When does the clock start? (NF)

[schwinn]

Originally posted by CBrockett
I have never seen an official stop the clock after a legal kick and give the official's timeout signal.

The fact that you are missing; The clock stops in those situations to award a new series after a legal kick.

Start the clock on the snap.

Just because an official doesn't tap his chest with his two hands doesn't mean it's not a official's TO.

[andy1033]

I quess if you look at the rule book it starts on the ready. If you go by your gut feelings it starts on the snap. I go by the rule book.

[mikesears]

Alright. I think I am back on the side of starting it on the ready-for-play again. I had a lengthy post to try to prove my point and it dawned on me how I couldn't find the rules support. I have since deleted the post (only there for a minute at the most).

The action that killed the down stopped the clock only because a first down was declared. While the action that caused the down to end and cause the clock to stop are simultaneous, in reality we only have an officials timeout to move the chains. (3-5-7b) and nothing that meets the criteria for keeping the clock stopped until the snap.


Because K doesn't get to keep the new series by virtue of their foul, the clock starts on the ready-for-play.

I waffled a little but I am back on the straight and narrow now.

Thanks guys.

[Jaysef]

Forgive my ignorance, but was there not a piece of information missing on the case as originally stated?

If there had been no foul, was K's recovery beyond the line to gain, or not?

If not, R gets the ball, correct? Clock starts on snap.

If the line to gain was made on the recovery, K's ball, new series, correct? Clock starts on RFP.

According to the article cited above in "Referee" , Oct., pg. 21 this is how we should determine when we start the clock: Treat it as if there were no foul, and ask ourselves, why did we stop it, new series for K, or change of possesion, new series for B? Is this article in error?

J

[Daryl H. Long]

The rule I hang my hat on is NF 3-4-2b3. It gives three exceptions to starting on the ready for play.

It is written in the negative tense so lets rewrite it in the positive tense. To do so we have to state it exactly opposite. That means removing the NO/NOT and changing ready for play to snap.

If written in the positive it would look like this:

Art.2...The clock shall start on the SNAP for other than a free kick it the clock was STOPPED:
a. ....
b. Because the ball has become dead following any foul
provided in either (a) or (b):
1. There has been a charged time-out during the dead ball interval.
2. The down is an extension of a period or try.
**** 3. The action which caused the down to end also caused the clock to be stopped.

Since in our sitch the action which caused the down to end (the recovery of the scrimmage kick) also caused the clock to be stopped....therefore according to NF 3-4-2b3 the clock starts on the SNAP.

Also please note one other thing. In both 3-4-2 and 3-4-3 The reason given in both rules for starting clock on snap or ready for play depends ENTIRELY ON WHY THE CLOCK WAS STOPPED.

3-4-2 The clock shall start with the ready for play signal ...IF THE CLOCK WAS STOPPED:

Then the list.

3-4-3 The clock shall start with the snap...IF THE CLOCK WAS STOPPED BECAUSE:

Then the list.

It has nothing to do with whose posession or what down is next.

Mike: don't start wavering on me. You wrote brilliantly in agreement with me.

To those of you relying on FRD..throw it away and just rely on rule books.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Sep 29th, 2005 at 01:58 PM]

[Jim S]

Originally posted by Jaysef
I read "Referee" from October, and on page 21, Rogers Redding explained "If administering a penalty is one of the reasons for stopping the clock, remember the two iron-clad principles for starting it again: the clock should start as it would have if there had been no foul and the clock starts on the snap if the ball will next belong to team B no matter why it was stopped. The second reason trumps the first."

Correct a dumb rookie if I'm wrong, but aren't we killing the clock on each and every 4th down play, due to the fact that either A, or B is getting a new series?

If I am to take Redding's words as gospel, and consider why the clock was stopped as if there was no foul in the original situation (stated 6 pages ago :4th and 10, and R muffs punt, with K recovering), after K regained possession of the muff, was it in advance of the line to gain? If not, R would take over on downs, and the clock would start on the snap. If the recovered muff IS in advance of the LTG, then K is awarded a new series, chains move, and clock starts on RFP.

Sorry to add to this convoluted discussion, but I need clarification.

J

You're missing a point here with your question about whether the ball wound up beyond the LTG. R was the first to touch the kick beyond the expanded neutral zone. So, if there is not an accepted non-psk foul (note that part of the rule) the ball will belong to the team in possession at the end of the down and they will be awarded a new series. 5.1.3f

As to stopping the clock after a 4th down, what rule(s) says that we stop the clock here? That will point you in the right direction. (Papers must be submitted by the end of class on Thursday)

[Edited by Jim S on Sep 29th, 2005 at 02:08 PM]

[l3will]

Originally posted by Jaysef
Forgive my ignorance, but was there not a piece of information missing on the case as originally stated?

If there had been no foul, was K's recovery beyond the line to gain, or not?

If not, R gets the ball, correct? Clock starts on snap.

If the line to gain was made on the recovery, K's ball, new series, correct? Clock starts on RFP.

According to the article cited above in "Referee" , Oct., pg. 21 this is how we should determine when we start the clock: Treat it as if there were no foul, and ask ourselves, why did we stop it, new series for K, or change of possesion, new series for B? Is this article in error?

J

If there had been no foul, since R touched (muffed) the ball beyond the line of scrimmage. If K recovered the ball, it is K's ball with a new series...first and 10, no matter where K recovered the ball.

In this situation, since K gets a new series after a legal scrimmage kick, the clock would start on the snap.
( the above assumes no fouls during the play and that K did not commit first touching - R's muff was the only touching of the ball beyond the line of scrimmage.) Also, in this situation, if K recovers the ball behind the line of scrimmage they may advance the ball. If K recovers the ball beyond the line of scrimmage, they may not advance the ball.

[CBrockett]

Darryl H. Long

Hit the nail on the head with rule 3.4.2b3.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Jim S
You're going to have to explain that you a little further Mike.

Sorry, I deleted the post.

I am doing some more research.

[schwinn]

Daryl: Actions causing the down to end and stopping the clock are listed in 3-4-4. If this punt would have gone OB, then you would have started on the snap after penalty enforcement. If a fair catch would have been made it starts on snap after penalty enforcement. If this play would have been an incomplete forward pass it would start on the snap after penalty enforcement. If this would have been an interception and had penalty acceptance you would start on the ready as you had a completed pass inbounds.

This was a punt recovery inbounds, the clock stopped originally because of the recovered punt, as you always would but when you discover the penalty the overriding reason the clock stops is 5-1-2 and nothing more. As the penalty has to be accounted for, the reason then that the clock stopped was for the penalty and the associated TO, not the recovery. Please Daryl for all our sakes and the lives of our loved ones, accept that it starts on the ready.

[Jim S]

Schwinn, You're close, BUT, can you find a rule that says we stop the clock after a recovered punt (scrimage kick)? Remember the rule must fit all recovered punts to make your assertion correct.
Daryl's only problem here is that he is taking an end result and trying to make it a cause.
This type of discussion is good for the grou. It gets people thinking AND reading.

[Edited by Jim S on Sep 29th, 2005 at 04:02 PM]

[schwinn]

You're right. I even asked that in my first post to counter Daryl's argument. It's 3 pm, my mind is foggy, I need a cup o' joe and a cookie and I'll be back on track.

[Jaysef]

I3Will,

Sorry, I still don't understand why K's recovery of a muffed punt awards them a new series 1 and 10? Ball never changed possession, and the recovery was not in advance of line to gain? Am I missing the forest for the trees? If K is giving up their right to the ball (punt), and they get it back off R's muff, is not the only way they retain possession if they make that original line to gain?

Jaysef

[CBrockett]

The muff is well beyond the line to gain... but only needs to be beyond the expanded neutral zone.

as long as K does not recover in or behind the neutral zone.... It would be then K's ball first in ten.

[Patton]

Originally posted by Jaysef
Sorry, I still don't understand why K's recovery of a muffed punt awards them a new series 1 and 10? Ball never changed possession, and the recovery was not in advance of line to gain?

Rule 5-1-3...When a scrimmage down ends with the ball in the field of play or out of bounds between the goal lines, a new series is awarded to: (f) The team in possession at the end of the down, if R is the first to touch a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the expanded neutral zone, unless the penalty is accepted for a non post-scrimmage kick foul which occurred before the kick ended.

Am I missing the forest for the trees? Yes.

If K is giving up their right to the ball (punt), and they get it back off R's muff, is not the only way they retain possession if they make that original line to gain? No.