Author Topic: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff  (Read 48939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

El Macman

  • Guest
Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« on: March 22, 2011, 10:35:02 AM »
Nothing we probably didn't already know.

Wish he'd work on the BBW rule.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL OFFICIATING, LLC
TEN-SECOND SUBTRACTION FROM THE GAME CLOCK
The making of the rules can be a fascinating process, illustrated perfectly by this new rule. Often one game can grab the attention of the country in such a way that a consensus quickly forms around the need for a rules change. And that’s what happened. The story of one of the 2010 bowl games was that the offensive team apparently created an unfair clock advantage that allowed them to kick a game-tying field goal and subsequently win the game in overtime. Largely as a result of that game, the rules committee in 2011 approved a rule that deals with a team gaining a clock advantage by committing a foul late in the game.
Here’s the new rule:
Rule 3-4-4 (New Article)
10-Second Subtraction from Game Clock
ARTICLE 4.
a. With the game clock running and less than one minute remaining in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul that causes the clock to stop, the officials may subtract 10 seconds from the game clock at the option of the offended team. The fouls that fall in this category include but are not limited to:
(1) Any foul that prevents the snap (e.g., false start, encroachment, defensive offside by contact in the neutral zone, etc.);
(2) Intentional grounding to stop the clock;
(3) Incomplete illegal forward pass;
(4) Backward pass thrown out of bounds to stop the clock;
(5) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
The offended team may accept the yardage penalty and decline the 10-second subtraction. If the yardage penalty is declined the 10-second subtraction is declined by rule.
b. The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to stop (e.g., illegal formation).
c. After enforcement of the penalty and 10-second subtraction (if any) the game clock starts on the referee’s signal.
d. If the fouling team has a timeout remaining it may avoid the 10-second subtraction by using a timeout. In this case the game clock starts on the snap after the timeout.
The rule has several elements to it, so let’s break them down and then look at some examples.
1. The rule applies only if the game clock is running inside one minute of either half. With one or more minutes in the half the referee has broad discretion about when to start and stop the clock under Rule 3-4-3. It is only when the game clock reads 0:59 or less that this new rule comes into effect, and then only if the game clock is running when the foul is committed. If the previous play had been an incomplete pass, for example, the game clock would not be running so the new rule would not apply.
2. The rule applies equally to either team. We tend to think of the offense as the team trying to manipulate the clock—of the two teams the offense is more in control of the pace of the game—but the rule applies to the defense as well. It may be that the defense is behind and thus wants to get the clock stopped, so it commits a foul—by, say, jumping offside to make contact. The same rule applies to Team B as to Team A. Those familiar with the NFL rule will recognize a difference here: the 10-second subtraction rule in the NFL only applies to Team A.
3. Only those fouls that cause the clock to stop are affected by this rule. There is some confusion on this point, which sometimes arises out of not understanding the difference between a foul and a penalty. For example, if a team commits a false start, the officials shut the play down; this is a foul that stops the clock. But if a team snaps the ball when it has five players in the backfield—an illegal formation—the play continues: this is not a foul that stops the clock. Of course once the ball is dead the clock is stopped, but this is to administer the penalty; the clock is not stopped because of the foul itself.
4. The 10-second subtraction is not automatic: the offended team has the option. There could be circumstances where the offended team would not want the time taken off the clock, perhaps in the hope that it would get possession of the ball with time remaining. The offended team may accept the yardage penalty and elect not to have time taken off the clock. But if it declines the yardage penalty the 10-second subtraction does not apply.
5. Intent is not an issue in applying this rule. It could be that the fouling team does not intend to commit the foul—an unintentional false start is the usual example—but that doesn’t matter. The rule applies if the conditions are met, and intent has nothing to do with anything.
6. The fouling team may avoid the 10-second subtraction if it has a timeout to use. It is unlikely that this team would foul in the situation where it has a timeout, but it could happen, so in such a case it could use the timeout and avoid the 10-second subtraction.
PLAY SITUATIONS
1. Second and 10 at the B-30. The game clock is running in the second half. Team A trails by two points and is out of timeouts. After the ball is ready for play lineman A66 commits a false start, and when the officials stop the game clock it reads (a) 13 seconds; (b) 8 seconds. Team B accepts the yardage penalty and the time subtraction. RULING: (a) Five-yard penalty with 10 seconds subtracted from the game clock, which is set at 3 seconds. Second and 15 at the B-35. The clock starts on the referee’s signal. (b) The game is over. Team B wins.
2. Second and 10 at the B-30. The game clock is running in the second half. Team A trails by two points and is out of timeouts. At the snap Team A has five players in the backfield. A22 carries for a three-yard gain to the B-27. When the ball is declared dead the game clock reads (a) 13 seconds; (b) 8 seconds. RULING: (a) and (b) Five-yard penalty, illegal formation. Second and 15 at the B-35. Because the illegal formation is not a foul that causes the clock to stop, the 10-second subtraction does not apply. After the penalty is administered the game clock starts on the referee’s signal.
3. Team A is leading 24-21 with less than one minute in the game and the game clock running. With the ball ready for play on third and seven at the B-35, tackle B55 jumps across the neutral zone and contacts A77. The officials shut the play down with the game clock showing 0:38. Team B is out of timeouts. RULING: Offside against Team B. Five-yard penalty and a 10-second subtraction from the game clock. The game clock is set at 0:28. Third and two at the B-40. The clock starts on the referee’s signal.
4. Team A is in punt formation on fourth and 12 at the A-30. The score is tied with less than one minute remaining in regulation and the game clock is running. Team A is out of timeouts. Guard A66 commits a false start, stopping the game clock at 0:45. RULING: This is a situation where Team B might choose to accept the yardage penalty but decline the 10-second subtraction, since they will probably get the ball. If so, it is fourth and 17 at the A-25 and the game clock starts on the snap. If Team B allows the 10-second subtraction along with the five-yard penalty, the game clock starts on the referee’s signal. Note that if Team B declines the yardage penalty there is no 10-second subtraction and the game clock starts on the snap.

elewis023

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 12:37:48 PM »
4. Team A is in punt formation on fourth and 12 at the A-30. The score is tied with less than one minute remaining in regulation and the game clock is running. Team A is out of timeouts. Guard A66 commits a false start, stopping the game clock at 0:45. RULING: This is a situation where Team B might choose to accept the yardage penalty but decline the 10-second subtraction, since they will probably get the ball. If so, it is fourth and 17 at the A-25 and the game clock starts on the snap. If Team B allows the 10-second subtraction along with the five-yard penalty, the game clock starts on the referee’s signal. Note that if Team B declines the yardage penalty there is no 10-second subtraction and the game clock starts on the snap.

Why does the game clock start on the snap?  Shouldn't it start on the RFP because it was running before the foul?  I know it starts on the snap if they are in a scrimmage kick formation and get a DOG foul, but I don't see why it would start on the snap here.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 12:46:33 PM »
Starting on the snap will give team B more time once they get the ball.  It would be to their advantage to have it start on the snap

Offline justaLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 01:36:38 PM »
Yep, that's the standard 3-4-3 application.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 03:45:28 PM »
So do I have my hands around these situations based on how the new rules are written?

PLAY 1: Time is running out in the game, Team A rushes to the line, QB takes the snap and spikes the ball, clock stops with 9 seconds left.  The wideout never got back to his side of the line to get set.
 
Ruling- false start and include 10 second runoff.  Game over.  Team A loses.
 
PLAY 2: Time is running out in the game, Team A rushes to the line, QB takes the snap and spikes the ball, clock stops with 9 seconds left.  Eleven players got set for one second.  A85 mistakenly came on to the field as a sub prior to the snap, realized he was not supposed to be in, and was on his way off, 5 yards from the sideline as the ball was snapped.
 
Ruling: illegal substitution.  5 yard penalty.  Clock starts on the snap.  Team A kicks game-winning FG.

elewis023

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2011, 06:53:30 AM »
Yep, that's the standard 3-4-3 application.

If RR was invoking 3-4-3 on this, why wouldn't he explicity say that?  It makes sense to do that, but it reads like that is the enforcement regardless of time of game, 3-4-3 issues, etc.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2011, 07:00:11 AM »
"The story of one of the 2010 bowl games was that the offensive team apparently created an unfair clock advantage that allowed them to kick a game-tying field goal and subsequently win the game in overtime. Largely as a result of that game, the rules committee in 2011 approved a rule that deals with a team gaining a clock advantage by committing a foul late in the game. "

His words, not mine.

This makes it clear to me that the committee's intent is to keep a team from getting a clock advantage by committing a foul late in the game.  I believe that implies the automatic use of 3-4-3 in situations like that shown in Example 4

Fatman325

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 08:32:52 AM »
Can someone help me by explaining a situation where we need a 10 second runoff against the defense? I have racked my brain and have only come up with one foul where a 10 second might be necessary. I am open to any scenarios that you can think of.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8773
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2011, 08:38:36 AM »
Dead ball offside (by contact or interfering with offensive formation)

A dead ball sub infraction by B


Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3440
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2011, 08:41:24 AM »
Can someone help me by explaining a situation where we need a 10 second runoff against the defense? I have racked my brain and have only come up with one foul where a 10 second might be necessary. I am open to any scenarios that you can think of.

Score A21-B20, 30 seconds remaining in the game, 2nd and 10 at A-20. B55 tries to read the snap count and misses, contacting A79 before the ball is snapped. Without the runoff, team A has to snap once more - with the runoff, team A wins.

Zeke5

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2011, 09:09:15 AM »
"The story of one of the 2010 bowl games was that the offensive team apparently created an unfair clock advantage that allowed them to kick a game-tying field goal and subsequently win the game in overtime. Largely as a result of that game, the rules committee in 2011 approved a rule that deals with a team gaining a clock advantage by committing a foul late in the game. "

My memory is fuzzy regarding the exact play and situation he is talking about. Was this the UNC/Tenn game? What was the exact scenario?

Grant - AR

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2011, 09:13:12 AM »
"The story of one of the 2010 bowl games was that the offensive team apparently created an unfair clock advantage that allowed them to kick a game-tying field goal and subsequently win the game in overtime. Largely as a result of that game, the rules committee in 2011 approved a rule that deals with a team gaining a clock advantage by committing a foul late in the game. "

My memory is fuzzy regarding the exact play and situation he is talking about. Was this the UNC/Tenn game? What was the exact scenario?

Check the following thread.  A youtube video is there with the last couple of plays.

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=7663.0

Fatman325

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2011, 10:00:10 AM »
Score A21-B20, 30 seconds remaining in the game, 2nd and 10 at A-20. B55 tries to read the snap count and misses, contacting A79 before the ball is snapped. Without the runoff, team A has to snap once more - with the runoff, team A wins.

Dead ball offside (by contact or interfering with offensive formation)

A dead ball sub infraction by B

Here's my logic about the 10 second runoff on B. The only time that B can actually gain an advantage is in the first 15 seconds of the play clock. If A is running the play clock down they are not going to be at the LOS until there is 10-15 seconds left. If B fouls at this point we are going to put 25 on the play clock and wind on the ready. The defense has already been penalized by this adjustment. In order for the defense to gain a clock advantage they must foul between 40 and 26 on the play clock. The only foul that I can envision would be a UNS against B with the play clock showing more that 25 seconds. All of the live ball DOF type fouls are not going to occur because the offense will not be in formation before 25 seconds. Is my logic flawed?


El Macman

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2011, 10:05:04 AM »
If RR was invoking 3-4-3 on this, why wouldn't he explicity say that?  It makes sense to do that, but it reads like that is the enforcement regardless of time of game, 3-4-3 issues, etc.


Yes, I believe BY RULE the clock will always start on the ready. But, if you really think about it, nothing changes, in that respect. With the clock running, a FST, DOF, etc. would have seen the clock re-start on the RFP, anyway. And any pass that is thrown to conserve time becomes just that - an illegal pass to conserve time (not "intentional grounding"), so, again, by rule, the clock starts on the ready. RR puts in a "catch all" statement about any other foul with the intent of stopping the clock, but those scenarios get "stretchy," although certainly possible (e.g., a player illegally bats or kicks a ball OB to stop the clock). I can't imagine a player committing a hold during the play, with the intent of having that foul stop the clock. Picture this: A77 takes B55 to the ground, but long after the runner has passed. Then he jumps up screaming, "Hey, I was holding him - I was holding him - stop the clock!"  :!#

elewis023

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2011, 10:58:00 AM »
Yes, I believe BY RULE the clock will always start on the ready. But, if you really think about it, nothing changes, in that respect. With the clock running, a FST, DOF, etc. would have seen the clock re-start on the RFP, anyway. And any pass that is thrown to conserve time becomes just that - an illegal pass to conserve time (not "intentional grounding"), so, again, by rule, the clock starts on the ready. RR puts in a "catch all" statement about any other foul with the intent of stopping the clock, but those scenarios get "stretchy," although certainly possible (e.g., a player illegally bats or kicks a ball OB to stop the clock). I can't imagine a player committing a hold during the play, with the intent of having that foul stop the clock. Picture this: A77 takes B55 to the ground, but long after the runner has passed. Then he jumps up screaming, "Hey, I was holding him - I was holding him - stop the clock!"  :!#

That's what I was getting at with my replies.  It reads like that is the enforcement EVERY time, rather than envoking 3-4-3.  It would be nice to get a list of what penalties are classified as "intent of stopping the clock".  Most, if not all, dead-ball fouls (FST, DOF with contact, etc.) would fall into this category, but what about the live-ball fouls??

Offline xkath

  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-8
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2011, 11:51:06 AM »
Can someone help me by explaining a situation where we need a 10 second runoff against the defense? I have racked my brain and have only come up with one foul where a 10 second might be necessary. I am open to any scenarios that you can think of.

Defensive delay of game.

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2011, 12:31:47 PM »
Defensive delay of game.

Disconcerting signals and Using a non-football move to force a false start fit into this category.

RickKY

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2011, 01:31:00 PM »
Recall the end of the Tennessee/UNC bowl game last season?  Would this new rule have changed the outcome of the foul by A just before the game winning FG?

A has too many players on the field as they tried to get the special team on the field for a FG.  The QB took the snap and spied the ball with :01 left, and after the penalty for illegal sub, UNc kicked the FG to win.

Would the foul lead to a run off under this new rule?  I'm not sure how Illegal Sub/Part is handled in NCAA.

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2011, 09:03:22 PM »
Recall the end of the Tennessee/UNC bowl game last season?  Would this new rule have changed the outcome of the foul by A just before the game winning FG?

A has too many players on the field as they tried to get the special team on the field for a FG.  The QB took the snap and spied the ball with :01 left, and after the penalty for illegal sub, UNc kicked the FG to win.

Would the foul lead to a run off under this new rule?  I'm not sure how Illegal Sub/Part is handled in NCAA.

Yes, the new rule would result in the game ending with the 10 second subtraction. The reason is if not all of team A players get set before the snap, it shall be blown dead and called a false start, not an illegal shift as it had been in previous years. This FST then would fall under the 10 second subtraction rule.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2011, 09:05:59 PM by MJT »

Offline RedTD

  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #19 on: April 20, 2011, 01:23:21 PM »
But ---- the officials ruled illegal substitution rather than illegal shift. If that same call is made (illegal sub) we don't have a 10 second run off.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4189
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-350
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2011, 07:17:09 AM »
But ---- the officials ruled illegal substitution rather than illegal shift. If that same call is made (illegal sub) we don't have a 10 second run off.

But as noted in another thread previously, with the additional changes in the false start language for 2011, it would become a false start resulting in the 10 second runoff.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2011, 11:53:47 PM »
But as noted in another thread previously, with the additional changes in the false start language for 2011, it would become a false start resulting in the 10 second runoff.

Exactly. Reddings has filled this loophole and the same play would be a FST and now fall under the new 10 second subtraction rule.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2011, 11:56:55 PM by MJT »

Offline justaLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2011, 07:53:55 AM »
In the UNC/Tenn bowl game, if I remember correctly, the issue was not an illegal shift, 11 players were set at the snap, but 3 or 4 players were running off the field at the same time.

That said, I think RR has closed that loophole as well.  From the Too Many Players on the Field bulletin:

"Whether the snap is imminent or has just occurred, the officials shall stop the action.

2. It is very important that the officials shut the play down before or quickly after the snap if at all possible. When the offense is at fault we have been doing this very well for a number of years. But our response to defensive infractions has been less successful and certainly not as consistent."

If the game clock is running, as was the case in the bowl game, we have an illegal substitution foul that causes the clock to stop, so the 10-second run off would apply.

Thoughts?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4189
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-350
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2011, 08:15:57 AM »
RR's explanation of the new rule read "Starting in 2011, it is a false start if the offensive team is shifting when the ball is made ready for play and has not stopped for a full second before the ball is snapped."  It remains open for interpretation what "....  offensive team is shifting ... " is going to mean until the final language in the rule is determined.  I'm not sure how we decide there's "11 players set for a second" when there's 14 or 15 "players" on the field with some subset of them attempting to leave the field.  Also, IMO a close look at the actual video would confirm that at no time were there 11 players fully set for 1 second prior to the snap on the subject play.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

MJT

  • Guest
Re: Another note from RR on 10-second runoff
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2011, 02:04:46 PM »
RR's explanation of the new rule read "Starting in 2011, it is a false start if the offensive team is shifting when the ball is made ready for play and has not stopped for a full second before the ball is snapped."  It remains open for interpretation what "....  offensive team is shifting ... " is going to mean until the final language in the rule is determined.  I'm not sure how we decide there's "11 players set for a second" when there's 14 or 15 "players" on the field with some subset of them attempting to leave the field.  Also, IMO a close look at the actual video would confirm that at no time were there 11 players fully set for 1 second prior to the snap on the subject play.

There doesn't need to be 11 players set for a second, but ALL players. There were more than 11 out there, then subs running in, and others running out. This rule would have covered the play. The clinic I was just at was lead by Rick Kruger, who was the H for the game. LeMonnier said specifically that it would have covered the play in Rick's game.