Spike the ball to stop the clock

[voiceoflg]

I saw something Friday night (FED) I have never seen before, so I am coming to you all to help educate me.

Clock is winding down so the offense looks to spike the ball to stop the clock. I know the QB has to be under center. Here, the QB is in the shotgun, takes the snap, turns around so his back is to the LOS and spikes the ball. Officials blow the whistle, signal incomplete pass and stop the clock.

Is this the correct ruling? I have no idea, just never saw that before.

[Rich]

No. Backward pass. Play it.

[HLin NC]

Wrong in so many ways.

[bwburke94]

Assuming that the spike was a forward pass (which it may not have been given the description), this seems like intentional grounding.

If the spike was not a forward pass, it is treated the same as any other backward pass and is a live ball. Not a foul because IG requires a forward pass.

[Texas Aggie]

Same in NCAA except [Fed guys ignore the rest...]








passer doesn't have to be under center.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

I saw something Friday night (FED) I have never seen before, so I am coming to you all to help educate me.

Clock is winding down so the offense looks to spike the ball to stop the clock. I know the QB has to be under center. Here, the QB is in the shotgun, takes the snap, turns around so his back is to the LOS and spikes the ball. Officials blow the whistle, signal incomplete pass and stop the clock.

Is this the correct ruling? I have no idea, just never saw that before.

Assuming the ball went backward relative to the field, the correct ruling is for the inadvertent whistle.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Assuming the ball went backward relative to the field, the correct ruling is for the inadvertent whistle.

Would you actually make that mechanical a ruling?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Would you actually make that mechanical a ruling?

When it's the player, rather than an official, who does something stupid, yes.

[MD Longhorn]

The confusion between you two, and why it seems like the other is picking nits is this:

The QB was facing AWAY from the LOS. Unless he threw it straight down toward his feet - the pass likely went backward. but if this was the case, wouldn't even the rookiest of rookies realize that the "spike" was a backward pass?

If he threw it nearly straight down and back toward the LOS (or close enough that R is not positive), it's forward. But this pass seems awkward.

I would be asking why the heck the QB turned to face away from the LOS.

[HLin NC]

I would be asking why the heck the QB turned to face away from the LOS.

Purely speculative but my guess is that is what a/the coach told him to do because he figured out if it isn't a forward pass it wouldn't be IG. The kid MIGHT have come up with it on his own though. Then somebody in stripes blows his whistle and cobbles the whole thing up.

R- "Coach, you remember that question I asked you in pre-game about any unusual plays you might run......?"

[Rich]

An IW is the only reason a clock would stop if there was an IW. It's essentially the definition.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

An IW is the only reason a clock would stop if there was an IW. It's essentially the definition.

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

[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.

[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.