Ten-second subtraction when a measurement occurs?

[Morningrise]

I don't remember seeing this in a bulletin before: If a dead-ball foul stops the clock in the final minute, and a measurement is necessary after the same play, does a ten-second subtraction apply? Does it matter whether the foul or the measurement whistle came first?

Third down and 7 at the B-10. Team A trails by three points in the final minute and has no timeouts. Ball carrier A33 is tackled inbounds near the B-3. After the play, A66 hits an opponent late. Nine seconds remain in the fourth quarter.

We know that:
a) If the ball is obviously short of the B-3, only the foul stopped the clock. A subtraction occurs and the game is over.
b) If the ball is obviously beyond the B-3, the clock has stopped to award a new series of downs (even if the foul precedes the actual clock-stop signal). A subtraction does NOT occur; A's 1st and 10 at the B-17, clock on the ready.

But what if...

c) The officials had stopped the clock for a measurement before A66 fouled. The measurement eventually shows the ball is short of the line to gain.
d) Same, except the ball is beyond the line to gain.
e) The officials had NOT stopped the clock before A66 fouled, but they do eventually measure. The ball is short of the line.
f) Same, except the ball is beyond the line.

[El Macman]

RR will have to offer some conclusive rulings, but, if we remember the purpose of the 10-second subtraction, the answers are somewhat self-evident, IMHO. The 10-second subtraction is there to prevent the fouling team from benefitting by committing a foul to stop the clock. If we have already stopped the clock to complete another penalty, for a measurement, or for some other reason to which the 10-second subtraction would not apply, then the fouling team gets no unwarranted benefit by committing a / another foul. So the 10SS would not apply.
So, in a thru d, no 10SS. In e & f, yes, 10SS. e) and f) are ones that RR really needs to address, but the fouling team benefits by stopping the clock with the foul, even if we eventually measure, so the 10SS must apply. It might otherwise have taken 4-5 seconds (or more) for the R get to the dead-ball spot, take a look and decide to stop the clock to measure. That is a significant chunk of time, especially when under 1 minute.
Not interpretations, just opinions.

[Diablo]

Look at Play & Ruling 4 in Rom Gilbert's Week 9 Quiz and Answers, respectively.

4. PLAY: Second and 7 on B's 20. Neither team has timeouts remaining. A88 is tackled near B's 13. A few seconds after the ball is dead, A78 commits a personal foul. When the officials flag this foul and stop the game clock, the game clock shows 0:07 in the fourth quarter. A measurement shows that Team A made a first down by one inch. Game clock?

4. RULING: A 1/10 B28;Ready. Game clock: 0:07. There is no ZAP 10 since the clock was stopped to award Team A a first down. The 15-yard penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot, B's 13. If the measurement showed that Team A was short of a first down by one inch, for example, the clock would have been stopped because of the foul. ZAP 10 would apply and the fourth quarter would end if the ZAP 10 was elected by Team B. (2011 NCAA Rule Change Bulletin, Examples: Ten-Second Subtraction, Play #19 modified)

Rom's Play appears to mirror scenario f; hence, no 10 sec subtraction.  The wording in parenthesis at the end of his Rulings usually denotes that Rom has "official" evidence to support his Ruling.  If interested, I suggest you email him for confirmation.

On the flip side, I'd like to think that RR would apply the 10 sec subtraction if a measurement came up short of the line to gain, independent of whether the clock was stopped at the end of the down or when the dead-ball foul occurred.

[Andrew McCarthy]

Here is the mentioned play #19, which in my opinion gives no guidance to the question at hand...

19. Second and 5 at the B-30. Ball carrier A22 is tackled at the B-28 for a two-yard gain. A few seconds after the ball is dead A78 commits a personal foul or a foul for unsportsmanlike conduct. When the officials flag this foul and stop the game clock, there are 7 seconds left.

RULING: The dead-ball foul by A78 causes the clock to stop and the 10-second subtraction applies. The game is over.
NOTE: If this happens in the second quarter the penalty will be enforced at the start of the second half.

In my opinion, if the clock is running when the dead ball foul occurs then we have a 10SS.  If we stop it for the measurement prior to the foul, no 10SS.  That follows the wording of the rule.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'm in El Macman's camp here.  I agree that the rule and the AR's as well as the preseason documents describing the changes make it clear that the 10 second runoff is limited to a situation where the fouling team actually gained a real game clock advantage.

[Diablo]

Here is the mentioned play #19, which in my opinion gives no guidance to the question at hand...

4. RULING: A 1/10 B28;Ready. Game clock: 0:07. There is no ZAP 10 since the clock was stopped to award Team A a first down. The 15-yard penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot, B's 13. If the measurement showed that Team A was short of a first down by one inch, for example, the clock would have been stopped because of the foul. ZAP 10 would apply and the fourth quarter would end if the ZAP 10 was elected by Team B. (2011 NCAA Rule Change Bulletin, Examples: Ten-Second Subtraction, Play #19 modified)

Note that Rom references "Play #19 modified".  Perhaps, he amended Play #19 to include  the ball carrier being tackled close to the line-to-gain and got an official interpretation on the modified play.

[mccormicw]

Is the intent of the rule to stop a team from intentionally fouling to gain a clock advantage or any situation where a team may get an advantage?

[Andrew McCarthy]

Note that Rom references "Play #19 modified".  Perhaps, he amended Play #19 to include  the ball carrier being tackled close to the line-to-gain and got an official interpretation on the modified play.

My point is that the play has been so significantly modified that I'm not sure why he even referenced that play.