Your opinion...please

[Rich]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Ok,mbyron, you have made your point. Allow me to get your call on a couple of other scenarios along the same lines.
In each of these following scenarios, the stage is exactly the same as my original play.

#1 team A comes to the line and the playclock is ticking down to the 5 second mark, and then A75 commits a false start.

#2 team A comes to the line and the play clock is down to the 5 second mark, and then B75 just faints. Falls out, right there, he's out cold.

#3 team A comes to the line and the play clock is down to the 5 second mark. and then A88 (a wide receiver) standing right next to the linesman just throws up his breakfast, lunch AND afternoon snack.

Ok, I'm gonna let YOU answer #2 and #3. But I think we can all agree that certainly in #1 the referee has plenty of authority AND rule support to start the clock on the snap. But what about #2 and #3... ???

mbyron, I have no idea who you are and don't really care. But let me tell you a little about me. I've been officiating high school football for 12 yrs. I've been a Referee for 10 of those years. I study the rules very hard. I make very good on the exam every year. And the exam we take is not the NFHS exam that most other states take. Our exam is extremely difficult. So, please don't be an A$$ and try to make me out to be some guy that just makes up stuff as he goes along. I would imagine that I'm AT LEAST as smart you. So, why don't you leave the attitude at the door?

I don't get on this board all that much. But when I do, its to try and get some interesting conversation going or to get a little advice. What I do not like is DUDEs like youthat just wanna make everything an arguement.

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."

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

I don't get on this board all that much. But when I do, its to try and get some interesting conversation going or to get a little advice. What I do not like is DUDEs like youthat just wanna make everything an arguement.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your original post asked for opinions, and I gave mine. For reasons that are obscure to me, you took that personally, even though I didn't mention you or your game. I didn't even know it was your game when I posted.

If you don't want opinions, don't post on a forum.

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Your original post asked for opinions, and I gave mine. For reasons that are obscure to me, you took that personally, even though I didn't mention you or your game. I didn't even know it was your game when I posted.

If you don't want opinions, don't post on a forum.

Why didn't you at least answer the questions? Come on, I was really looking forward to your intellect and expertise.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Why didn't you at least answer the questions? Come on, I was really looking forward to your intellect and expertise.

Not sure what your problem is. I made no personal comments about you, and you've now posted twice with personal attacks. You apparently lied when you stated that you come to the forum looking only for a good discussion about football.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Why didn't you at least answer the questions? Come on, I was really looking forward to your intellect and expertise.

WTH? What's with the snarkiness, especially after stating you didn't like that kind of nonsense?

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

WTH? What's with the snarkiness, especially after stating you didn't like that kind of nonsense?

OK OK....

#1 what is the definition of snarkiness? I looked it up, nothing.

#2 HE started it with his own brand of clearly confrontational verbage.

#3 Whatever snarkiness means... if its supposed to be the same thing as sarcasm, you have to be careful reading sarcasm into a message board post. Go look at what I said again, I simply wanted him to answer my questions.

#4 he STILL hasn't answered.

[MD Longhorn]

DrMoore - mb responded to two other people's comments on this thread, and then you attacked him - essentially in my book after he had just agreed with you. In this attack you ask him 3 other scenarios and then deride him. I completely don't blame him for ignoring you.

Then after another reply of his, you sarcastically refer to his intelligence and knowledge, implying he has none in your opinion.

All this after he basically said the only way to fix LJ's error is to make up rules (which is what you did). For the record, I likely would have done what you did.

Snarkiness = unnecessary antagonism. Not understanding your continual and completely uncalled for antagonism.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

mbyron, I have no idea who you are and don't really care. But let me tell you a little about me. I've been officiating high school football for 12 yrs. I've been a Referee for 10 of those years. I study the rules very hard. I make very good on the exam every year. And the exam we take is not the NFHS exam that most other states take. Our exam is extremely difficult. So, please don't be an A$$ and try to make me out to be some guy that just makes up stuff as he goes along. I would imagine that I'm AT LEAST as smart you. So, why don't you leave the attitude at the door?

I don't get on this board all that much. But when I do, its to try and get some interesting conversation going or to get a little advice. What I do not like is DUDEs like youthat just wanna make everything an arguement.

THIS is snarkiness. WTH are you calling him out? He said nothing to denigrate you at all, and you suddenly feel the need to throw your resume at him and call him an @$$, and follow that up by telling him he's "making you out to be some guy that just makes stuff up" when he didn't even reply to you in the first place ... and then seem offended when he doesn't reply to the other questions in the post?

YOU are offended? That's absurd.