Quote:
Originally posted by rdfox
Ahh, I smell a trap...
The fourth down play ends short of the line-to-gain, and we stop the clock because it appears that A had not reached the line-to-gain.
However, alas, we have a penalty. Lo and behold, A has indeed reached the line-to-gain after the distance measurement, so the clock stoppage was not for B being awarded a new series, it was only for the movement of the chains.
Start the clock on the ready.
|
REPLY: You certainly did smell a trap! Why did you stop the clock after the 4th down? Wasn't it because A didn't make the line to gain, and therefore the ball is now going over to B? True, there is a foul to dispose of, but you would have stopped the clock anyway for the officials time out. And you said in an earlier post:
Quote:
Originally posted by rdfox
Any time you have a penalty, ask yourself...when would the clock start without the penalty?
And that's your answer as to when to start it, after the penalty enforcement.
|
And clearly in my play by your logic, if there was no foul, you should start the play on the snap since B would be awarded a new series. But yet you said start it on the ready. What's fundamentally different between the originally posted play and the one I posted? Nothing really. In each, we initially stop the clock with an official's time out in anticipation of awarding B a new series. However, in both, a foul against B supersedes this and no new series is awarded. The fact that one play has the COP occurring
during the down and the other has the COP occurring at the conclusion of the down is really immaterial. In both plays, we're initially stopping the clock because of an apparent change of possession and in anticipation of awarding B a new series. If we
do award B the new series, start it on the snap; if we
don't award B a new series, start it on the ready--unless of course the previous down ended with an incomplete pass, ball OOB, score...
Your logic and interpretation of the timing rules is 100% correct...for NCAA, but Federation is different, and in my humble opinion, I think you've got it wrong for Fed.
We may just need to agree to disagree.