Started By
Message
re: Rules Experts: The lack of a runoff after illegal shift
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:17 pm to Open Your Eyes
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:17 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
The offense gained an advantage by committing a penalty there, correct?
Sure, there are plenty of ways to gain an advantage in football. If it becomes a problem then they will change the rules. Have you ever seen this happen? I haven't.
1
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:22 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Theoretically, perhaps. I don't know if a player in the heat of the moment would think to tackle using the face mask just to stop the clock. If it ever happens in a big game, and people make a big deal about it, it might be changed. That's how rules changes happen sometimes. edit...it would be the offense, not the defense. So an offensive player would have to have the presence of mind to block in the back while the ball is live. Usually they are looking to receive a lateral.
Thank you for actually answering this. Yes, it is not likely, but it is possible. It is definitely possible for a coach to instruct a player that this is his specific job on that one play. It's also very possible, probably more so, that this would happen unintentionally.
And what is the reason for the rules to be written this way in the first place? Regardless of whether it's a dead ball or live ball penalty, the clock is stopping after a penalty. The only difference is whether it starts again on ready for play or snap. Either way, it benefits the offense.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:25 pm to AUbagman
quote:
thin RB unit
Say what?
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:28 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Sure, there are plenty of ways to gain an advantage in football.
None of which include intentionally committing a penalty.
quote:
Have you ever seen this happen? I haven't.
1. That specific instance? No. The idea of an offense benefitting from stopping the clock by committing a penalty? Yes. Yesterday.
2. Why does it matter if you or I have seen it? I would bet there are rules already in place that apply to situations neither of us have seen happen.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:30 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
quote:
Tackles after the line to gain or out of bounds stop the clock anyway...penalty or no penalty.
Again, the rule specifically mentions tackled in bounds short of line to gain. Literally nothing of what you just said is applicable.
Literally everything I said is applicable. The rule specifically talks about stopping the clock on a tackle in bounds short of the line to gain. Penalties on any other play don't stop the clock because it's already stopped.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:36 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Literally everything I said is applicable. The rule specifically talks about stopping the clock on a tackle in bounds short of the line to gain. Penalties on any other play don't stop the clock because it's already stopped.
1. I'm not sure how you think responding to something talking about being tackled in bounds short of line to gain with a statement about being tackled out of bounds or after line to gain is even remotely applicable.
2. Yes, exactly. The clock is stopped when it otherwise would not have been, because of the penalty. The offense is benefitting from committing a penalty. Why is that?
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:39 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
1. I'm not sure how you think responding to something talking about being tackled in bounds short of line to gain with a statement about being tackled out of bounds or after line to gain is even remotely applicable.
It's because you're not paying attention. The question is about why the rule book mandates stopping the clock on a penalty on plays inbounds short of a first down. The rule book specifically mentions stopping it on those plays because those are the only plays where the clock is still running after the play.
This post was edited on 9/25/16 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 9/25/16 at 2:46 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
The clock is stopped when it otherwise would not have been, because of the penalty. The offense is benefitting from committing a penalty. Why is that?
Why during the first rule of the targeting rule could the ejection be overturned on review but not the penalty itself? Everything in the book may not always make perfect sense to everyone. When obvious abuse occurs, rules get changed.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 3:01 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
It's because you're not paying attention. The question is about why the rule book mandates stopping the clock on a penalty on plays inbounds short of a first down. The rule book specifically mentions stopping it on those plays because those are the only plays where the clock is still running after the play.
Is this real life?
"At the snap, A22 has been set for one second while A33 continues his motion. The ball carrier is tackled inbounds short of the line to gain.
RULING: Team A live-ball foul, illegal shift. Five-yard penalty.
There is no 10-second runoff because the foul itself did not cause the clock to stop. "
Wtf are you talking about?
Posted on 9/25/16 at 3:05 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Why during the first rule of the targeting rule could the ejection be overturned on review but not the penalty itself?
So your defense of one shitty rule is to say "look at this other shifty rule"?
quote:
Everything in the book may not always make perfect sense to everyone. When obvious abuse occurs, rules get changed.
Again, why do we need to wait until obvious abuse occurs to change the rule? Lsu be benefitted from this rule last night.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 3:05 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Why during the first rule of the targeting rule could the ejection be overturned on review but not the penalty itself?
So your defense of one shitty rule is to say "look at this other shifty rule"?
quote:
Everything in the book may not always make perfect sense to everyone. When obvious abuse occurs, rules get changed.
Again, why do we need to wait until obvious abuse occurs to change the rule? Lsu benefitted from this rule last night.
Posted on 9/25/16 at 3:07 pm to Open Your Eyes
and what about this that was posted last night.
quote:
b. The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running
when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to
stop immediately (e.g., illegal formation).
c. After the penalty is administered, if there is a 10-second runoff, the
game clock starts on the referee’s signal. If there is no 10-second runoff,
the game clock starts on the snap.
The rule doesn't mention anything about the penalized play. In this case the penalize play resulted in a first down that was inbound but the penalty negates the play.
So the argument that the clock starts on the whistle because the first down pass was downed inbounds is irrelevant.
Rule 3,4,4,c
(Dont care about game, we deserved to lose, but the officating crew was a fricking joke)
Whatever they did was not correct call. fricked up an gave Auburn 5 downs two.
quote:
b. The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running
when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to
stop immediately (e.g., illegal formation).
c. After the penalty is administered, if there is a 10-second runoff, the
game clock starts on the referee’s signal. If there is no 10-second runoff,
the game clock starts on the snap.
The rule doesn't mention anything about the penalized play. In this case the penalize play resulted in a first down that was inbound but the penalty negates the play.
So the argument that the clock starts on the whistle because the first down pass was downed inbounds is irrelevant.
Rule 3,4,4,c
(Dont care about game, we deserved to lose, but the officating crew was a fricking joke)
Whatever they did was not correct call. fricked up an gave Auburn 5 downs two.
This post was edited on 9/25/16 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 9/25/16 at 3:11 pm to TutHillTiger
So Technically LSU won. So after Les is fired, we are protesting. Then Auburn can fire Gus. Game just DQ, everyone wins.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News