|
Post by steve88 on Mar 11, 2013 10:55:29 GMT
mixlr.com/simon-love/showreel/bath-killer-bees-uh-sharks/I listened live whilst decorating my new flat! I can't actually listen back to it at the moment as it wont stream at work so I can't give a precise time, but I have a question about something towards the end of the game on the final Bath drive whilst they were seeking to run out the clock. After (from memory) a 3rd down interior run that was stopped short of the line to gain, a Team B player was down injured. Initially the commentator thinks its a fake injury to preserve time, although it appears it was genuine. Having done the play clocks at the Blitz numerous times, I'm thinking to myself, "no time gained by faking injury there, it's still a 40s play clock". But of course there are no visible play clocks, and 3-2-4-c-4 only appears to apply "in stadiums that meet the mandatory requirements for 40/25-second play clocks". So what's the situation here? We always talk about simulating a 40s play clock when R has a wrist watch 25s clock, so do we manually deduct a further 15s here? I text the Bath OC after the game as I used to play with him, telling him calling a timeout before the punt was pretty stupid as regardless of the 15s issue above, the play clock would have started on the ready and they could have run more time off. However he said they were told, and I quote; So there does seem to be some scope for a manual "run off", but apparently it wasnt applied. The commentator seems to suggest there was a "run off" by the referee, but this OC has said that didnt happen, and the commentator admits during the stream he was away from the team area by quite a way so cant fully hear referee announcements. What confuses me is that it appears the coaching staff were told the game clock wouldnt start until the snap. That seems strange given the play before was a run ending in bounds. They apparently took the TO as they were told this so thought what the hell, we may as well make sure the punt team have some time to get ready. The first bit about the possible 15s gain by Team B by faking an injury with no visible play clocks is my main question, but it would also be interesting to hear our side of things as the audio stream did leave me confused by the chain of events. Clearly in tight situations such as these, game clock management is a big priority for us.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 11, 2013 11:33:05 GMT
When the clock stopped for the injury there was 1:05 on the clock and when they snapped for the punt there was 40s on the clock. The Bath captain was aware of what was happening with the clock, whether the sideline knew I am not sure (I was on the Hull sideline). Also, I was stood next to Ben when the conversation took place with the Bath captain and I remember Ben saying to the captain that he doesn't even have to snap the ball to get the 25s off the clock, because the clock will start on the ready.
|
|
|
Post by steve88 on Mar 11, 2013 11:40:13 GMT
When the clock stopped for the injury there was 1:05 on the clock and when they snapped for the punt there was 40s on the clock. The Bath captain was aware of what was happening with clock, whether the sideline knew I am not sure (I was on the Hull sideline). Also, I was stood next to Ben when the conversation took place with the Bath captain and what the coach claims was said was not said and I remember Ben saying to the captain that he doesn't even have to snap the ball to get the 25s off the clock. Cool, that answers my confusion over this particular game then. I did find it hard to imagine what was commentated and what I was told had happened had actually happened! So, that brings me back to my main question. As confirmed by Dan, a Team B injury resulted in 25s coming off the clock. Had visible play clocks been in operation, the game clock could have been further reduced to 25s left at the snap of the punt play. In a one score game, an extra 15s is quite a bit difference, as evidenced by the game ending with a batted down pass in the endzone (that play having started with 2s left). Can we counter this unintended loophole in our procedures some way, given only one team in the country have play clocks where the rules can be correctly enforced?
|
|
|
Post by Ben G on Mar 11, 2013 13:25:10 GMT
Basically what Dan says is correct :-)
Bath are stopped short (inbounds) bringing up 4th down. A Hull player is injured so we stop the clock. Hull have no timeouts.
During the stoppage, the Bath Head Coach tells the HL he wants to take a timeout with 1 second remaining on the play-clock. The HL relays this message to me. I ask the BJ how much time is on the clock, there is 1:04. So the BJ and I confirm that 1:04 minus 24 seconds will be 40 seconds. So I tell the BJ that if Bath does take the timeout - make sure there are 40 seconds on the game-clock. Shortly after the Bath QB comes to me with the same message, I tell him if he does this there'll be 40 seconds on the game clock.
I tell the Hull Defensive Captain (or the players in the Huddle as I think the injured players was one of the captains), that Bath want to run the play-clock down and then take a timeout, I remind them that they have no-timeouts. And that after the timeout there'll be 40 second on the game clock, the clock won't start until the ball is snapped.
As the injured player is beginning to leave the field I go back to the Bath QB and confirm again that he wants’ a timeout with 1 second on the play-clock, he says yes. He then asks me how will I tell him there's 1 second left on the play-clock? I tell him words along the lines of "Don't worry - we'll handle it, there'll be 40 seconds on the clock. It won't start again (after the timeout) until the ball's snapped". The QB is happy.
When the injured player leaves the field I declare timeout and announce "Timeout Bath, that is their 2nd timeout of the half. There are 40 seconds remaining in the game". Neither team wants the full allotted time for the timeout. So I declare the ready for play.
I didn't see the need to make the players stand around watching me for 24 seconds after they'd just been stood around for a few minutes for an injury timeout.
|
|
|
Post by Ben G on Mar 11, 2013 14:18:04 GMT
....But I'm open to suggestions as if/how I/we could better communicate to the sidelines what's going on.
I'm confident the players on the field knew what was going on.
I don't know what the wings and deep wings relayed to their sidelines but I don't think either Team was upset. Bath had burnt as much time as they could and Hull knew exactly how much time they had to win the game.
It may well have been a case that the OC and the Commentator weren't made aware by the HC.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 11, 2013 14:54:13 GMT
Hull's sideline knew what was happening and weren't upset about it, they probably expected Bath to get as much time off of the clock as they could!
|
|
|
Post by steve88 on Mar 11, 2013 15:20:05 GMT
Cool, that all makes sense.
I'm interested to discuss the 15s advantage a defence are obtaining in this situation though. Should we modify the rule book to allow for an additional run off if the offence want it, a la the 10s run off inside 1 minute? I don't think it should be automatic, as it may be the other way around with Team A chasing the game meaning they could have gone hurry up.
It could be considered a minor point, but I generally struggle to think of things with our slightly modified rules that categorically impact the game compared to if it were played in the US with all the necessary equipment. Yet this is clearly one.
Put it this way. If exactly the same situation had happened but with 39s on the clock instead of 1:04, Team A would have to punt and run the risk of a return TD, a single snap from scrimmage and some to and fro laterals for a TD etc. If they happen to be playing at Finsbury Park, they can run out the clock. That's quite a big difference in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by jedsy123 on Mar 11, 2013 16:00:24 GMT
HL in question here, I confirmed with the coach that the game clock would start on the ready after the injury and it would be a 25 second play clock. He then said that he wanted to let the time burn off then take a timeout which is what I relayed to Ben.
As to the general question of play clock timings; up until 4, maybe 5, years ago, if this scenario had happened in the FBS championship game it would have been handled in exactly the same manner, it's a pretty recent change for it being a 40 second clock, so it's not a dramatic shift from US rules.
|
|
|
Post by New(ish) Ref on Mar 11, 2013 16:27:23 GMT
There are countries in Europe which use the 40/25 second clock without visible play clocks. However, the challenge is how to deliver it in the context of the game in GB given that we are often working 4-man crews. Other countries work different baselines. For example, in Austria, they work 5-man with the BJ taking the play clock, and the mechanics have the BJ giving arm signals at 10 seconds left and 5 seconds left.
|
|
|
Post by steve88 on Mar 11, 2013 16:31:58 GMT
Fair enough if it's new. And I imagine up until the Blitz getting play clocks, that section of the rule book wasnt a major point of focus. I do think the fact there are now quite different outcomes possible depending on if you are playing with or without a playclock warrants some type of review however. 15s often isnt really a big deal, but in certain situations every second counts.
Given we try to "simulate" a 40s clock on a normal scrimmage down via the time taken for ball spotting and blowing in the ready for play, I do find it strange the same logic is not applied to this situation. Effectively you now do have a loophole for a Defence to get the ball back from a 1st and 10 situation for Team A at 2:00 on the clock, with Team B having no timeouts.
1st down. Run. No gain. 5s expired. 1:55. Defender is "injured". 2nd down. Clock starts on ready for play, snap at 1s, run, no gain, 5s expired during the play. 1:26. Defender is "injured". 3rd down. Clock starts on ready for play, snap at 1s, run, no gain, 5s expired during the play. 0:57. Defender is "injured". 4th down. Clock starts on ready for play.
Team A now have to snap the ball with 32-33s left on the clock.
If this same situation panned out in North London with play clocks, the game would have ended after 3rd down.
Maybe I'm wittering on about a minor point here, but given we have 10s run offs, and the reason for those is that every second counts near the end of the game and no team should be "advantaged" unfairly, I do find the above scenario troubling.
EDIT - thinking further, we have a real issue for ourself here. If the 1st down, under 2mins, Team B with no time outs situation arises, we often confirm to Team A they can just take knees if they ask. Often in my experience, the Team B HC asks them to actually physically take those knees on the off chance they muff a snap or something.
What's to stop a Team B player "twisting his ankle" whilst wandering around as Team A take a knee. As far as I can see it, we cant not stop the clock for an injured player, and based on what was applied in this BUCS game (which is what the rule book says should happen) Team A have just lost 15s that would otherwise have gone off the clock. Redo the "take a knee maths" prior to blowing in the ready for play and suddenly they cant end the game with knees.
|
|
|
Post by New(ish) Ref on Mar 11, 2013 16:45:19 GMT
The current 25-second clock rules are those that applied before the 40 second clock was introduced, so a team is in no worse a position than they used to be before that rule change was introduced.
(As an aside, your model also assumes that we stop the clock instantly for any injury. In reality, this isn't the case, as, unless it is obviously serious, I will give the player an opportunity to participate in the next down. That process consumes time, and so would typically result in a reduction in the amount of time that would actually be left on the clock when 4th down is reached.)
|
|
|
Post by steve88 on Mar 11, 2013 17:08:55 GMT
Good point. I'm clearly just over thinking things!
Your point about the clock not stopping immediately actually makes me begin to lean the other way. If Team B were right on the buffer time wise of at least getting the chance to return a punt to win the game, and one of their players goes down injured, with play clocks they lose the 5-10s the officials might give to make sure the player is properly hurt, and then another 40s once the play clock is reset. That could mean that punt return chance goes away.
Oh well. I guess what I've convinced myself is no solution is infallible!
|
|
|
Post by bafra31 on Mar 12, 2013 13:24:11 GMT
We had a play in a game earlier this season where Team A were driving in the last minute and needed a score to win. With 4 seconds left, the umpire granted them an injury timeout, after which they got in 1 more play (though didn't score). Accepting that the player was quite genuinely and seriously hurt, he wouldn't have died if we had waited 4 seconds before summoning help, but by stopping the game we effectively gave them one more play than they would otherwise have had.
After the game, we talked as a crew about how officials need to be wise to the game situation before doing anything to interrupt the flow of the game. The NFL replay officials are often brilliant in the way they choose when to buzz down to stop the game for a review.
|
|