Does it make sense…

[ElvisLives]

Does it make sense…
after the 2-minute tine out, and the game clock running, to have Team A - ahead in score - allow the play clock to expire? Even more, now we have to ask the opposing team if they want a 10-second subtraction (which would also mean the game clock would start on the referee’s signal). Happened in both halves of my game yesterday. Although a bit annoyed, the Team B coach was understanding that we needed to get his option, which, of course, was, “No.”
No fun.

[dammitbobby]

What would be a possible solution? A bigger penalty?

[ElvisLives]

What would be a possible solution? A bigger penalty?

Oh, nothing. I was just whining. Any ‘fix’ would just complicate the rules, unnecessarily. Just an uncomfortable situation that happens very occasionally.

[Morningrise]

There should simply be an editorial change that says the runoff rule doesn't apply to Team A DOG.

[peterparsons]

Why? If Team B are leading, they might want the runoff.

[Morningrise]

But the concept of the runoff is to prevent fouling to conserve time. When Team A lets the play clock expire, they are doing the opposite of conserving time. They don't obtain any advantage so there is no reason to subject this situation to the runoff rule.

[peterparsons]

A might be losing, it's late in the game, and they're just disorganised.

We shouldn't take away something from B that they'd have if it had been a FST with 1s on the PC compared to a DOG with 0s. In such situations, A won't necessarily rush to get the play off if they know there's no time consequences for being slow, but they might not snap it with everything clean 1/2s earlier.

[ump_ben]

A might be losing, it's late in the game, and they're just disorganised.
We shouldn't take away something from B that they'd have if it had been a FST with 1s on the PC compared to a DOG with 0s. In such situations, A won't necessarily rush to get the play off if they know there's no time consequences for being slow, but they might not snap it with everything clean 1/2s earlier.

I'd favor a rule change that for a violation with less than 10 seconds on the play clock the run off is the remainder of the play clock.  I think you're looking at this the wrong way.  The 10s was never meant to be a penalty it was meant to minimize the clock disruptions.  The balance is between making the rules manageable, fair, and un-gameable which is a super hard tradeoff in many cases but I don't think it is here.  Having a DOG penalty include a runoff does not increase clock fairness, does not make the rules harder to manage, and does not create any weird gaming incentives.  And shortening the runoff penalty when the play clock is about to expire would increase fairness at a cost of rules manageability and changes nothing about gameability.