So, you now admit that the rule exists but your going to ignore it anyway and do what you want to?

Sad day. :(

The case that is clear is 5.10.1 Situation D; there is no controversy, or am I missing something?

Yeah, you're missing something. Case 5.10.1.d addresses the lag time between the time an official blows his whistle and the time that subsequently elapses on the clock due to the timer flipping the switch (or hitting the button). That's not what we're discussing.

The case we're discussing has to do with whether you should chop the clock when the ball is touched on the court on a throw in (which is the rule) if the type of touch is a violation (the clock start rule makes no distinction, so you chop) and the subsequent time elapsed before you can then blow your whistle for the violation and to stop the clock.

I guess my comment to those who feel that since the touch and violation happen "simultaneously", there should be no time off the clock is - if you want a rule change to cover that, you'll have to chop and blow simultaneously. Or else recognize the violation will occur before it actually does and not chop at all. I'm not sure we should be doing that. I like it the way it is.

Easy to change. Just add the word "legally."
NCAA and NBA have it, why not NF?

I agree it should read legally. How does it make any sense at all that the clock starts when it should never start?

If there is a kick on an inbounds thrown in... a goal tend or BI on a throw-in or ball gets caught on a sideline OOB ( which actually means that the ball was never legally inbounded in my opinion but that's something for another post).

It seems fundamentally unfair( of course we know that not all rules are fair) that a team could lose time because the other team violates and continue to gain an unfair advantage in that violation. To stretch this scenario a little. all the team has to do is kick the ball on the inbounds play four to six times on defense and the offense does not have a chance to even get a shot off.

Now a little more realistic play... Team A is down by 2 points, and have the ball OOB near the 28 ft line. 1.6 seconds left on the clock. Plenty of time to catch and make a good shot that could do some damage. Inbounds throw in is kicked and a "reasonable" 1.3 seconds runs off the clock. It does not seem right to tell the coach that now he has only a tap to get his win because of the defense's kick. Of course it is the rule but may be an editorial issue that needs to be brought up...

It is clear the violation is the touch. Now how many officials in all honesty chop the time in and then blow the whistle for the violation. It seems to me part of the reason NF wants us to keep up an open hand is to tell them to keep the clock stopped... I've also been given a rationale by other senior NF officials is that mechanic is there so that if there is something that happens we dont have to raise the hand. The violation happens simultaneously with the touch, I think it is ridiculous to take time off the clock because of the lag time rule.It is ironic to note that the jump ball provision has the ball legally being touched as the time to start the clock.

There I'm off my soap box but this rule, like the opening tip A/P garbage on a catch need to be re-written so they are fair and use common sense

Check the archives for this one!

:rolleyes:

Let's start over (using NF), and see where a correction can be made:

The ball comes in and touches B3 (is kicked).

The timer has the power/authority to start the clock even when you don't chop -- so he starts the clock.

You whistle the play dead.

The timer stops the clock with 5.9 seconds remaining.

The timer has not made a mistake according to the rules (only according to common sense).

If the timer hasn't made a mistake, then you can't change the time (5-10-1).

Kelvin - you just put two things together that really made me think. You're absolutely correct on the rule to start the clock on a jump only when the ball is legally touched. How can the NF then defend their position that a jumper catching the ball before the restrictions end establishes first possession if, because of the rule that the clock shouldn't start by that particular touch because it is not legal, the violation takes place prior to the clock starting?

I guess they could make the case that you can have a violation when the clock doesn't run (like an inbound violation for a five second count), but this is a case of having a violation prior to the clock ever starting. Of course (there's always an "of course", isn't there?), you can have a technical foul before the clock ever starts, so I guess they can make the case that you can have a violation, too.

Never mind.

Slider is correct.

The rule is the rule.

The "no tuck" is the rule in the NFL, but that's not the rule in the NF. People who don't like the rule will work to change it. But until then, if the same play that occurred in the Raiders/Pats game, occurs in the Super Bowl, the ruling will be the same.

Starting the clock is the rule in the NF. It's not the rule in the NBA or NCAA. Who cares? I don't.

Until they change it, you should call it like it's written. Those who know the rule, have had it explained to them, and still choose to call it wrong, make it more difficult for those of us who call it properly. There is leeway in some things but this is very clear. The clock starts when the ball is touched inbounds.