Foul on Last Timed Down

[Bob Floyd]

Now that I have been publicly flogged and tongue-lashed, I apologize for the "tone" of my post and herewith retract it. I certainly don't want to be "the problem". Open discussion of subjects is healthy but we should be careful to "tone" down personal attacks.

[Deep]

Originally posted by KWH

Now we get to 9-9-3
A did nothing to justify ...making a travesty of the game!
Again, all A did is committ a Snap Infraction!
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, we are not in a position to attempt to bend the rules because we feel it will correct an immediate problem. 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.
Don't take the law into your own hands, you are solving nothing and rather YOU are now the problem! [/B]

KWH, your play situation is pretty similar to Play # 9.9.3 SITUATION A in the 2003 Casebook. (I'm in Michigan and we don't get the Casebook in even numbered years, but I assume the play is still in there this year.)

Here's the play:

9.9.3 SITUATION A: A is trailing by five points and has no time-outs left when the play ends on B's 3. The referee oes not feel there is any illegal delay in unpiling and that time will definitely expire before the ball is ready and A gets in position to snap. Quarterback A1 reaches into the pile of players and grabs the ball. He then throws the ball to midfield. RULING: Even if the referee imposes a 15-yard penalty for an unsporstmanlike act, A has accomplished its goal - the clock is stopped and it can get in position and be ready to run a play even though the clock will start on the ready-for-play signal. This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoike the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way that he feels is equitable. In this specific situation the referee should wind the clock and end the game without giving A an opportunity to put the ball in play. (3-6-3) COMMENT: The rule also gives the referee authority to take appropriate action whenever someone not subject to the rules hinders play.



What's your thoughts on this play vs the play you proposed?

[mikesears]

I think they are the same play. A player intentionally fouls to stop the clock. I believe these are situations where the referee can invoke the "unfair acts" rule. I disagree with those who say the referee cannot invoke this rule unless the action isn't covered, but I'd want to be VERY sure that the reaon the player fouled was to stop the clock.

[Jim S]

A good application of the rule.
3.6.3 allows the referee to start or stop the clock due to an illegal act to use or conserve time. It does NOT require that the RFP be blown at the same time.
We do the same thing several times a year. Someone will make an error and signal time out (normally on a mistake with the line to gain). We don't wait to wind the time back in for the RFP, we wind it (without a whistle) as soon as the error is known (and/or correct the time if appropriate). RFP is a seperate entity.
3.6.3 is, pardon the ezpression, an exception to the timing rules. Put there to cover just this kind of situation. To not allow a team yto gain an advantage by committing an illegal act.
Frankly I think it stands by itself well enough that the "unfairs act" rule isn't even needed here.