 25 seconds put on the play clock and game clock starts rolling again with the ball being snapped with 2:40 left on the game clock. 

I find it interesting that because of replay's late decision to review the catch Team A is in turn given the opportunity to burn another 20 or so seconds off the game clock where as without the review they would have had to snap the ball at the 3 minute mark rather than the 2:40 mark.  Mind you, this had no bearing on the outcome of this game and nor am I insinuating it did.  Just an observation of mine. 

[AlUpstateNY]

Interesting chain of events at the ending of the Camellia Bowl (Buffalo vs S. Georgia).  Team B has 1 timeout remaining while trying to stop Team A on a 3rd down conversion with approx. 3:35 to play in the Q4.  Team A completes the pass to gain the 1st down with the 40 second play clock appropriately starting.  The game clock starts to appropriately roll after setting the ball.  With 3 seconds remaining on the play clock and 3:03 minutes on the game clock, pagers go off to review the play.  Review comes back as a confirmed completion and 1st down.  Now 25 seconds put on the play clock and game clock starts rolling again with the ball being snapped with 2:40 left on the game clock. 

I find it interesting that because of replay's late decision to review the catch Team A is in turn given the opportunity to burn another 20 or so seconds off the game clock where as without the review they would have had to snap the ball at the 3 minute mark rather than the 2:40 mark.  Mind you, this had no bearing on the outcome of this game and nor am I insinuating it did.  Just an observation of mine.

ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is an elusive accomplishment, even in the world of "replay".

[ump_ben]

This wouldn't be hard to fix with a minor change in the rules.  If team A was planning to burn clock, go to a 25 second play clock with all but 1 second of the remainder of the old play clock zapped and starting on the snap.  If team A was trying to hustle a play off (*) then replay should buzz down but the officials should not stop the game until the ball is snapped.  At that point blow it dead, and the clock is stopped.  If replay doesn't reset the clock for some other reason, then A can have a 25 second play starting on the snap.  In both cases, replay does minimal damage to the flow of the game.
Al, based on this and another thread I started a few weeks ago, you seem to have a philosophy that's a bit at odds with trying to get the clock right.  I don't think the momentum of the rulebook is headed where you are as every flavor of zap 10 and bumping the clock for defensive injuries etc seem to expect it to be part of the game.  In Texas's game, this very well could have been the difference in the game and that would have been a bad thing so I hope they'll make a fix.

(*) In that case there should be lots of time left on the play clock not 3 seconds of course...

[AlUpstateNY]

This wouldn't be hard to fix with a minor change in the rules.  If team A was planning to burn clock, go to a 25 second play clock with all but 1 second of the remainder of the old play clock zapped and starting on the snap.  If team A was trying to hustle a play off (*) then replay should buzz down but the officials should not stop the game until the ball is snapped.  At that point blow it dead, and the clock is stopped.  If replay doesn't reset the clock for some other reason, then A can have a 25 second play starting on the snap.  In both cases, replay does minimal damage to the flow of the game.
Al, based on this and another thread I started a few weeks ago, you seem to have a philosophy that's a bit at odds with trying to get the clock right.  I don't think the momentum of the rulebook is headed where you are as every flavor of zap 10 and bumping the clock for defensive injuries etc seem to expect it to be part of the game.  In Texas's game, this very well could have been the difference in the game and that would have been a bad thing so I hope they'll make a fix.

(*) In that case there should be lots of time left on the play clock not 3 seconds of course...

Ben, I have to admit, I think the emphasis on "Play Clock Precision" is somewhat "Much ado about nothing", and although there were abuses and mismanagement problems, most could have been better eliminated by more targeted specific adjustments instead of what we now have.  In the overhaul effort many of the existing problems were addressed and would have been eliminated.  Forgive me, but starting the RFP count, with a consistent visual & audible signal, by the SAME person got everyone paying attention (players on both teams, Coaches, spectators, announcers) alerted at the same exact instance.

Standard signals by the BJ (or other designated Officials by crew size) provided ample warning of expiring RFP time, for play calling.  Stricter enforcement of problem delay times (after a score, delay in retrieving a game ball, breaking up charged TOs or other delays related to bad habits, improvements in dealing with unexpected, or unintentional situations left to the judgment of a single focal point (Referee) easily adjusted the vast majority of situations.

Aside from TV related necessities (which for decades were addressed by specific game situations) a single source was responsible for avoiding unnecessary, or deliberate delays, in the UNIQUE game being played.  Forgive me, but the current "play clock" procedures seems the epitome of "One size fits all" which has NEVER worked well, ANYWHERE.  Perhaps, someday the question will be honestly asked, "has this enhancement reduced the number of associated problems, arguments, disputes, or created a whole lot that didn't exist.

[Kalle]

This wouldn't be hard to fix with a minor change in the rules.  If team A was planning to burn clock, go to a 25 second play clock with all but 1 second of the remainder of the old play clock zapped and starting on the snap.  If team A was trying to hustle a play off (*) then replay should buzz down but the officials should not stop the game until the ball is snapped.  At that point blow it dead, and the clock is stopped.  If replay doesn't reset the clock for some other reason, then A can have a 25 second play starting on the snap.  In both cases, replay does minimal damage to the flow of the game.

Interestingly the rules do not provide for a play or game clock adjustment solely due to the review process at any time if an on-field ruling is not reversed. There might be a change if a similar situation happens during the last two minutes of the game and team A gets an extra 25 seconds to burn - granted, the referee might still invoke rule 3-4-3, but I personally think that would be stretching it beyond the breaking point.

[peterparsons]

The logical thing to do if Team A want to burn clock time would be to set the play clock to 25 and adjust the game clock to whatever time aligns with that e.g. stopped for review with 3s on the play clock and 40s on the game clock, put the game clock back to 1:02, and then start it on the ready. That way Team A don't gain an unfair clock advantage from the review.

[TexasProud]

The logical thing to do if Team A want to burn clock time would be to set the play clock to 25 and adjust the game clock to whatever time aligns with that e.g. stopped for review with 3s on the play clock and 40s on the game clock, put the game clock back to 1:02, and then start it on the ready. That way Team A don't gain an unfair clock advantage from the review.

It would make sense to me to calculate a slight adjustment to the game clock to account for the additional time (20 seconds in this play case) that Team A is getting the opportunity to run off the clock.  I would just hate to see a situation come up where a loophole like this gives a team an unfair advantage at the end of a game or half. 

[dammitbobby]

While I understand the logic (and need) to have a rule/authority to adjust the game clock in situations like this, it's going to outrage coaches and fans (neither of who will fully understand the rationale of the rule) who think officials are just blatantly giving Team A additional time.  And I can't even think what a R's announcement for doing this would sound like.

(And before you say we shouldn't care what the fans thinks - 1)you're not wrong, to a degree, but 2) remember that even at NCAA, football is entertainment. Having rules that no one understands and can easily be perceived as favoritism only makes it it more likely that fans see officials as being corrupt, if not outright idiots... and the only reason I care is because I think we're getting to a point in American society where someone will eventually feel aggrieved at officials enough, to do something about it.)

[ElvisLives]

Interestingly the rules do not provide for a play or game clock adjustment solely due to the review process at any time if an on-field ruling is not reversed. There might be a change if a similar situation happens during the last two minutes of the game and team A gets an extra 25 seconds to burn - granted, the referee might still invoke rule 3-4-3, but I personally think that would be stretching it beyond the breaking point.

Kalle, I wish 3-4-3 allowed the Referee to address these kinds of situations, and 3-4-3, without 3-4-3a 3-4-3-b would seem to provide authority. But, with 3-4-3-a and 3-4-3-b, the Referee has authority to address game/play clock issues that are a result of "unfair clock tactics" by one team or the other. In this case, neither team did anything to unfairly affect either clock. So, 3-4-3 would not seem to be available to the R.

I would hope that the Rules Committee would recognize this situation, and just direct the game clock to be re-set to the time when it was stopped for the previous down, and the play clock set to 40, and both started on the R's signal. Not a perfect solution, but far more equitable than letting Team A burn a full 25 seconds, instead of just the handful of play-clock seconds that were remaining when the review was initiated.
Team A might actually get to run off more time than they would have, if the PC was started routinely after the ball became dead for the first down, which might be a few seconds before the game clock is restarted. With technology available, I suppose the RO could identify the time on the play clock at the moment the game clock was re-started, and set both to those respective times, and start both on the R's signal. That would be 100% fair. But, that would require all stadia to have the full complement of cameras and synchronized clocks displayed in the ROs monitors. Not a problem for Power 5 conferences. Not sure about the others.

[ump_ben]

Kalle, I wish 3-4-3 allowed the Referee to address these kinds of situations, and 3-4-3, without 3-4-3a 3-4-3-b would seem to provide authority. But, with 3-4-3-a and 3-4-3-b, the Referee has authority to address game/play clock issues that are a result of "unfair clock tactics" by one team or the other. In this case, neither team did anything to unfairly affect either clock. So, 3-4-3 would not seem to be available to the R.

I would hope that the Rules Committee would recognize this situation, and just direct the game clock to be re-set to the time when it was stopped for the previous down, and the play clock set to 40, and both started on the R's signal. Not a perfect solution, but far more equitable than letting Team A burn a full 25 seconds, instead of just the handful of play-clock seconds that were remaining when the review was initiated.

I agree that the rules don't support this now.  But I don't think the fix you're suggesting makes much sense.  First, it'd only work that way if team A was burning clock; if they're trying to preserve this would be monstrously inequitable, but that's an easy fix.  The bigger problem though to me is that this is going to make for an exceptionally boring 40 seconds.  If the time is zapped and the clocked stopped, then we get another play almost immediately, which is far better for those watching.

[ump_ben]

Ben, I have to admit, I think the emphasis on "Play Clock Precision" is somewhat "Much ado about nothing", and although there were abuses and mismanagement problems, most could have been better eliminated by more targeted specific adjustments instead of what we now have.  In the overhaul effort many of the existing problems were addressed and would have been eliminated.  Forgive me, but starting the RFP count, with a consistent visual & audible signal, by the SAME person got everyone paying attention (players on both teams, Coaches, spectators, announcers) alerted at the same exact instance.

Standard signals by the BJ (or other designated Officials by crew size) provided ample warning of expiring RFP time, for play calling.  Stricter enforcement of problem delay times (after a score, delay in retrieving a game ball, breaking up charged TOs or other delays related to bad habits, improvements in dealing with unexpected, or unintentional situations left to the judgment of a single focal point (Referee) easily adjusted the vast majority of situations.

Aside from TV related necessities (which for decades were addressed by specific game situations) a single source was responsible for avoiding unnecessary, or deliberate delays, in the UNIQUE game being played.  Forgive me, but the current "play clock" procedures seems the epitome of "One size fits all" which has NEVER worked well, ANYWHERE.  Perhaps, someday the question will be honestly asked, "has this enhancement reduced the number of associated problems, arguments, disputes, or created a whole lot that didn't exist.

Weirdly, as much as we've gone head to head over these timing plays I think I agree with a lot of what you said.  But, I think you're conflating two very separate things.  I actually would have no trouble with going back to a consistent 25 second clock though I suspect it really hasn't made much difference.  I thought it was simpler to follow and more importantly made the end of the game longer.  (Yes on average it takes about 15 seconds to get the ball ready but it never did after a kneel down so you can now burn more time in your last possession). 
But those changes I think have nothing to do with what we're talking about in either thread.  In both cases, we have a situation where a team got more time than the rules intended for them to get and this would have been equally true under the old system and under the new system. 
In Stanford's case, in the old days the clock would simply have been allowed to stay expired but that difference is a result of philosophy and replay not any changes to the timing rules.  Since Stanford had achieved a first down both in the old system and the current rules the clock should not start until the ball is ready for play.  It's true that in the old days the play clock would have started with the clock instead of on the first down and been shorter but in either case the game clock would still have been less than the play clock so it couldn't have mattered.
In Texas's post, if we'd had replay in the old days, Team A would still have burned about 37 seconds when the clock was stopped (10-15 before the RFP plus 22 after) and the clock still would have run on the new 25 second clock.

Fundamentally, where I think we disagree is that I think it's a key part of the game that when team B gives team A back the ball and A is trying to win by running out the clock that Team B should have very predictable expectations for what they have to do to stop A.  And similarly when Team A has the ball and is trying to score before time expires, Team B should have very predictable expectations for when time will run out.  When replay, penalty enforcement, clock errors, etc result in those expectations being violated I believe the rulebook should give the referee the tools and responsibility to fix them in a fair way.  (And I think it should be spelled out so that nobody can complain that the referee made bad choices.)
So, I think in the OP, Team A should not have gotten this advantage and in the other post Stanford should not have gotten the field goal and I think the rules will get there, but for reasons I don't completely understand first the mistake has to cost an "important" team a big game and then the rules makers will fix the hole.  Proactively fixing it is not allowed.