25/40 Play clock

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

That’s just plain wrong.

Assuming that (under the old rule) the RFP was blown within 12-15 seconds after the end of the previous play, that provided a 37-40 second window to snap.

Even under that generous assumption, that's still a variation of 3 seconds. 3 seconds that one team might want to have, and the other team not want them to have. If it didn't matter, this discussion wouldn't arise. It's not a matter of the time's being sufficient, but of its being fixed.

Whether the game clock is running or dead has no bearing on the time period between the end of the previous play and the next snap.

No, but the conditions that determine whether the game clock is running or not do.

If the amount of time allowed in which to play the ball didn't matter, why was that adopted and left unchanged since so long ago? The 40 second clock or something like it could've been adopted in 1940; why wasn't it? What's changed about the game or people's opinions of it? Was it that nobody much noticed until visible clocks came into use?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If the amount of time allowed in which to play the ball didn't matter, why was that adopted and left unchanged since so long ago? The 40 second clock or something like it could've been adopted in 1940; why wasn't it? What's changed about the game or people's opinions of it? Was it that nobody much noticed until visible clocks came into use?

If I had to venture a guess I would say the assumption was we were generally being consistent if we blew the RFP in 12-15 seconds that was good enough. Then several years ago someone in the NFL came up with the idea of starting a play clock at the end of the play. It's a fairly simple idea but it solves the consistency issue. They did it for several years and then the NCAA adopted it. Everyone there liked it and someone on the rules committee though, "hmmm...that might be a good idea to add to our rules." And they following the process for 4-5 years and it was finally approved.

Things evolve in the game all the time and even though they seem simple and obvious it's sometimes out of the box thinking. A 25-second play clock isn't a bad thing. It generally works fine. But for many the 40/25 provides for a much smoother game and pace. The experiment states all had rave reviews about it. All the new states seem to be a little slower out of the gate and some of that may be resistance to wanting to adopt it. But if done right it really is a smoother and consistent pace.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

several years ago someone in the NFL came up with the idea of starting a play clock at the end of the play.

They tested it first in the WLAF with a 35 second clock. That was one of the reasons for the WLAF: to be a test bed for rules. 35 seconds was found to be unbearably fast, so when the NFL finally did adopt it, they made it 45, which turned out to be unbearably slow.

Whatever, it seems the rules makers have decided that out of this:

DEAD BALL......................................RFP..... ...............................TIME UP

they're more concerned that the total interval be fixed, rather than the interval from RFP to "delay of game".

But then, sometimes they make goofy decisions in that regard. At one time they limited only time in the huddle. Then when they realized time could be wasted "on the line" (officials' judgment as to when that became delay of game), they started limiting both time in the huddle and total time, before someone asked why anyone should care how much of the total time to play the ball the team spent in the huddle.