Quote:
Originally Posted by CT1
Why would anyone be against a procedure that insures greater consistency during a game? It’s one less thing for coaches to yell at us about.
|
Ever since the WLAF experimented with this type of play clock 30 years ago, it's insured consistency in one thing at the expense of consistency in another. When you base the time to put the ball in play while the period clock is running on period clock time (which is what the 40 second clock does), you achieve greater consistency in the amount of time team A can take off period time. However, when you base it on the time from the RFP, you achieve greater consistency in the interval during which team A is allowed to put the ball in play.
One of those things matters to a team that's just looking to consume time, and of course to their opponents. The other matters to a team that likes to go no-huddle and use a lot of shifts and motions, threatening to put the ball in play at any moment. When the 40-second clock is in effect, they can't start doing that anyway until the RFP. Depending on when the RFP comes, the 40 second clock provides either more opportunity to team A to do that or more relief to team B in limiting team A's opportunity to do that, compared to the 25-second clock.