Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cmathews
I have been interestingly reading the whole conversation above. I don't really like the fed's position on awarding B a new series versus apparantly awarding B a new series. Really the whole snap vs ready for play issue in the OP is based solely on this interpretation. In the NCAA that play would be on the snap, because you stopped it to apparantly award B a first down. The fed feels that if you don't actually award it, then go back to how the play ended to determine clock status. With the case book play listed above in this post, I really wonder what the fed is thinking. The statement about the end of the play not also causing the clock to stop really comes into play here. The end of the play was B in possesion after a legal kick, if the end of that play doesn't also cause the clock to stop, then the OP here most certainly won't. I must admit however that I don't agree with the case book ruling above, but as usually happens I must have missed the federations call when they were going to consult me on it : ) LOL
|
REPLY: There's a hair's breadth of time in 3.4.2D between the down ending and the clock stopping. The down ends because the receiver is tackled inbounds (presumably). A runner being tackled certainly causes the down to end. But the stoppage of the clock is not caused by the runner being tackled. It's a result of the immediate official's timeout that occurs because of the change of possession and/or because a foul occurred during the down. The key word is "cause." A runner being tackled here caused the down to end, but a runner being tackled never in itself 'causes' the clock to stop.
And you're certainly correct that the Fed considers the 'apparent' change of possession insufficient to start the clock on the snap. For Fed, you must actually award B a new series (reset the chains for him 1-10) in order to start on the snap.