NCAA scrapping game-shortening rules

[voiceoflg]

Per the AJC

The NCAA Rules Committee on Wednesday eliminated the year-old battery of regulations intended to shorten game times, acknowledging that the rules' residual effect — the loss an average 12 plays per game — had unfairly altered the course of play.

Most importantly, the committee restored the old regulation that the game clock starts with snap after a change in possession. Last season, the clock would resume running when the ball was whistled ready for play. Additionally, the clock will not start after a free kick until it is legally touched, unlike the new 2006 rule that stipulated the clock-start when the ball was kicked.

New measures recommended

• Limit the play clock to 15 seconds following a television timeout.

• Kickoffs moved from 35-yard line to 30-yard line.

• Reduced charged team timeouts by 30 seconds.

• Penalties for all kicking team fouls that occur during the kick can be enforced at the end of the run.

• Encourage coaches, officials, game management personnel, media partners to manage the game in a more efficient manner.

• Play clock is started when the ball is handed to the kicker by the umpire on all free kicks.

• Limit instant replay reviews to two minutes to decide to overturn or confirm the ruling on the field.

[Texas Aggie]

Play clock is started when the ball is handed to the kicker by the umpire on all free kicks.

What if they are huddled or not out on the field? Not so big an issue at the college level (where, I realize these rules are aimed), but in the high school games (particularly subvarsity) I do, this may be an issue. Of course, we can always make an exception.

I'm hopeful this means Texas goes back to same year NCAA rules.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Here's the link to the NCAA press release...

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...cmtee_rls.html

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

What if they are huddled or not out on the field? Not so big an issue at the college level (where, I realize these rules are aimed), but in the high school games (particularly subvarsity) I do, this may be an issue. Of course, we can always make an exception.

I'm hopeful this means Texas goes back to same year NCAA rules.

Well, what does Texas (or MA) currently do on a free kick with the play clock now? You probably wait for all the officials to signal (arm up) that they are ready and then the R blows the RFP.

I don't see any reason for the two states to not make an exception to this rule just as they do for many other rules. I'm sure TX/MA is not going to move the free kick to the 30. They'll stay where they are today as one of their exceptions.

I like this change at the NCAA level. The officials should be ready as soon as they get to their spot. No need to wait for all that arm signaling up and down the field.

[MJT]

Is this for sure next year? That would be great if it is!

In other news, starting in 2008 the committee approved a 40-second/25-second play clock combination. The committee, reviewing strong support for a 40-second/25-second play from coaches, officials and administrators, approved this move to achieve a more uniform pace of play.

[Texas Aggie]

I must be the only one in the world that thought the timing rules were good. They did cause a problem in Texas HS, but other than that, I think the clock SHOULD start on the kick (except for after a penalty on Team A) and I don't have a problem with the clock starting on the new series, although I think that was the biggest gripe.

I just think it might be better to revisit the incomplete pass and out of bounds stopping the clock and keeping it stopped until the snap. Why not make it like a first down: stop the clock, then wind it on RFP? At least on OOB, keeping the spike rule in place.

[NickelDeuce]

Aggie, that would be great about incomplete passes starting on the ready but what about late in the game when timing is so critical. I don't think you can come back to the ready after an incomplete pass or a runner out of bounds unless you have 2 minute timing rules like the NFL does.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I must be the only one in the world that thought the timing rules were good. They did cause a problem in Texas HS, but other than that, I think the clock SHOULD start on the kick (except for after a penalty on Team A) and I don't have a problem with the clock starting on the new series, although I think that was the biggest gripe.

I just think it might be better to revisit the incomplete pass and out of bounds stopping the clock and keeping it stopped until the snap. Why not make it like a first down: stop the clock, then wind it on RFP? At least on OOB, keeping the spike rule in place.

The Penn St. game last year is one reason why starting the clock on the kick had to be changed. NFL timing rules are great, starts on RFP after going OOB's, keeps going on 1st downs, starts on RFP after a penalty,... and they slow it down the last 2 minutes of the 1st half and 4 minutes of the game.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by NickelDeuce

Aggie, that would be great about incomplete passes starting on the ready but what about late in the game when timing is so critical. I don't think you can come back to the ready after an incomplete pass or a runner out of bounds unless you have 2 minute timing rules like the NFL does.

REPLY: And starting on the ready after an incomplete pass would take the 'spike' play out of the book.

[Texas Aggie]

Guys, please read a LITTLE more carefully.

The Penn St. game last year is one reason why starting the clock on the kick had to be changed.

That's why I said,

I think the clock SHOULD start on the kick (except for after a penalty on Team A)

And starting on the ready after an incomplete pass would take the 'spike' play out of the book.

Which is why I made the comment,

At least on OOB, keeping the spike rule in place.

Besides, even if you changed the inc. pass rule, the spike rule could still be in place, as it would stop the clock until the ball is set for RFP. Granted thats not a great deal of time, but in certain cases it could be useful -- i.e. running up after a long pass play.

I think historically, the forward pass play was somewhat irregular, that the clock stopped after an incomplete pass for reasons like chasing the ball, allowing the team time to return to a huddle after being downfiield, etc. Now, the passing game is a much bigger part of the game than it was 20-40 years ago, that perhaps clock rules need to be revisited.

I know the varsity coaches in Texas didn't like the new timing rules because they felt ANY decrease in total playing time would create some apathy (and possible quitting) by some players. Whether that's true or not, we have some jr. high games that go on for 2 hours because both teams run a passing offense and complete 30% of their passes. I know this isn't an NCAA problem, but when I work 20-25 such games a year, it certainly is on my mind.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from. I expect to be in the minority on this one, and am just interested in seeing if there's a new idea that could resolve everyone's concerns.

[TXMike]

The Texas varsity coaches never had to , and never will, have to worry aout the new timing rules as they never applied to Texas HS games. (And from all I have heard from folks at TASO/UIL and THSCA, even if the 2006 book had been used in Texas, they would have had exceptions for the timing rule changes. )

[grantsrc]

And people keep saying stuff about the Penn St vs. Wisconsin game. College conferences addressed that issue the following week to prevent that from happening again.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

And people keep saying stuff about the Penn St vs. Wisconsin game. College conferences addressed that issue the following week to prevent that from happening again.

What did they say? The only thing I heard was Adams saying the officials should have ruled 9-9. He didn't say how they should have handled it as far I I heard, just invoke 9-9.

[TXMike]

(What is 9-9 ??)

I recall there were some internet posts that indicated certain conferences had issued guidance to their crews and coaches to head off any further lunacy after the PSU-Wisc game. But Adams actually spoke out and made it clear, to me anyway, that it should be left to the discretion of the involved crew.

Quotes from a news article on the story:

"Obviously, that's taking advantage of the rules and shouldn't be allowed," John Adams, the NCAA's rules interpreter, said Monday. "We certainly wouldn't condone that."

Yesterday, during his weekly press conference, Bielema offered no apologies.

"It worked out exactly as we envisioned it," Bielema said. "It was something that we had practiced."

Bielema was able to burn the clock because of a rule the NCAA playing rules oversight panel approved during the offseason. The rationale for the rule change was that it would help trim the length of games by about five minutes.

"I don't necessarily agree with the rule the way that it's written," Bielema said. "But I knew the rule, and I wanted to maximize it. I have to put my team in a position to have success."

After the second kickoff attempt, Penn State coach Joe Paterno ran onto the field and asked why the referees had not called an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Wisconsin.

"He was upset that (the Badgers) were doing it deliberately," Nittany Lions defensive coordinator Tom Bradley said.

No penalty was called, but the referees told both teams the clock would not start if the third kick was offside.

Adams said something should have been done after the first blatant offside play.

"I think after the first time it happens, you know what's going on and that it's an unfair act," Adams said.

Adams said the refs should have taken action under a rule that states: "If an obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game, the referee may take any action he considers equitable, including assessing a penalty."

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Adams said the refs should have taken action under a rule that states: "If an obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game, the referee may take any action he considers equitable, including assessing a penalty."

The problem (at least to me) with his comments at the time are that this obviously unfair act IS specifically covered by the rules. I truly think that if the referee on ths spot took matters into his own hands and started invoking this rule, he'd have been crucified in the press and possibly by the NCAA afterward.

The whole fiasco lies at the feet of the NCAA, who SHOULD have been able to anticipate such a misuse of the rule (heck ... we did here!) and write the rule correctly to avoid such an instance.