Alabama/Auburn

[parepat]

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by parepat

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

Great question. Is there a rule in place where, say, in the last minute of the game the timing is that precise? If not, would they review every OOB or incomplete pass play and set the game clock accordingly. Does the clock stop with the action or when the official on the field signals?

[maven]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

Great question. Is there a rule in place where, say, in the last minute of the game the timing is that precise? If not, would they review every OOB or incomplete pass play and set the game clock accordingly. Does the clock stop with the action or when the official on the field signals?

1. No.

2. No.

3. The clock should stop when the ball becomes dead (in the relevant ways).

[parepat]

Originally Posted by maven

1. No.

2. No.

3. The clock should stop when the ball becomes dead (in the relevant ways).

Not sure I agree with #3. Are you saying that on a close first down play the game clock operator should stop the clock when he perceives the player to be down beyond the line to gain, or upon the signal of the official?

[maven]

Originally Posted by parepat

Not sure I agree with #3. Are you saying that on a close first down play the game clock operator should stop the clock when he perceives the player to be down beyond the line to gain, or upon the signal of the official?

No. I said, "the relevant ways."

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by parepat

Not sure I agree with #3. Are you saying that on a close first down play the game clock operator should stop the clock when he perceives the player to be down beyond the line to gain, or upon the signal of the official?

On plays close to the Line to gain, anywhere on the field, the primary focus of a clock operator is on the Line Judge, who should be in the optimum position (On the line, facing the stakes) to judge if the LTG has been made, by signalling to stop the clock.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

On plays close to the Line to gain, anywhere on the field, the primary focus of a clock operator is on the Line Judge, who should be in the optimum position (On the line, facing the stakes) to judge if the LTG has been made, by signalling to stop the clock.

We agree completely. It's the L's job to stop the clock on a first down. As the R, the only signal I give is the first down signal, followed by the wind (if we're going to wind the clock). Our instructions are to look at the L for stopping the clock on a close LTG situation and then look at the R to start the clock.

On our crew, if the L tells me to look at the ball, we're having a measurement 99.9% of the time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be telling me to look. If the clock gets stopped to look, we're measuring 100% of the time.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by Rich

We agree completely. It's the L's job to stop the clock on a first down. As the R, the only signal I give is the first down signal, followed by the wind (if we're going to wind the clock). Our instructions are to look at the L for stopping the clock on a close LTG situation and then look at the R to start the clock.

On our crew, if the L tells me to look at the ball, we're having a measurement 99.9% of the time. Otherwise, he wouldn't be telling me to look. If the clock gets stopped to look, we're measuring 100% of the time.

This is my point. On each of these occasions there is a time lag between the official deciding to stop the clock, and actually signaling it. There is also a time lag from the time the operator sees the signal and actually stops it. Thus, at any other point in the game, there may be a second or two between the runners foot touching out of bounds and the clock getting stopped. This lag is a result of human reaction time. In the play in question, no consideration was made for the time lag.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by parepat

AN additional matter that no one is talking about...putting the one second back on the clock. The runners foot touched down out of bounds with 1 second left. The ruling to put time back discounts that time for human reaction of the official and the clock operator which is present in every other play of the game. Instead of the new 3 second rule for spiking, I think there should be some margin for error in this situation to account for human reaction time. Thoughts?

The mechanics and politics of clock management by officials always fascinates me (the games I work are almost all untimed). Along the lines of this question, when a team is in "hurry-up" mode trying to score quickly to tie or win in the last minute of a game, is it considered poor officiating to place the ball ready for play at the same leisurely pace you do the other 47 minutes? Are you obligated to match the urgency of the trailing team?

That practice always strikes me as akin to shrinking the strike zone for the trailing team in the ninth inning of a one-run game, but knowing damned little of football officiating, the possibility that I'm just plain ignorant concerning this mechanic is immense.

[ajmc]

A competent officiating crew sets a fairly steady pace in putting the ball RFP, from the very beginning of the game. "Leisure" is usually not one of the guiding factors, which are more focused on the ball being properly placed, all officials being set in their appropriate positions, pre-snap responsibilities being attended to and there being no open issues needing closure prior to the play commencing.

If one team is operating in a "hurry-up mode"there may be less time required before actually putting the ball RFP, consideration for the opponent being actually ready to play should always be a factor.

If the "hurry up" is a consistent factor, it would already have likely had an effect on the "steady pace"of declaring the ball RFP.