The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Extending the Period/Game (https://forum.officiating.com/football/80650-extending-period-game.html)

Robert Goodman Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by HLin NC (Post 788167)
Robert, there is no way a wing can "preventatively officiate" a DT lining up in the NZ. He's too far away to hear us if we tried. The U isn't going to really know unless he's way off into the NZ.

A DE or LB creeping up might can hear us if he's paying some attention and knows his uniform number. (don't laugh, lots of kids seem to have no idea what their number is, particularly early in the season or if they are MS or JV's)

I still don't understand the mechanics of the situation, and don't even have the situation clear yet.

AIUI, both teams were onside at the instant the ball was made ready for play, correct?

Next question is, when the DT entered the neutral zone, was the snapper on the ball, near the ball, or was team A not even close to lined up yet?

If team A was not even close, why didn't the wing official (How many do you have in freshman football?) come in to shoo the DT out of the NZ?

If the snapper was on the ball, why wasn't it whistled dead?

The only remaining possibility is that team A was coming to the line in a hurry and close to it when the DT entered the NZ. Is that what it was, and was the course followed, i.e. flagging encroachment as the ball is put in play, correct? It seems like Fed rules are geared as much as possible to avoiding such a situation, but is this the one little gap they left that makes it happen?

If that last condition is what actually applied, then why isn't that a foul that occurred as part of the live ball portion of the down, allowing team A an untimed down if they wind up needing it to put the ball in play?

Or does what Reffing Rev. wrote apply? I.e. does the encroachment prevent the ball from being put in play?

HLin NC Sun Sep 18, 2011 01:06pm

Encroachment is a dead ball foul in Fed ball, snap can't go off. In so far as the clock goes, if the clock was running and stopped for the dead ball enc. foul, it should have started on the RFP and there should not have been two seconds put back on is the way I understand the play in question.

With that little time and A I assume was in some semblance of a hurry, I can't foresee a wing wanting to run in and "shoo" a DT back.

Rich Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODJ (Post 788286)
The down begins with the RFP. B encroaches during the down. 3-3-3 says the period is extended because of an accepted penalty.

The down begins with the snap or free kick.

Suudy Mon Sep 19, 2011 01:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 788165)
So everyone was on their own side of the ball, the neutral zone began, and then one of the B players entered it to line up? Why would that not be whistled dead.

Ok, I'll clear things up for you with excruciating detail.

We had a 1/10 from about A's 30. We had a completion to midfield in the middle of the field with a short run ending at B's 40. We stopped the clock to move the chains. A and B hustled down the field. The A QB is making a spiking motion and yelling a formation and snap count. My U is standing over the ball waiting for the chains to come down the field, and looking to me for the RFP. I confirm with my HL that the chains are ready, point to my U to back off. Everyone is lined up and nearly ready to go. The A lineman have their elbows on their knees, wideouts and backs are in place. B lineman are down on their hands and knees, LB's in position, DB's lined up on receivers.

Once I confirm all my crew is ready, I blow the whistle and wind the clock. Apparently a B lineman was in the NZ. I don't know if it was before or after the RFP. At our meeting this Wed, I can ask my LJ for more detail on the timing if that would satisfy your concerns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 788165)
Or were you not serious about everyone's having been on their own side of the ball as the NZ was set? What I'm trying to figure out is why the ball was allowed to be snapped.

Because, as usual, we try to give B a chance to get back. Before the RFP, the B lineman were on their knees. I suppose at the RFP, they got into their stances, and in doing so, entered the NZ. The quickness of the snap following the RFP, the LJ's whistle and flag, occurred so close together to likely be indistinguishable.

As for the seriousness of everyone being on their own side of the ball, yes, I'm serious. When I'm standing behind A, I can't see whether the B lineman are in the NZ before or after the RFP. You wonder why the ball was allowed to be snapped? Perhaps because things were moving quickly, and the proximity of the RFP, B getting into a stance, the encroachment, the snap, and whistle to stop the play, made it difficult to stop the snap.

Regardless, there was no play. It was a snap, flag, spike, whistle, clock stoppage, all within seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 788165)
If team B was getting set before team A, why wasn't there some preventive officiating via warning in the case of the DT?

Perhaps, because as pointed out, it was in the middle of the field, and they couldn't hear? Perhaps because B encroached when getting into their stance? Perhaps because everything happened bang-bang?

Geez. I ask this situation not to question the mechanics of me or my crew. It was a frosh game. We had young guys on the wings (me and the U were the only experienced varsity officials). I asked this to clarify 1) extending the period, and 2) conferences after an apparent end of game. If I was interested in mechanics, I would have asked.

Robert Goodman Mon Sep 19, 2011 01:58pm

With the complete description, this becomes very clear. There was an encroachment foul during the dead ball interval. There was the appearance of a snap and scrimmage down, but that snap never officially occurred. The encroachment was penalized. However, team A was misled into believing that the ball had been live with a foul during that down that was penalized with the down to be repeated, and their coach therefore believed they had the right to an untimed down.

Still, there was something else that should have been done, unless the rules I'm referencing have been changed, which I doubt. (I have no hope of getting the article & section numbering right with so many intervening editions, but my bet is that their substance has not changed.) With team A preparing to spike the ball and seconds left in the game, team B's action delayed the game. It may not have been an intentional encroachment, but there would appear to be benefit to team B by discombobulating team A (making them come off the ball and await a new RFP) so as to let time run out, so I would rule delay of game by B, and with the penalty accepted for delay of game (superseding the encroachment penalty), time would resume on the succeeding snap rather than the RFP.

MNBlue Mon Sep 19, 2011 04:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 788399)
With the complete description, this becomes very clear. There was an encroachment foul during the dead ball interval. There was the appearance of a snap and scrimmage down, but that snap never officially occurred. The encroachment was penalized. However, team A was misled into believing that the ball had been live with a foul during that down that was penalized with the down to be repeated, and their coach therefore believed they had the right to an untimed down.

Still, there was something else that should have been done, unless the rules I'm referencing have been changed, which I doubt. (I have no hope of getting the article & section numbering right with so many intervening editions, but my bet is that their substance has not changed.) With team A preparing to spike the ball and seconds left in the game, team B's action delayed the game. It may not have been an intentional encroachment, but there would appear to be benefit to team B by discombobulating team A (making them come off the ball and await a new RFP) so as to let time run out, so I would rule delay of game by B, and with the penalty accepted for delay of game (superseding the encroachment penalty), time would resume on the succeeding snap rather than the RFP.

It appears that you want to amend the rules to fit your position. :confused:

Quote:

NFHS 3.6
When a team attempts to conserve or consume time illegally, the referee shall order the clock started or stop
I think it is a HUGE leap form the OP to your position of
Quote:

delay of game by B
.

Isn't it possible that mistakes happened? B did encroached. 'A' coach made an assumption that was wrong.

I think it is much more likely that the officials got this correct and the 'A' coach was not happy because he didn't pay attention and was wrong.

Suudy Mon Sep 19, 2011 07:54pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 788399)
However, team A was misled into believing that the ball had been live with a foul during that down that was penalized with the down to be repeated, and their coach therefore believed they had the right to an untimed down.

I don't think anyone was misled. That implies some sort of deception (intentional or not) on our part. Indeed, when I announced the foul, I gave the usual dead ball foul signal, and even said "Dead ball. Encroachment. 5 yards from the previous spot. Still first down."

I think the coach had in his mind the usual "Game cannot end on a defensive penalty" misconception. Now, I haven't been clear on this point, but I did discuss it with the A coach after the game. I told him that there was no foul on the last timed down of the period, so we do not extend the period with an untimed down. He argued it was a defensive penalty and I told him it didn't matter if it was offensive or defensive. Since this foul did not occur on the last _timed down_, there was no extension. He didn't agree, and he didn't persuade me otherwise. We left it at that.

Now, whether the coach thought he'd get an untimed down or not certainly wasn't our fault. We didn't tell him, or even hint to him that would be the case. As I pointed out, my wing told him "The clock will start at the ready" while A was at the sidelines. In fact, I think that hint "the clock will start..." would be significant.

MD Longhorn Tue Sep 20, 2011 09:22am

I don't do FED, so correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the rule exactly what the coach was expecting until very recently. Seems to me I remember discussions exactly like this perhaps 3 years ago where the FED rule was EXACTLY like the coach seemed to think.

mbyron Tue Sep 20, 2011 09:26am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 788514)
I don't do FED, so correct me if I'm wrong... but wasn't the rule exactly what the coach was expecting until very recently. Seems to me I remember discussions exactly like this perhaps 3 years ago where the FED rule was EXACTLY like the coach seemed to think.

Mike, it has been "last timed down" for many (i.e., more than 3) years. I don't have a book prior to 2009 here, but it wasn't a rule change in 2009.

MD Longhorn Tue Sep 20, 2011 09:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 788517)
Mike, it has been "last timed down" for many (i.e., more than 3) years. I don't have a book prior to 2009 here, but it wasn't a rule change in 2009.

Anyone know how many years? I've been on here a while. I just remember reading the old rule and thinking, "Wow... that's odd". Then again --- at that time you still allowed 2 forward passes too, as long as the first was behind the line.

Welpe Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 788520)
Anyone know how many years? I've been on here a while. I just remember reading the old rule and thinking, "Wow... that's odd". Then again --- at that time you still allowed 2 forward passes too, as long as the first was behind the line.

What you may be thinking of is the Fed/NCAA difference where in Fed, even if the clock does not expire during the down, there will be an untimed down if there was a live ball foul during the last timed down. In NCAA we would not have the untimed down unless time actually expired during the down.

MD Longhorn Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 788532)
What you may be thinking of is the Fed/NCAA difference where in Fed, even if the clock does not expire during the down, there will be an untimed down if there was a live ball foul during the last timed down. In NCAA we would not have the untimed down unless time actually expired during the down.

You are right... that's what I was vaguely remembering.

parepat Tue Sep 20, 2011 11:14am

We've been told in situations like this to give A the oppurtunity to snap the ball. In this case, they would have gotten another play if B hadn't fouled. Therefore we make it very clear to the coach that the clock will start on the whistle and that they need to get on the ball. Then I will hold the RFP for a reasonable period of time. No need to make trouble for yourself.

mbyron Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by parepat (Post 788546)
We've been told in situations like this to give A the oppurtunity to snap the ball. In this case, they would have gotten another play if B hadn't fouled. Therefore we make it very clear to the coach that the clock will start on the whistle and that they need to get on the ball. Then I will hold the RFP for a reasonable period of time. No need to make trouble for yourself.

Parepat, if I'm not mistaken you're in Ohio. Can I ask who "told" you to use that approach? Is it an association thing, or did someone from the state tell you?

parepat Tue Sep 20, 2011 01:08pm

I was referring to NCAA with the new 10 second runoff rule. If after the 10 second runoff there are only a few seconds to play, we are to make all efforts to allow A to get a play off. You are right, I am in Ohio and I should have been more specific in my post. I believe that this approach translates to NFHS as well, especially when B fouls.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1