Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
If the amount of time allowed in which to play the ball didn't matter, why was that adopted and left unchanged since so long ago? The 40 second clock or something like it could've been adopted in 1940; why wasn't it? What's changed about the game or people's opinions of it? Was it that nobody much noticed until visible clocks came into use?
|
If I had to venture a guess I would say the assumption was we were generally being consistent if we blew the RFP in 12-15 seconds that was good enough. Then several years ago someone in the NFL came up with the idea of starting a play clock at the end of the play. It's a fairly simple idea but it solves the consistency issue. They did it for several years and then the NCAA adopted it. Everyone there liked it and someone on the rules committee though, "hmmm...that might be a good idea to add to our rules." And they following the process for 4-5 years and it was finally approved.
Things evolve in the game all the time and even though they seem simple and obvious it's sometimes out of the box thinking. A 25-second play clock isn't a bad thing. It generally works fine. But for many the 40/25 provides for a much smoother game and pace. The experiment states all had rave reviews about it. All the new states seem to be a little slower out of the gate and some of that may be resistance to wanting to adopt it. But if done right it really is a smoother and consistent pace.