Spike the ball to stop the clock

[Rich]

When an IW sounds, why does the clock stop?

Because of the inadvertent whistle.

[Rich]

The exception is a free kick. If an IW causes a free kick to be replayed, the clock will start as usual.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

When an IW sounds, why does the clock stop?

Because of the inadvertent whistle.

Then maybe you could straighten me out in a way I could answer a question just posed at DumCoach re repeated-down situations.

My understanding of the phrase in 3-4-2 "if the clock was stopped on a down beginning with a snap" refers to the original down, in cases where the down is repeated. 2-7-1 defines a down as from put-in-play to dead ball, but when 5-2-2 refers to "the number of the next down", for purposes of 3-4 does that mean if the down is repeated due to penalty, or, more to the point, according to 4-2-3 following an IW (which refers to a down's being "replayed"), does that mean clock status is the same as for the down that was replayed?

In other words, is the qualifying "if the clock was stopped" in 3-4-2 referring to the situation once the IW occurred, or to the clock status before the play on which the IW occurred? Seems also to depend on the meaning of "on" in "on a down".

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't understand that, nor what it's supposed to be the definition of.

The clock was running, had there not been an IW the clock would still be running. The IW caused the clock to stop. Clock starts on RFP on all IW's, with the exception of a free kick.

[BoomerSooner]

I'm not saying I have an answer here, but just for thought...

What value is there in asking the question of whether the clock was stopped because of an IW or because the R incorrectly ruled a backward pass to be an incomplete pass. In my opinion, since the R signaled an incomplete pass, the clock was stopped due to an incomplete pass. Even if the call is subsequently changed to an IW (more on this below), the clock was initially stopped because of the ruling of an incomplete pass.

Concerning changing the call to an IW; there are plenty of situations in which we don't get the benefit of saying we missed the initial call and thus we're changing the entire ruling. To me it is similar to the HL calling a runner down prior to a fumble but then having the BJ inform him that the ball was loose prior to the runner being down. With the exception of NCAA games with replay, we stick with the call that the runner was down. I've certainly never huddled with the crew and discussed the possibility of calling it an IW. In the OP's case, I don't think it is wise for R to initially determine it was a forward pass and then call it an IW after the fact. I realize my example isn't 100% apples to apples, but I don't think ruling an IW anytime we miss a call is a can of worms we should open.

In OP's case, I think ruling this an IW gives a significant (maybe even unfair) advantage to the offense. Given the situation, the offense benefits from the clock being stopped while the crew discusses the situation and then explains it to both coaches, and they won't even lose a down or be penalized for an IFP because they get to replay the down. While the clock would start on the RFP, the offense would be able to get a play call in while the necessary explanations are being made or even run the FG unit on the field if that was the reason for the attempt to stop the clock. The offense would be set and ready to go on the RFP eliminating the need to spike the ball legally. All of these advantages gained after the offense's attempt to circumvent a rule that is pretty clear...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The clock was running, had there not been an IW the clock would still be running. The IW caused the clock to stop.

I'm not sure I grasp the concept fully. Had it not been for the IW, we don't know how the down might've ended, so we don't know whether the clock would've stopped then or not. The administration of IW of course stops the clock, or a ruling of incomplete forward pass might've be interpreted as having done so. But are you sure it's about whether the clock was stopped then, as opposed to whether it was stopped before the down began which was to be replayed?

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm not sure I grasp the concept fully. Had it not been for the IW, we don't know how the down might've ended, so we don't know whether the clock would've stopped then or not. The administration of IW of course stops the clock, or a ruling of incomplete forward pass might've be interpreted as having done so. But are you sure it's about whether the clock was stopped then, as opposed to whether it was stopped before the down began which was to be replayed?

I think I get the question you're trying to ask. The scenario I think you are asking about is: Clock is stopped and by rule set to start on the snap. During the down, an IW ends the play and A elects to replay the down. Since the down to be replayed required the clock to be started on the snap, shouldn't that status be maintained?

If that is what you are asking, then the answer is no. Replaying the down for an IW does not amount to a "do over". If it did, the game clock would need to be reset to the time prior to the play with the IW. The way to look at it is that the clock was properly started on the snap. A down was completed, albeit with the ending being an IW. When you rule the play to have ended on an IW, the IW is the reason the clock stopped. The definition of an IW is one that occurs while the ball is live and makes the ball dead prior to any of the "standard" reasons for the ball being dead. If the ball was already dead for any other of the "standard" reasons that would have also stopped the clock, then it there can't be an IW. Remember the fundamental that the "whistle seldom kills the ball". An IW is one of those "seldom" times the whistle kills the ball. By rule, the clock starts on the RFP if it was stopped because of an IW. No exception or clarification is made that alters this regardless of whether the down is replayed or accepted.

In my previous post, I asked if there was any value in discussing whether the clock stopped because of an incomplete pass or because of the IW. In reality it was just a question to stimulate thought and then lead into my follow-up of why I think it isn't wise to change the ruling from incomplete pass to IW. That said, if you do initially rule incomplete pass but then change your ruling to an IW, then you are saying the IW is the reason the play ended and the reason for the clock stopping. The initial ruling of an incomplete pass would not longer have any relevance on the administration of the clock, because you can't have an incomplete pass followed by an IW.

[Rich]

There are a lot of officials who think how the previous play started with respect to clock status is relevant -- and with a live ball foul or with an IW, that's just not true.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Rich

There are a lot of officials who think how the previous play started with respect to clock status is relevant -- and with a live ball foul or with an IW, that's just not true.

Bingo...Replay the down does not equal do over.

The other false belief I think exists is that an IW means the down wasn't completed. Just because it didn't end in the normal fashion, that doesn't mean the down wasn't completed. It was a down just like any other down with the exception that it carries a different process for determining where the ball will be put into play on the next play and when the clock will start.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

There are a lot of officials who think how the previous play started with respect to clock status is relevant -- and with a live ball foul or with an IW, that's just not true.

Good, that allows me to answer the question someone had on DumCoach. I think the rules could be clearer on this point, for reasons I laid out above having to do with terms like "replay the down" rather than making clear it's another down but that the number of the down in the series is repeated.

Is this true in the other major codes too?

[tjcport]

For what it's worth, I don't think you should ignore the IW part of this play. The offensive advantage has already been gained by blowing the play dead when it should not be. The problem is compounded further if you ignore options following, because the clock won't start until the next snap. Once the whistle ended the play, 1 of 2 things has to happen in order to start clock on RFP:

1. IW rules, put the ball at the previous spot (they won't want end of run), have the 2 wings let the coach know it will start on ready. White hat may need a quick moment, but coach isn't coaching if he's mad at the R about the decision.

2. A flag mist be thrown for IG, penalty administered and clock starts in RFP due to an illegal attempt to conserve time.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk