Your opinion...please

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's an Internet message forum, what do you expect? Anyhow...

What is your rules justification for not starting the clock in #1? You have discretion if you feel A is attempting to consume time by unfair tactics. You'd invoke the elastic clause (3-4-6) on the *first* false start? You can, but I don't think that would be in the spirit of it.

I'm not saying I wouldn't, but the LJ stopping the clock to set the down box is quite different than the intended use of 3-4-6, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not saying I wouldn't do anything here. I might reset the game clock once the clock's stopped and then wind the clock. I certainly wouldn't deprive A the ability to run 5 seconds off (if the play clock was at 5, why couldn't they run 4.99999 of those seconds off)?

The best solution is "don't stop the clock and fix the down box after the play."

oh, I agree,,, the best solution would be that. But since it happened, I'm just saying that it would be even worse to allow A to consume almost 45 seconds for one play. And yes, 3-4-6 would be allowable even on the 1st false start. In a tight game with 2 minutes left, would you have given them a freebie false start?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

oh, I agree,,, the best solution would be that. But since it happened, I'm just saying that it would be even worse to allow A to consume almost 45 seconds for one play. And yes, 3-4-6 would be allowable even on the 1st false start. In a tight game with 2 minutes left, would you have given them a freebie false start?

Is it an attempt to consume time illegally? I don't think that it is.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Is it an attempt to consume time illegally? I don't think that it is.

Surely you jest. You allow this, and people start doing it on purpose.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Surely you jest. You allow this, and people start doing it on purpose.

If I think it's on purpose, I have rules backing for invoking the elastic clause. If I don't think it's on purpose, it's just part of the game.

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If I think it's on purpose, I have rules backing for invoking the elastic clause. If I don't think it's on purpose, it's just part of the game.

If it happens in the scenario that I describe, I don't even wonder about whether its on purpose. As far as I'm concerned, its on purpose. The rule doesn't require us to be mindreaders.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

If it happens in the scenario that I describe, I don't even wonder about whether its on purpose. As far as I'm concerned, its on purpose. The rule doesn't require us to be mindreaders.

I agree 100%. Players are smarter than we give credit for. You CANNOT let a team get away with this. The INTENT of this rule is to prevent the offense from getting a time advantage by fouling. If you let them because you've "guessed" that it was on accident, you're going against the intent of the rule, and you've very likely let the offense pull one over on you ... and unfairly on the other team.

I can't really understand why you would WANT to allow this.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I agree 100%. Players are smarter than we give credit for. You CANNOT let a team get away with this. The INTENT of this rule is to prevent the offense from getting a time advantage by fouling. If you let them because you've "guessed" that it was on accident, you're going against the intent of the rule, and you've very likely let the offense pull one over on you ... and unfairly on the other team.

I can't really understand why you would WANT to allow this.

I don't and wouldn't. The problem is the rule is written poorly. They could make it so such a penalty wouldn't result in the clock starting. I never understood why an extra 25 seconds is meaningless in the middle of the second quarter, but vital (and should be treated differently) in the waning seconds.