So, admittedlty, I am a basketball guy. Can someone explain the college rule on the clock stopping and starting after a first down. The announcers thought K state lost some time due to 2 clock starts in the last minute following big gains / first downs as the chain gang was still moving.

FYI I am neither a OSU or K State fan...but I play one on TV

Larks

The clock stops after a first down when the covering official signals, it it started again by the referee when he sees the box (the thing with the number of the down on it that marks the spot of the ball) is set and his crew is set.


I didn't see what the fuss was about - the box was set, the R wound the clock and off they went. The only thing that was screwy was someone kicked the ball and the U had to reset it.

The color guy realized that the clock was running and flipped out. He got ridiculous when he said they lost 10 or 11 seconds. The previous play started with 1:00 left and they had a long pass completed, they stopped it at around :51, set the ball and the box, everyone was set and the R would it and K State snapped it at about :47. That guy thought maybe they should have gone on the snap and not the ready for play.

Gee, an announcer who doesn't know the rules - there's a shocker.

[Edited by ABoselli on Jan 4th, 2004 at 10:20 AM]

Larks, you should know better than to listen to announcers.

Yeah, I know. I am in general not a big college FB fan anyway. Game wasnt decided by those 10 seconds anyway. Seems like they dropped the matter fairly quickly, maybe someome spoke to him on his headset that he was wrong.

ABoselli, thanks for info.

The bigger gaffe
 

I was watching that too, and the play you're referring to may have cost KSU 2 seconds (at MOST), but the play before was about 6-7 seconds off. The chains were nowhere near the line, and the box wasn't set either. R saw the ball set and started the clock (and they seemed to be in a hurry to do this too) - but didn't even look at the chains.

However, the bigger gaff cost KSU about 20 seconds. OSU had the ball with a running clock, and KSU out of timeouts. They got set, and were waiting for the clock to say 1 second before snapping. The TE on the right side committed a false start with about 5 seconds left on the playclock. They flagged it and walked it. Then THEY RESTARTED THE CLOCK! This ran off another 25 seconds that OSU should have had the benefit of running off.

Re: The bigger gaffe
 

mcrowder, I'm confused...
number 1 why wouldn't you restart the clock?
Number 2 it appears that OSU did have the benefit of running that time off of the clock??

I didn't see the game so I don't know if part of the post is mistyped or what...

If they did it for the purpose of illegally consuming time, then you would start it on the snap. There's the rub - was it on purpose? Granted, I would have started it on the snap, but that can't be supported by the rule book per se.

I don't think K State lost the game due to this play. They were lollygagging around with 6 minutes left like they didn't have a care in the world (they were down 35-14).

Also, maybe having a QB who isn't going 17-98 might help, too.

REPLY: Here's the NCAA rule and a case play:

<b>NCAA 3-4-3:</b> <i>”The referee shall order the game clock started or stopped whenever either team conserves or consumes playing time by tactics obviously unfair. This includes starting the clock on the snap if the foul is by the team ahead in the score. The clock will start on the ready-for-play signal after an illegal forward or backward pass that conserves time for Team A (A.R. 3-4-3-I-IV).”</i>

Here’s the only AR that even comes close to the situation that we’re talking about: <b>AR 3.4.3 I</b>: <i> “In an attempt to consume time in the fourth period, Team A “stalls’’ and exceeds the 25-second count. RULING: Penalty—Five yards from the succeeding spot. The clock starts on the snap.”</i>

I can't believe this is actually an argument...

But it's obvious that OSU "consumed playing time by tactics obviously unfair", and the situation was one in which "the fould is by the team ahead in the score."

Are you really telling me that if faced with a game situation where the offense is trying to run out the clock, but will be unable to, and they run down the majority of the 25-second clock before committing a dead-ball foul, that you will wind the clock again?!?!?!

By this logic a team could "accidentally" run off 3-4 minutes very easily at the end of a game (or Saban could have simply committed a false start last night on purpose, thus avoiding the need to punt).

PS - I didn't have any vested interest in either team, and was, in fact, rooting for OSU due to picking them in my office pool... but it was blatantly obvious to me that they got screwed.

Easy now- I think AB and Bob M are agreeing with you!

You're obviously NOT a football official. You are looking at this as a fan. The rules allow us to deviate from regular timing rules when it is clear there is something illegal. If they committed a second false start, the R may atart the clock on the snap. This happens in almost every game. It also happens early in the game taht almost a minute can run off between plays because of a penalty.

Obviously, I'm not. Except for the 5 years on the field and the 102 games last year. Granted, my varsity experience is limited (it's hard to break in in Texas), but not non-existant. I'm not the best official on the planet, but I do know the rules.

I think this is pretty clear cut. We have the option to start or not start the clock when one team will either conserve or consume time via a violation when they were not otherwise "entitled" to consume or conserve. I know that's not the exact wording, but that's what it comes down to. The foul (false start) happened near the end of a 25-second play - and "gave" OSU an extra 20 seconds or so that they would not have been unable to run off had they not committed the infraction.

If the referees did not have such leeway (and did not USE such leeway), then EVERY team with the lead and the ball would "accidentally" false start once or twice when you are under 2 minutes in order to get an extra 20-25 seconds run off.

I think it would help if the NCAA were to codify when the clock should stop and start on a situation like the one that happened in the Fiesta Bowl rather than leave it totally to the referee's discretion, therefore taking the mind reading aspect out of the equation.

Make a specific time in the game where fouls by the offense when they are leading result in a clock start at the snap. It is POSSIBLE that the guy who jumped legitimately missed the snap count - the QB wasn't going to start his cadence until late in the play clock anyway, so that's when a guy who missed the snap count would jump. Maybe he did it on purpose, maybe he didn't, but 'intentionally' is part of the rule. Take that out, and it cleans that situation up.

Hey Guys,
As we all can see, these timing situations can get a little hectic at times. (ie What's intentionally stopping the clock, what's not, ect ect) For what its worth, a principle I have often used is, "Never give the benefit of the doubt to the team that committed the illegal act."
In the play above, it is very hard to judge the intent. But as we can see, intentional or not, the offense has gained a signifigant timing advantage with the foul. In similar situations, I have kept the clock stopped until the snap.
Another situation this often occurs in is when a passer intentionally grounds the ball near the end of a half. Was it to save yardage or stop the clock?? Again, hard to judge intent, but in those situations the team that committed the illegal act has gained a signifigant timing advantage if the clock remains stopped until the snap. In those types of plays, I've usually started the clock on the ready.
I don't believe it is the spirit and intent of the rules that a team should get any advantage by committing illegal acts. Regardless of how the rule is "exactly" phrased, I think the integrity of the game is better protected if we keep the adage above in mind.

Just my opinion,
Doc

Even if you don't flag for intentional grounding?