Not directly. The difference is if it's a live ball foul you don't shut the play down before it starts. You flag it at the snap and let the play happen. Then the offense has the choice of accepting the penalty or the result of the play (assuming they didn't also commit a live ball foul). If it remained a dead ball foul you flag it immediately and prevent the snap from happening. The offense technically has the choice to decline it, but they wouldn't. They get a free 5 yards.
2020 Proposed Rule Change
- Thread starter IndyBison
- Start date
Not directly. The difference is if it's a live ball foul you don't shut the play down before it starts. You flag it at the snap and let the play happen. Then the offense has the choice of accepting the penalty or the result of the play (assuming they didn't also commit a live ball foul). If it remained a dead ball foul you flag it immediately and prevent the snap from happening. The offense technically has the choice to decline it, but they wouldn't. They get a free 5 yards.
Sorry, last one...
Does when the clock starts after the penalty differ in a live-ball/dead-ball foul situation?
Is one at the snap and one at the placement, or are they both the same is what I'm looking for?
Thanks again...
For a dead ball foul, it depends on what the clock was doing when the foul occurred. If it was running then it will start on the ready for play. If it was stopped then it will start on the snap. There are a couple exceptions to the live clock scenario. The first is if you are in the last minute of a half and the offended team chooses to NOT take a 10-second runoff, then the clock will start on the snap. The second is if the R feels the offending team is trying to consume time by committing the foul (i.e. a false start by the offense near the end of the play clock), he/she has the option to start the game clock on the snap. This option would be outside the 1 minute point where the 10-second run-off situation would address it.
For a live ball foul, the game clock would start on the snap or ready just as if it would absent the foul. For example, if the play ended with a run in bounds the clock wouldn't have stopped (or would have started on the RFP if a first down), then it will start on the RFP signal. If the play ended with an incomplete pass or there was a legal kick then it would start on the snap. There is also a provision in the last two minutes of either half if the offended team is behind or tied, they can choose to start the clock on the snap if it would have otherwise started on the RFP.
The clock rules can get pretty complex which is why it's always one of the things being discussed during penalty enforcement. The deep wings and possibly umpire will be helping the referee after penalty enforcement with a signal to remind him of the clock status. If the clock is hot (meaning start on the RFP) they will raise their arm and give a wind signal with their finger. If the clock is cold (meaning start on the snap) they will either cross their arms or snap their fingers. If they have radios they will communicate there as well. They should also be communicating this to both coaches and the QB if time is critical at the end of a half.
b. Feigning injuries (by defensive players) was thoroughly discussed as a problem but there was no action taken to change the rules. The rules committee expects discussion between coaches and AFCA to eliminate this practice.
I like to see that this is being addressed, though I'm not sure how this will be done. I think all fans want the feigning of injuries to stop, including me. The difficulty is how to stop this without putting the refs in a position where they have to make a subjective decision as to when players are faking and when they are not. I think there is also a fear that this could create a situation where a player is actually injured but is accused of faking an injury, and player safety is always going to be put ahead of everything else, for good reason. I also think of cramps in situations like this. A player who is cramping up during a game can easily be seen as faking injuries when he isn't. A player falls on the ground and experiences intense pain for a few seconds before jogging off the field. If someone doesn't understand cramping, this looks to all the world like faking injuries. I played some sports in high school, so I have experienced cramping in the past. For a few seconds, you feel intense pain and then the pain goes away all at once. This could make it hard to tell if a player is faking an injury or not. What are y'all's thoughts?
I like to see that this is being addressed, though I'm not sure how this will be done. I think all fans want the feigning of injuries to stop, including me. The difficulty is how to stop this without putting the refs in a position where they have to make a subjective decision as to when players are faking and when they are not. I think there is also a fear that this could create a situation where a player is actually injured but is accused of faking an injury, and player safety is always going to be put ahead of everything else, for good reason. I also think of cramps in situations like this. A player who is cramping up during a game can easily be seen as faking injuries when he isn't. A player falls on the ground and experiences intense pain for a few seconds before jogging off the field. If someone doesn't understand cramping, this looks to all the world like faking injuries. I played some sports in high school, so I have experienced cramping in the past. For a few seconds, you feel intense pain and then the pain goes away all at once. This could make it hard to tell if a player is faking an injury or not. What are y'all's thoughts?
What was needed, in that case, are officials that don’t insert themselves into the game needlessly and the use of common sense.
Saying “replay caused it†is a complete and utter cop out.
Fact: Auburn had no times out and a live ball situation.
Fact: The was no logical/reasonable way for Auburn to get the FG team on the field.
Fact: Because the clock operator screwed up, the review official inserted himself into games without need.
Steve Shaw and the Conference can “parrot†the notion of “by rule†all they like from time immemorial. Common sense dictated, like the end of South Carolina - Auburn a few years back, the last second being “waved off†because it was a live ball with the offense without a time out. The irony is that it was the same Steve Shaw that defended that decision as correct.
I guess we have to change/amend rules because “common sense ain’t so common†these days in terms of officiating.
Don’t get me wrong. The rule change is good. But the Iron Bowl situation should have never been the catalyst for the change.
Last edited:
It is frustrating. But as an official being able to judge whether a player is “faking it†or not is a no win situation.
I heard someone discussing this today on WJOX. One idea was making the injured player sit out a minimum of four (4) plays before they could re-enter the game. If it is true injury, the player probably isn’t coming back in that time frame. If it is a feigning injury, at least it might be more penal for the defense to lose the player for more than a play or two.
Regardless, something should be done.
I'm sorry but you speak in circles.
If this is the new rule.
But they are already "graded" on this rule because as you stated it's "their current guidelines".
And this new rule would have "prevented a score at the end of the half" but they are already "graded" on this "current guideline".
You also stated that you "don't know that it will be much of an actual change". Exactly how could that play be "correctly ruled per the rules at the time" if all those other things exist?
Of all the things wrong with this rule, this was not on anyone's mind. It also only applies to targeting, when a player is ejected for any other reason they still have to go to the locker room. Why was this change needed? The kids feelings are getting hurt too much?
Last edited:
The coaches wanted this change, but I don't get it. You now have to manage a player who is angry for being ejected on the sidelines. Sounds like trouble to me.
And who's anger/bull-headedness could infect the rest of the eligible players on the bench? No thanks
I wouldn't be surprised to see something eventually come up. The rules committee is made entirely of coaches and administrators (an official consults) so they have a pretty good idea of what their players are doing and if something like this is actually a problem. And they'll come up with creative ways to address it.
You are correct when you say there are injuries that do cause a player to stay down, but once it passes they are fine. Another great example is getting the wind knocked out of you. You'll be down for 30 seconds, but when you get up you won't have any lingering issue. I slightly twisted ankle or hitting your elbow just the right way also. I read someone suggested hiring a 3rd party medical professional to verify after the player is removed they are actually injured. The example we just discussed would not apply.
The idea of sitting out 4 plays is interesting, but I'm not sure how easy that would be for us to keep track. What if it's the 2nd play of a drive and they run 1 more and punt. Does the punt count as a play? Does he have to sit out 2 or 3 plays of the next series or just 4 consecutive plays? What if the team on offense scores? Can the player come back in for the try or kickoff? It's one thing to get a player out for one play, but for us to keep track of multiple plays could be tricky. I'm sure we'd figure out something though.
That is a very good question, and I have no idea what the answer is. My guess is because there are so few ejections other than disqualifications that's it's not an issue in those instances. Not that targeting fouls are that common, but they do probably make up 90% of the disqualifications unless there is a big fight (we had 6 players ejected in the last 2 minutes of the last game and none of them involved targeting). Especially for D3 teams they need to dedicate a coach or trainer to escort him so they also lose someone from their staff. I'm curious to see if this one passes the executive committee.
The grading comment was about taking more than 2 minutes for a replay review, not the new timing rule if the clock should have stopped and would start on the RFP.
As far as the other rule, if you want replay to be used to make things black and white when possible you have to take the good with the bad. In this exact play without replay the half is over. It's not likely the official will be able to see the play end and look at the clock fast enough to see it should have stopped with 1 second left. Even if someone did they would know the game clock would start before the team was ready and it wouldn't be able snap it before it expired. But if you allow replay to address black and white rules (the time on the clock is black and white when using replay on plays like this). That's why they need to add rules like they did to not allow a team to get an extra play when they shouldn't have.
Many have mentioned the similar play from a couple years when they didn't go to replay and Shaw publicly supported it. There are instances where the supervisor is going to publicly support something, give different feedback to the officials on the back end. It's rare and used more if a foul is called that is technically right, but probably not big enough to be considered a foul (i.e. holding/DPI). Some calls are just going to be supported either way because they are going to defer to the judgement of the official on the field. This leads to understandable frustration from fans and players and coaches because it appears they aren't being consistent.
The slings an arrows on a call like this are going to come either way so you have to make the call, move on, and face the consequences. Who knows maybe that replay official was downgraded the previous week because he had an incomplete pass at the end of the 2nd quarter that landed with 1 second on the clock but he let it go and was downgraded for it. He didn't want to take the risk of another downgrade so he enforced the rule as written. A definite downfall of replay is it sometimes does take things that are better officiated by the judgement of the official in real time on the field and not precisely frame by frame on a video screen.
I think this is a very good and logical rule change, and I'm surprised it wasn't addressed after the previous incident. It was probably less of an issue or less impactful to the outcome of the game so it didn't have the staying power with the rules committee.
Problem is when this/these rule(s) aren't applied the same way all the time in the same situations and the refs/supervisors aren't transparent enough to admit they messed up.
Question: (Honest question here) - when is the rules committee/ref supervisors, etc gonna discuss putting a couple of extra officials on the field to keep up with the speed of the game?
P.S. When are the officials and their supervisors gonna get together and make a concerted effort to flag aggressors instead of just the rataliators?
I don't know that we need any more officials at this point. 8 already has the game boxed in really well. The speed issue is more of quickness meaning things happen really fast. Did he grab the face mask or just touch the helmet but caused it to turn? When the runner was tripped did his knee touch down or did he keep it off the ground? When the receiver made a leaping catch did he control it AND get his toe down before falling out of bounds? Those things all happen very quickly, but the covering officials are generally standing still when making the call. More officials might get better angles but with 8 and replay you have several already. I'm not sure the cost of additional officials will offset the potential advantages. But if they want to add 2 or 3 more I'm all for it! More games to work and opportunities to advance!
We are actually coached to get the aggressor if we catch it. The problem is you don't always see it. The ones you miss are usually under a pile or away from action the officials would be watching at that point. If the retaliation is big enough you'll get both. Sometimes you'll have an instigator who does something that by itself doesn't warrant a flag, but if the retaliation does, you'll put it on both of them. The second act doesn't happen if the first doesn't happen, but the second act is also big enough you can't let it go. There is so much preventative officiating going on out there you don't realize it, and we often pick up early which players are going to be difficult during the game. It's usually not a surprise when we report it to the coach. Especially in HS that kid gets pulled pretty quickly with a good tongue lashing.
Once again an official defending the indefensible. Really?????!!!!????? - Not seeing the aggressor? Credibility gone.
Trust me you don't always see or hear the first act. There are 22 players (more if the players go into the bench area) and 7 or 8 officials. You aren't going to see everything no matter how hard you try. I gave the example of a pile of players. No official has x-ray vision to see through bodies to see the guy get nut punched or eye poked under a pile. But that guy gets up and retaliates everyone can see that. Do you want me to assume something happened under the pile and flag that person? Or take the player's word for it? If the initial hit was missed and the retaliator gets flagged the official(s) will get downgraded for the miss especially if he missed it because he should have been looking right at it. There is no defending or supporting the missed call.
Your question was "When are the officials and their supervisors gonna get together and make a concerted effort to flag aggressors instead of just the rataliators?" That is exactly what we try to do. There used to be a philosophy to get both with an unsportsmanlike conduct foul, but now they want us to only get the first guy (assuming the second act wasn't excessive) because he'll have the 1 strike (2 and you are ejected) and the team gets penalized yardage.
Trending content
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thread 'Orange Bowl CFP Qtr: #4 Texas Tech v #5 Oregon - Rust vs B1G Pride (ESPN Noon ET)'
- CajunCrimson
Replies: 286 -
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Longhorns great Shipley severely burned on ranch- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Sources: Northwestern lands ex-MSU QB Chiles
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: QB Williams hits portal despite signed UW deal
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: LSU's Weis with Rebels; has done 'terrific job'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Oregon running back Davison out for CFP semifinal
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0