Started By
Message

End of Aub/Lou (RULE 3-4-3)

Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:35 pm
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:35 pm
EDITED: Apparently those who are claiming the game clock would have started when the ball was set for play are wrong?

quote:

The referee shall order the game clock or play clock started or stopped whenever either team conserves or consumes playing time by tactics obviously unfair. This includes starting the game clock on the snap if the foul is by the team ahead in the score. The game clock will start on the ready-for-play signal after team a throws an illegal forward or backward pass to conserve time (Rule 3-3-2-e-14) (A.R. 3-4-3-I-V).


LINK

After reading the above, I don't know why officiating experts are still saying the play clock would have started on the ready for play signal.
This post was edited on 9/6/15 at 3:19 pm
Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105362 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:40 pm to
The umpire said in wasn't a time runout play. In other words the clock wouldn't start when the ball was placed after penalty mark off.

Petrine fricked up. All AU had to do is what played out, instead having having to make a pass play.
Posted by craigbiggio
Member since Dec 2009
31805 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:46 pm to
The clock would have started, but since it was after a penalty the play clock would have ran down from 25 instead of 40. He should have saved the timeout for after the third down play.
Posted by RockyMtnTigerWDE
War Damn Eagle Dad!
Member since Oct 2010
105362 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:47 pm to
Ahhhhh I guess I misunderstood the umpire
Posted by craigbiggio
Member since Dec 2009
31805 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:48 pm to
Yeah I just read an article and Steve Shaw said that the refs called it correct and told Petrino that the clock would start. He just fricked up and called it too soon.
Posted by dcbl
Good guys wear white hats.
Member since Sep 2013
29639 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:48 pm to
quote:

craigbiggio


Is exactly right - Petrino verified this w the refs before he called the TO

And OP makes a great point - THIS is a rule change I could support
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:51 pm to
Yeah, I mean what a loophole. Hold every time and you can kill the clock if ahead
Posted by Glorious
Mobile
Member since Aug 2014
24415 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:54 pm to
Until you get a safety for holding in the endzone
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:57 pm to
You could kill 3-4 minutes off the game clock before that would come into play
Posted by tigerman99
Member since Sep 2015
114 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 2:57 pm to
Except on that play Auburn would have already had a first down and the game would have been over had the holding never been called
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:08 pm to
What?

I'm not suggesting the refs shouldn't have called holding on the play

I'm saying the clock wouldn't have started until the ball was snapped, since it had already run between 2nd and 3rd down.
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:12 pm to
Here is the rule referenced in the OP:

quote:

The referee shall order the game clock or play clock started or stopped whenever either team conserves or consumes playing time by tactics obviously unfair. This includes starting the game clock on the snap if the foul is by the team ahead in the score. The game clock will start on the ready-for-play signal after team a throws an illegal forward or backward pass to conserve time (Rule 3-3-2-e-14) (A.R. 3-4-3-I-V).


LINK

Looks pretty clear-cut to me - the game clock would not have started until the snap.
Posted by N97883
New Dehli Forsyth GA
Member since Nov 2013
8062 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:28 pm to
Is a holding penalty, against a team who just made a game ending first down, a "obviously unfair tactic to consume the clock"?

Posted by Tiger n Miami AU83
Miami
Member since Oct 2007
45656 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:38 pm to
It is not. And holding to try and run out the clock is silly. It would actually save the defense 15 seconds every time.

Anyway, Petrino did make a mistake but only in not remembering the play clock would have been wound from 25 seconds instead of 40.

Louisville could have gotten the ball back with about 14 seconds and had 1 play or 2 to go 80-90 yards to try and tie.
Posted by Arksulli
Fayetteville
Member since Aug 2014
25159 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

t is not. And holding to try and run out the clock is silly. It would actually save the defense 15 seconds every time.

Anyway, Petrino did make a mistake but only in not remembering the play clock would have been wound from 25 seconds instead of 40.

Louisville could have gotten the ball back with about 14 seconds and had 1 play or 2 to go 80-90 yards to try and tie.




Petrino had carnal relations with the canine but even if he had played that just right Auburn still wins 99% of the time. They were the better team and were better coached. If Petrino hadn't tried to get cute on the first play from scrimmage and hand wrap a TD to Auburn he wouldn't have been in the position of trying to stop the clock for a Hail Mary anyway.
Posted by RidiculousHype
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2007
10180 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:51 pm to
Yes. Read the bolded part of the OP

"This includes"

Clear-cut as it gets
Posted by Robert Duval
Member since Jul 2015
421 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 3:53 pm to
quote:

They were the better team and were better coached. If Petrino hadn't tried to get cute on the first play from scrimmage and hand wrap a TD to Auburn he wouldn't have been in the position of trying to stop the clock for a Hail Mary anyway.


If they had not gotten so far behind, they probably wouldn't have put the freshman in at QB...as it turns out, he, and Auburn's injuries, were the deciding factor in Louisville getting back into the game.

And if we are going to play "ifs" and "gifts", do you not think JJ throwing 3 balls straight into the hands of their defenders like they were the intended receivers factors in? Or does it only count as a gift when Auburn is the beneficiary?
Posted by Arksulli
Fayetteville
Member since Aug 2014
25159 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 4:04 pm to
quote:

And if we are going to play "ifs" and "gifts", do you not think JJ throwing 3 balls straight into the hands of their defenders like they were the intended receivers factors in? Or does it only count as a gift when Auburn is the beneficiary?


Those were the sort of plays that will happen, especially in the first game of the season. I don't say this to knock L'vill or praise Auburn. The three interceptions were a surprise, and an unwanted one from Auburn.

It is one thing to screw the pooch because your QB has some issues. It is another to do so in a disastrously planned trick play that puts you in a hole right at the start of a big game. One is worrisome but it happens, the other is getting too cutesy and paying the price.

Obviously JJ needs to cut way down on poor pass selection and I expect Gus and company to work on that a lot in the next few weeks.

I wasn't insulting Auburn there, but I am perfectly willing to do so if you would prefer! I still have lots of insults on tap for the Auburn/Arkansas week I haven't used yet.
Posted by dcbl
Good guys wear white hats.
Member since Sep 2013
29639 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 4:27 pm to
quote:

And holding to try and run out the clock is silly.


WTF are you talking about?

ANYTHING you can do to put a game away and win is not "silly"

If memory serves, UGA once beat Auburn because we had defensive players that just stayed down on a goal line stand - Aubbie had run a play from the 2, or something like that - it was 1st and goal - we stopped them and our guys stayed on the pile while time expired

That was in the 80's or 90's? I could be wrong, but it seems like that was one reason for a rules change?

Anyone else remember this? After last night, I will be VERY SURPRISED if we do not see a team intentionally hold again this year
Posted by Gusoline
Jacksonville, NC
Member since Dec 2013
7614 posts
Posted on 9/6/15 at 4:52 pm to
quote:

Anyone else remember this? After last night, I will be VERY SURPRISED if we do not see a team intentionally hold again this year



If its a run play and not a 1st down the clock would keep going. The clock stops on penalty right??? so instead of a running clock and a reset 40 sec clock, they get a stoppage and a 25 sec clock, right??? How would this benefit anyone??
Page 1 2
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter