Fixing Clock Issues - a modest proposal
by gtne91 on Nov 1, 2011 11:14 AM EDT
Email
Print
USC/Stanford. USC/Stanford last year. Texas/Nebraska. Lots of other games. We have all seen clock operators screw things up by a second here or there. We normally only notice it at the very end of games, but it happens all the time. Like with officials marking spots with a foot then measuring for a first down exactly, it seems silly at times, but can decide a game.
But what can be done about it? I will radically fix it, with details after the jump, but here is the kicker: we are gonna get rid of the clock.
Thats right, no clock. Oh, we will keep the play clock around, we will still need it. But instead of a time clock, quarters will consist of a predetermined number of snaps from scrimmage. I think 40 is the right number, but that can be debated. Kickoffs, as they arent scrimmage plays wouldnt move the "clock". Nor would xps, because, duh. Penalties would be the trickiest, it would depend if the play counts or not.
This does have some changes to the way the game is played, but most are for the best. The two minute drill changes dramatically. Its about advancing the ball in a limited number of plays, running to the line isnt necessary anymore. Getting first downs or out of bounds to stop the clock isnt necessary. The pass down the middle of the field has to be defended now. Timeouts arent for stopping the clock anymore (on offense or on defense).
Running a hurry up offense doesnt get you extra possessions. But it does still change pacing, so it still is useful. Burning clock isnt just about rushing, its about running a lot of plays, whether its running the ball or short passes. The 4.5 hour game between two teams that throw lots of incompletions are a thing of the past.
Mostly the game stays the same. Its a silly idea, but only because we are used to a clock. But a play counter is just as logical, just different. And anyone thinking this is overly serious, read the headline again.
For those who like to think about how things could be different, discuss in the comments, what other changes - good or bad - would this make to the game?
FanPosts are user-submitted, and thus NOT representative of EDSBS editorial or any of our opinions unless posted by us ourselves. Please refrain from posting blatant spam or self-promotion, because this makes us hate you. Thanks!
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
would plays negated by penalty still count?
what about extra points, punts, and kickoffs?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
GTHTSUN
3 of those covered in the article
Punts are scrimmage plays, of course they count.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
how i missed that, i have no idea/excuse
it would seem to make the run game considerably less effective, though
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
GTHTSUN
by CoastalCowbell on Nov 1, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting, I thought the exact opposite
The passing teams lose the advantage of the extra possesions, making them less effective.
Run teams would chew up less “clock”, so maybe it makes both less effective.
It brings back the run game as an option in late game scenarios. Its 3rd and 2 and you need to pick up the first to continue the drive, you can consider running up the middle as opposed to the quick out pass.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
From a very quick rough calculation
by looking at median number of plays, punts and field goals, it looks like teams are averaging just under 38 snaps per quarter this season.
40 seems to be the right number, it restores some of the plays the recent clock rule changes have taken away.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
Sorry, which are you saying:
1. The rule would allow 40 snaps per quarter.
2. The rule would allow 40 snaps per team per quarter.
40 snaps TOTAL per quarter
If GT goes on a 38 play death march drive, the other team only gets 2 that quarter.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
There is one huge, game-changing flaw in this plan in the college game
and that’s the pass interference penalty, unless part of the penalty for PI is “snap doesn’t count”. Otherwise, I would tell my team commit pass interference on every catchable pass longer than about 25 yards.
Other than that, it’s intriguing.
The Wiki (I Don't Have a Real Name Yet) -- The Blog (Those Other Guys) -- The Twitter
Contributor at Bring on the Cats, SBNation's Kansas State blog
EDSBS Censor Librorum Promulgatio Media
Snap wouldnt count
play is waved off, penalty is accepted.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
Facemask or horse collar would be huge penalties
15 yards from end of run AND the play doesnt click off.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
this was what my initial post was getting at.
i dunno where/why i came up with the 2nd half of.
Deadball fouls = no play
right?
delay of game = play?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
GTHTSUN
by CoastalCowbell on Nov 1, 2011 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
Does play still occur?
If before play, like false start or delay of game, no play.
If after play, like say a dead ball personal foul or taunting. Previous play counts, then penalty.
If during play, depends if penalty accepted. Holding, no play. PI, no play. Unless declined, then play stands. So, game still cant end on a defensive penalty, because it doesnt click down the clock.
So, lets take a hypothetical completed 10 yard pass in which a PI flag is thrown. Can take PI penalty and no play, or decline and play counts. Offended team would get to choose. I could see a late game scenario in which you get a first down and then a facemask in which you would decline the 15 yards in order to click the clock down 1.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
For facemask/roughing the passer
those penalties get tacked on to the end of the play (even though they occur during the action); if that’s the case, should the play still count?
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
For facemask, no.
While its at the end of the play, the play was cut short due to the style of the tackle, maybe the guy goes another 40 yards without the facemask. So I think it is unfair to count the play in those cases.
For roughing the passer, I could see it counting, since its basically a dead ball play. But it isnt really, because if, for example, the ball is intercepted, that is waved off. So, I guess, it shouldnt count like with facemasks.
These are the kind of details Ive never quite worked out because I could see them going either way. They are tough calls. However, thinking about it some more, the play with the roughing cant count, because think of how it works now with a clock. If you rough the passer, even if the clock expires the offense gets another play, because you cant end on a defensive penalty. So, using the snap system, you cant count the play. Basically, all defensive penalties DURING a play would make the play not count.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
I'd say they count
but even in the no-clock system, maintain the rule that the half/game cannot end on an accepted defensive penalty.
Here is the thing
what about offensive penalties, lets take holding for example.
Play is waived off, its now 1st and 20, obviously play didnt count. But what about the weird holding down field on a long run, where after penalty, you replay 1st down, but its now 1st and 2?
I think the two should be treated the same. Maybe if the play is run, it counts? That is similar to the clock situation, in that they dont put time back on the clock. In which case, that answers the questions for both offensive and defensive penalties, but, yeah, you have to bring back the “quarter cant end on an accepted defensive penalty” rule.
I like not counting penalties as plays, but might need to. Shrug.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
I guess, yeah, if the ball snaps legitimately, the play counts
So a false start wouldnt count (dead ball foul) but an illegal shift (accepted or declined) would.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
An example 4th quarter
To see how things would be different, Im using GT-CU from saturday, as extreme examples of clock use in both directions.
CU drive #1: 1 play, TD (they started quarter on GT 1) 39 snaps left, 14:47 clock left. GT up 31-17
GT drive #1: 4 plays, punt (3 and out) 35 snaps left, 12:06 clock left. GT used 2:41.
CU drive #2: 7 plays, punt 28 snaps left, 10:51 clock left. Clemson ran 7 plays in 1:15, they had 4 incompletions.
GT drive #2: 1 play, INT 27 snaps left, 10:39 clock left.
CU drive #3: 1 play, INT 26 snaps left, 10:33 clock left.
GT drive #3, 16 plays, turnover on downs. 10 snaps left, 1:29 clock left. GT ate up 9:04, which is a bigger chunk of the quarter than 16 plays is of 40. But it offset Clemsons quick 7 play drive. CU was left with 89 seconds to score 2 TDs. The other way, Clemson is left with 10 snaps to score 2 TDs, which is really about the same, however, they could more readily use the middle of the field on those 10 passing plays. However, however, GT probably would have attempted the FG and/or run some more aggressive plays to get another first down, in order to click off another set of plays. So it would have changed the game calling some, but not much.
CU drive #4, 4 plays, INT 6 snaps left, 1:06 clock left. They ran 4 plays in :23 seconds.
GT drive #4, 2 plays, victory formation. They wouldnt have quite been able to run out the clock, but even running 4 VFs would have meant Clemson had 2 plays to score two TDs. Score, onside kick, Score.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
I thought of it about 5 years ago.
Im not really suggesting it because most people I mention it to look at my like Im insane, but I wouldnt oppose the change.
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
While that is a perfectly reasonable position
care to elaborate?
The thing is, this isnt like a playoff proposal. This “idea” will never be implemented in our lifetime. Its a gedanken experiment. One off “not a fan” lines are a failure to embrace the silliness and play with the idea.
That is like responding to the original modest proposal with: “Not a fan of cannibalism.”
the secret ingredient is ... love?!
I only read the first sentence or so after the bump
I’d like my half a minute back please. This is the damned dumbest thing I’ve read in some time. ANd I frequent Tigerdroppings.
nemo me impune lacessit
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
