I went back and read over what people were saying about the change to the clock rules, and it was being sold as a way to speed up the games, but that it would probably result in a few less plays. There wasn't that much talk at all about it, and that was even noted. Interestingly, Rich Rod was in support of it, while he was one of those who argued adamantly against the mandatory ten second wait (in other words, his bias was obvious, he clearly didn't mind changing the clock rules in his favor).
At least the way it was being presented, it seemed as though there was no anticipation of there actually being more plays. Logically, and the way it was intended, one could understand why that would be the case. They were shortening the game, how could you then get off more plays? Defensive substitutions weren't even discussed.
But, by reviewing the data, what we saw was that yes despite measures taken that apparently shortened the game, we still saw an increase in plays. Except for the coaches that were silently hatching their strategies (like Rich Rod, who now runs what would have been the fastest offense prior to the clock change), I don't think anyone else, television included really understood what the clock changes would do. It was unintended and it needs to be fixed.
I think the additional ref also shows an unwillingness to deal properly with the problem as well though. The issue was not that they didn't have enough refs... if they did their job properly, there would be no issues with their being out of position. It might help, but it is addressing a symptom, not the problem.
I think most of us agree that there needs to be consistency, and the only way to be truly consistent is to set a reasonable pace that all refs can work at, and use that regardless of what the offense wants to do.
