Re: Re: How would that work..?
 

### it would be simple, any foul by team-A accepted or not and time has expired... GAME OVER.
Unfortunately, this would have to be called an exception.

That would work, but I think that unfairly penalizes "legitimate" penalties... For example, if A holds on a field goal as time expires, the game would be over... I know that's how the NFL does it, but I prefer the notion of the game not ending on an accepted penalty...

I would prefer broadening the powers under 3-7-3 to allow the referee the option of not allowing the untimed down if he thinks the penalty was committed solely for the purposes of extending the game...

Well, we could always add "and scores by the fouling team are cancelled". Now wouldn't that cause some controversy.....hahaha

PiggSkin...a very logical approach to solving such a problem. I believe you mean 3-6-3 and I agree. I was thinking on similar lines. There should be no reason why the referee couldn't invoke such a rule especially since it's obvious which (I believe) the case play even states. Sounds like a good suggestion for a rules change.

3-6-3 only authorizes R to start or stop the clock with the ready. With 2 seconds on the clock, there is still a chance A can snap the ball, the QB legally spike it (stopping the clock) and still have a shot for one final play. If the QB was smart enough to throw an illegal pass to stop the clock - he would certainly be smart enough to have the offense lined up and ready to stop the with the clock immediately after the ready. The more time remaining the greater his chances.

Taking 10 seconds off the clock would reduce the possibility but not eliminate it - what if there were 12 seconds remaining? Short of changing a fundamental (No foul causes loss of the ball) and/or covering this situation under 9-9-3 (Unfair Acts) - I do not see a absolute solution - just things that reduce the chances of it happening.

If a kid knows the rules that well - let's sign him up. He will make a heck of a Ref some day!!

Well, if there were 12 seconds on the clock and the kid was really that aware, I would think they could get a legal snap off to spike the ball before time expired...

The more I think about this, this really shouldn't be that much of an issue for Fed rules... Mainly because someone has to catch the ball and end up with a TD for this to come up... And even if someone was smart enough to devise such a situation, then they should be smart enough to just pitch the ball backwards out of bounds...

Consider this play.
 

Score A7 - B8, 4th quarter
A's ball 4th and 7 on the B15. No timeouts remaining for A
Clock is running 12...10...9
A's field goal unit is hustling to get on the field.
Clock is running 8...7...6
A55, the long snapper, realizing his team will not get the play off before time expires, wisely bends over and picks up the football, then turns and faces the white hat.
R, U, and H all throw flags, blow whistles, and <b>STOP THE CLOCK.</b>
Clock is stopped at 0:03
Crew comes together and determines they have a <b>snap infraction,</b> even though crew agrees that their is no way in hell they would have gotten the play off before time expired.
U marches off 5 yards to the B20 where, (amazingly) the special teams unit for Team A is already lined up.
R gives signal for snap infraction, points to A goal, and correctly winds clock.
A55 immediatly snaps ball on referees whistle and A1 kicks winning field goal as time expires.
Final: A10 - B8

While walking off the field the B coach mentions in passing to the crew; "Golly gee fellas, I kinda feel like our team got a raw deal! Is that little series of events they pulled off really<b> within the spirit or intention of the rules?"</b> It looked to me like they had practiced all that stuff they did. What am I gonna say to my team?

How would <u>you</u> respond to these (legitimate) questions from Coach B?

There is no way you can respond to Coach B with an answer that he would be happy with. I would, however, avoid being in that situation by letting the clock run out knowing Team A could not legally get another play off. When Coach of Team A complains, refer him to Rule 1.1.6

Hey Bob, didn't you see the false start with 1 second left to go?
Since this is also not during the last imed down there will be no extension. And I bet we can signal and mark the ball RPF before they get there this time!

[Edited by Jim S on Jul 27th, 2004 at 07:02 PM]

Re: Consider this play.
 

Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are.

9-9-3
 

Maybe adding 9-9-3 penalty: the game may end; no replay

What do you think?

[Edited by tpaul on Jul 31st, 2004 at 02:35 AM]

Consider this answer!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jack015

Quote:

Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are.

Absolutely not!
<b>1-1-6 </b>refers to a: <b>situation not specifically covered in the rules.</b>
The only foul commited by A during the above play was a snap infraction. <b> AND,
A snap infraction is specifically covered under rule 7-1-3!!!
</b>
<b>3-6-3 </b> allows the Referee to start the clock on the ready for play. However, it is not applicable as by rule the clock was running when the dead ball penalty occurred so the clock will start on the Ready-for-play. And the term Ready-for-Play means the ball may be snapped when the whistle is blown. <b>If the officials were to start the clock and by some means purposley prevent A to snap the ball they would not be performing their duties in the correctly perscribed manner.</b> This course of action is not allowed by rule. Ready-for-play means Ready-for-play!

Now we get to <b>9-9-3</b>
A did nothing to justify <b> ...making a travesty of the game!</b>
Again, all A did is committ a <b>Snap Infraction!</b>
Again, the penalty for a snap infraction is covered in the rules.
Again, if we want to change the rules their are specific guidelines to change them.
While I feel a 10 second runoff may solve some of these issues, a 10 second runoff is not allowed under NFHS rules, therefore I will not implement a 10 second runoff. Others may feel they can start the clock and have the umpire stand over the ball. Again, you would be deralict in your duties if you caused this action to occur.
In summarry, if A fouls and gains an advantage (or a victory) because of it,<b> we are not in a position to attempt to bend the rules because we feel it will correct an immediate problem.</b> It is better to let the players decide the outcome and then file a game report outlining the specific rules issue with your state association.
OR,
Propose a rule change thru your state association.
<b>Don't take the law into your own hands, you are solving nothing and rather <u>YOU are now the problem!</u></b>

Re: Consider this answer!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KWH

Quote:

Originally posted by jack015 Quote: Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are. Absolutely not! <b>1-1-6 </b>refers to a: <b>situation not specifically covered in the rules.</b> The only foul commited by A during the above play was a snap infraction. <b> AND, A snap infraction is specifically covered under rule 7-1-3!!! </b> <b>3-6-3 </b> allows the Referee to start the clock on the ready for play. However, it is not applicable as by rule the clock was running when the dead ball penalty occurred so the clock will start on the Ready-for-play. And the term Ready-for-Play means the ball may be snapped when the whistle is blown. <b>If the officials were to start the clock and by some means purposley prevent A to snap the ball they would not be performing their duties in the correctly perscribed manner.</b> This course of action is not allowed by rule. Ready-for-play means Ready-for-play! Now we get to <b>9-9-3</b> A did nothing to justify <b> ...making a travesty of the game!</b> Again, all A did is committ a <b>Snap Infraction!</b> Again, the penalty for a snap infraction is covered in the rules. Again, if we want to change the rules their are specific guidelines to change them. While I feel a 10 second runoff may solve some of these issues, a 10 second runoff is not allowed under NFHS rules, therefore I will not implement a 10 second runoff. Others may feel they can start the clock and have the umpire stand over the ball. Again, you would be deralict in your duties if you caused this action to occur. In summarry, if A fouls and gains an advantage (or a victory) because of it,<b> we are not in a position to attempt to bend the rules because we feel it will correct an immediate problem.</b> It is better to let the players decide the outcome and then file a game report outlining the specific rules issue with your state association. OR, Propose a rule change thru your state association. <b>Don't take the law into your own hands, you are solving nothing and rather <u>YOU are now the problem!</u></b>

Let it be known that I wasn't trying to "bend the rules." I was looking at a possible change in the rules to stop A from getting an advantage by committing a foul. Is that "making a travesty of the game?" It could be....

I do like the 10 second run off, the best. I was just throwing ideas around.

If the current play happened I would follow the current rules of the NFHS. If A happened to win, so be it.

It doesn't seem right/fair but you are right we can't just change the rules on our own during a game.

Message to tpaul
 

While I <u>was</u> responding to your post, I <u>was not</u> referring to you regarding <b>"bending the rules".</b>
Without being too specific I am concerned with the "tone" of the posts made above by <b>Bob Floyd and Jim S.</b><i>
Oops, maybe I was a little too specific!</i>
And yes, I would welcome any response from Jim S or Bob Floyd as everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Nuff said!!!

There was supposed to be a "wink" icon on that post. Somehow it never got there. I may have removed it when I edited the post. Sorry.