Alabama-Arkansas final minute
 

Did anyone else see this last night?

Fourth quarter, clock is running, Alabama has the ball, third down, leading 14-13. Called for a false start at 1:01. Penn Wagers, the referee, winded the clock and Alabama snapped the ball with at :38, and therefore didn't have to run a fourth down play (Arkansas had no TOs). So, in essence the false start actually helped Alabama and negated any last shot Arkansas would have had.

Shouldn't the clock have started on the snap in accordance with 3-4-3?

Apparently so.
Southeastern Conference says referee in Alabama-Arkansas game mistakenly ran clock - ESPN

So to take a fan tirade into an official's discussion:
At what point do we invoke the option to not start the clock on the ready. Tonight for instance in a lower level game team A up by 8 with about 4 minutes to play has a false start, and I thought long and hard and wound the clock. During a subsequent timeout, the U who is my usual BJ asked if I should have held the clock since A got a free 25ish seconds?

At what point do you hold the clock? 2 minutes? 1? 4?

If you feel the team got the false start intentionally, then don't start the clock on the RFP, otherwise, if clock was running, wind it.

This.

I'd also add: if it's the first false start, wind it... if it's the second in a row, then think about starting it on the snap. If it's the 3rd... start on the snap. Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is a trend.

Intent has little to do with it. Being able to take an unfair disadvantage is what I'm looking at.

The rules state that if a team attempts to conserve or consume time illegally, the referee shall order the clock stopped or started. Rule 3-4-6

The rules can state whatever they like. If there's a FST with 1 minute left in this situation, we're starting on the snap. I'm not a mind reader. I'm also not allowing a team to run a minute off the clock by taking a penalty.

BTW, the rules say the same in NCAA -- and the conference has publicly said the crew was wrong.

If I'm ever questioning whether it might have given the fouling team an advantage, I'm starting it at the snap. I probably would have started at the snap in the scenario you presented, Rich. Intent is not required (although if there is intent, it's always at the snap).

This is one of those very few instances where I don't like the NFL rule (they will start at the snap after a DECLINED penalty, even - see 47 seconds in the Dallas-Seattle game).

NFL: True if the penalty (by either team) is committed in the final two minutes in the 2nd quarter or inside of five minutes in the 4th quarter.

Yup - that's the part of the rule that I think is rather stupid.

The SEC press release referenced 3-4-3 as the applicable rule since the foul occurred in the last five minutes of the game. Where did the "last five minutes" qualifier come from. Does the SEC have a special procedure for that rule?

"SEC spokesperson Chuck Dunlap wrote in an email. “However, inside five minutes left in the game, rule 3-4-3 should apply, which includes starting the game clock on the snap ‘if the foul is by the team ahead in the score.’"".

But you can't apply the standard of 3-4-6 to 3-4-3.

Does anyone else think that we are heading into a murky area here. If they want to put a time frame on it, fine. Otherwise, they should give is some guidelines. Otherwise we are left with the language within the rule which refers to "illegally consuming time". What response do we have to the coach that asks "how was my false start illegally consuming time". Likewise, the 10 second runoff occurs within the last minute. Thus we only care about fouling to conserve time in the last minute but care about fouls to consume time in the last 2 minutes? 4 minutes?

I'll start by saying I think this is a valid point, and I agree it would be nice to have a set standard.

With that said, my feeling is that to address the issue in the absence of an established standard (some might call it a rule), we have to explore the underlying issues at play...so here goes.

In the case of trying to illegally conserve time, the team that is behind in the score is trying to cause the clock to be stopped and violates a rule while doing so (illegal formation, illegal shift, etc). In addition to the typical penalty enforcement, there is a clearly defined penalty in the form of a 10 second runoff to address the issue of illegally conserving time. Additionally there is no process by which the offense can repeat the act and conserve more time. If time is conserved illegally without penalty, the benefit gained is somewhat limited.

On the other side of coin, the team trying to consume time is typically ahead. There is an established amount of time that is allowed to elapse between plays. If the clock is continually allowed to run without running a play, a team could effectively gain the lead in the second half (or first half if they are scheduled to receive the second half kick) and never run another play. There is no penalty that allows for time to be put back on the clock. In addition the advantage gained is relatively unlimited.

With all of that in mind, the impact of each action dictates a different mindset for each case.