Another 10 Second Question

[chymechowder]

[Don't think this has been brought up. Did a search; if I missed it, sorry!]

"Incomplete illegal forward pass" is one of the things that can trigger a 10 second runoff.  My guess is that they wanted to make the runoff to apply when a QB (behind the line) simply dumps the ball into no-man's land to conserve time.

But as 3-4-4 is written, it doesn't differentiate between dumping the ball to stop the clock and (accidentally) being beyond the NZ making an earnest attempt.

55 seconds left in game. Team A trails by 4.  No timeouts. 1/10 at midfield.  Under pressure A12 rolls out of pocket. He gets to the B-49 and heaves a deep pass to wide open A88 in the endzone.

Whether or not we have a runoff depends on whether or not A88 makes the catch?

This is not a foul that causes the clock to stop. Moreover, it's not even a foul committed to conserve time.  (Granted, most false starts at the end of the game probably aren't committed to stop the clock either. but at least with those, you can correctly say that Team A might benefit from the blow and throw.)

 I can't imagine a play like the one above, where a receiver drops the ball, is one that they intended to hit with a runoff.

Could this be fixed by adding "to stop the clock" or "to conserve time" to the end of 3-4-4-a-3?

[NVFOA_Ump]

What would you call if there was only 9 seconds left in the game when the clock stopped?  Point is IMO, if we have an Illegal FP, forced as it was here by good defensive play, then it's a 10 second runoff.  If the QB paid attention to where he actually was and didn't throw and was tackled inbounds it would be more than 10 secs before the snap went off.  I'm fine with the 10 second runoff here, if for no other reason than to assure officiating consistency.

[chymechowder]

yeah, but I dont see what the defense making a good play has to do with it. you say the QB wouldve been tackled in bounds and more time would run off. but that's not the play I'm trying to describe.

let's say the QB is all alone. he's near the sideline, one yard beyond the NZ and there's nobody near him. his options are to run 15 yards then scoot out of bounds. or heave it 50 yards to a wide open receiver in the endzone.

my point is the foul he commits here--illegal forward pass--neither stops the clock, nor is it committed with the intent of stopping the clock.

as far as clock advantage goes, this foul is no different than a holding penalty on an incomplete (legal) forward pass.  nobody suggests a runoff there, because the foul's commission had nothing to do with the clock.

same goes for an illegal forward pass that isn't thrown to conserve time, right?

[Hursk]

Given the time-critical prerequisites of the runoff rule, I think 3-4-4-a-3 simply takes away trying to divine "intent" by the officials when the passer throws a pass he KNOWS (or should know) is illegal, and the default is that he intended to affect the clock by an illegal act.
Certainly there are situations where "we all know" that he didn't mean to throw an illegal pass, but this takes all the guesswork out of it for us.... it's not unlike the 40 second play clock rule for injured B players: the linebacker may have his knee behind his ear, but A is still entitled to the full 40.
Bottom line for the passer: the only way you can prove that your team is not trying to illegally consume time by your throw is if you (and your buddy) complete the pass.