Alabama/Auburn

[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.