Your opinion...please
 

NFHS rules...

Team A leads the game 24-21

Team has the ball and has just ran a running play that ends inbounds. The clock is running and the R marks the ball RFP with 2:20 left in the 4th Qtr. It is now 3rd down and 5 to go. When the R marked it ready, the downbox correctly shows 3rd down.

After the ball is marked RFP, the downbox operator gets confused and changes the downbox back to 2nd. The Referee sees this, but since there was already a good 10 seconds ran off the playclock, he does nothing.

With the playclock ran down to 5 seconds, the Linejudge comes running in and kills the clock. He states that the downbox is wrong. It is really 3rd down. The R instructs the downbox to be fixed. And then begins to think about the clock. He realizes that team A has just milked 20 seconds off the clock with no play ran. He also realizes that another 20 plus seconds are about to be ran off the clock before another snap is made. He believes that this just isn't right. So, therefore, he decides to mark the ball RFP and NOT wind the clock.

Not that it really matters, but Team A ultimately wins the ballgame. But I thought I would throw that in there.

Good decision? Bad decision?

Unfortunately, there's no rule basis for what the referee did. I would have wound it.

+1

It's also unfortunate that there's no mechanics basis for what the LJ did. He's got to know that the clock is more important here than the downbox. I would have wound him!

Canadian Interpretation
 

CANADIAN INTERP:

I would not have reset the play clock, and I would have specifically told the Team A QB that he has 5 seconds to snap the ball, but that I would wait until he was under centre (or in shotgun) before I wound the game clock and play clock simultaneously.

For the record, can I assume that you claim there is a method to handle this situation that is recommended, or even in text?

Or, did the R in this case use the elastic power rule?

Not gonna deny it. I was the Referee in this scenario.

Not gonna argue with anyone about the fact that there really isn't any rule support for the decision I made here. Unless of course you want to consider rule 1-1-6. I honestly don't think its all that crazy to consider 1-1-6 here.

Bottom line is this. I think we all need to try our best to do what is right. In this particular case I feel very comfortable in that regard. This was a very out of the ordinary kind of circumstance. The LJ should not have killed the clock in the 1st place. But since it happened, I had to deal with it the best way I knew how. I could've told team A that they had a 5 second play clock as someone suggested. But that would've been kinda difficult to do with the 25 second clock on the field in each endzone. I Would've had to go over and coordinate that with the pressbox. It would've been a major disruption to the flow of the game. So, I did what I did.

Obviously I've been thinking about it since the game this past friday, otherwise I wouldn't have even posted this. So, yeah, I wanted to get some opinions from the very smart folks on here.

Also, since I'm assuming everyone here loves football here just as much as I do. Allow me to share what happened after the 25 second clock scenario. Very wild and crazy game between 2 very determined teams.

With 2:00 left in the game, Team A throws an incomplete pass. Brings up 4th down. They punt to team B. Team B gets a decent return. And within a couple plays or so, team B scores. Score is now 28-24 for team B. Team B then kicks off and team A runs a play or 2. Then team A throws an interception and takes it back for a TD. Now its 35-24 for team B. There is about 1:00 on the clock by this point. Team B kicks off again. Team A takes it all the way for a TD, and they go for 2 and fail. Now its 35-30 for team B. Maybe about 50 seconds left. Team A executes a picture perfect onside kick and gets it. Now, they have the ball with 1 timeout in their pocket. They didn't even have to use it. They threw great passes and get out of bounds to kill the clock. And the eventually scored a TD with 9 seconds left. They went for 2 and failed.

All that was left was a kickoff and one desperation pass. Ballgame over! Team A wins 36-35.

What a game it was.

My Fed rules are sooooo ooolllld that that was 1-1-3, apparently having just been broken out of 1-1-2. However, unless things have changed, there's more specific justif'n, which was at that time 3-5-5h:

"An official's time-out occurs when...he orders the clock stopped...any unusual delay in getting the ball ready-for-play, or similar reasons which are not listed."

I would have done what you did: not wind the clock. Rule 1-1-6 allows the referee to rule promptly on situations not specifically covered in the rules. Here Team A ran ~20s off the play clock in a close game. It would not be within the spirit of the rules to allow them to run an additional 20s off the clock.

I disagree that the LJ should not have killed the clock here. What you did with the situation afterwards is your call.as the WH.

Once my back is turned to my box, I've got no idea what my boxman is doing. A good LJ would catch it and if he couldn't get my attention and get it corrected prior to the snap, his only other option is to stop the clock.

I'd much rather have a correctable clock error than a missed or added down to sort through.

Nah... just tell the coaches that the play clock will expire at 20 seconds.

The problem with this advice is that the OP IS covered in the rules. LJ called an official's time out. 3-4-2 explicitly requires the clock to start on the RFP after an official's time out (with some exceptions irrelevant to the OP).

It's a very bad habit to think that because one is not sure how the rules apply to a case that one therefore can just make sh!te up. 1-1-6 allows officials to deal with a cow that wanders onto the field, not with unusual timing situations.

I disagree with your assessment of the worse problem. You play the down mistakenly marked "2," then fix the box. Most participants will probably recognize the error anyway.

To stop the clock and restart it after giving A a new 25 is not a "correctable clock error," because it's not an error at all. It's the officials giving A a significant and unfair advantage in their efforts to run out the clock, all because the LJ decided to fix the box. It's taking a minor error and making it major.

The only way to "correct" this "error" would be to invent your own rules, as some here have proposed.

There is no easy remedy for what happened here. The "god rule" does allow R the flexibility to handle such situations as he feels is fair, thus making any decision he makes covered by rule.
I have no problem with LJ stopping the clock to correct the down box in this situation. It is a bit harder to explain after the play that "it is really 4th down now but we just decided not to correct it on the box before the last play....". I feel it is easier to add time back on the clock, reset the 25 second clock and go.

Lets not get too dogmatic and accusitory in our opinions here..it is a learning forum

peace

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So noted... I apologize to mbyron and the rest of the board. But I just want to clarify, I do not make a habit of inventing my own rules. This was a difficult situation to deal with and maybe I'm just a little on edge.

Once again... sorry.