On that holding call with 10 seconds left

[CHOPTALK]

Shouldn't that have been a 10 second runoff ending the half?

 

[terps1313]

I started a thread on this as well... seems a huge flaw in the system. How this hasn't been addressed yet blows my mind. They get rewarded by committing a penalty.

 

[Murphy8276]

looks to be life a seattle replacement refs issue.. hno:


-murph

 

[shane-o-mac]

wasn't the clock already stopped due to the penalty on the previous play? Wouldn't that negate the 10 second runoff?

3-10-ARI 18

19) (Shotgun) PENALTY on SEA-M.Bowie, False Start, 5 yards, enforced at ARI 18 - No Play.

​

3-15-ARI 23

19) (Shotgun) R.Wilson scrambles up the middle to ARI 7 for 16 yards (D.Washington). PENALTY on SEA-M.Unger, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at ARI 23 - No Play.​

 

[shane-o-mac]

Previous to the false start there was a Seattle timeout

Timeout #3 by SEA at 00:19.​

 

[DesertDevil]

Previous to the false start there was a Seattle timeout

Timeout #3 by SEA at 00:19.​

But the clock was running at the end of the current play. Why should it go back to the previous play?

IDK. Seems like a flaw in the system to me....

 

[shane-o-mac]

So ten second runoff wouldn't have been enforced on first SEA penalty because clock was already stopped by a SEA timeout. This false start penalty stops the clock on the play prior to the holding penalty. Holding penalty doesn't result in a ten second runoff because again clock was stopped due to the previous false start penalty. Might be off here but this is my thinking.

 

[Jstack34]

But the clock was running at the end of the current play. Why should it go back to the previous play?

IDK. Seems like a flaw in the system to me....

Because the holding call negates the play and they replay the down. Decline and the clock keeps running

 

[Doublelife]

Its really amazing how everybody watches so much football but doesn't know any of the rules. Clock was stopped before the play and they accepted the penalty so the clock is stopped.

 

[terps1313]

So ten second runoff wouldn't have been enforced on first SEA penalty because clock was already stopped by a SEA timeout. This false start penalty stops the clock on the play prior to the holding penalty. Holding penalty doesn't result in a ten second runoff because again clock was stopped due to the previous false start penalty. Might be off here but this is my thinking.

No it was a running play, the previous play has nothing to do with anything

 

[terps1313]

Its really amazing how everybody watches so much football but doesn't know any of the rules. Clock was stopped before the play and they accepted the penalty so the clock is stopped.

Um hence the word "flaw" in the rules

 

[shane-o-mac]

No it was a running play, the previous play has nothing to do with anything

A running play has nothing to do with anything. SEA takes a TO. Gets a false start penalty. Enforced. No Play. SEA runs another play. Holding penalty. Enforced. No play. Clock never runs. No runoff.

 

[terps1313]

A running play has nothing to do with anything. SEA takes a TO. Gets a false start penalty. Enforced. No Play. SEA runs another play. Holding penalty. Enforced. No play. Clock never runs. No runoff.

That makes no sense... again hence the word "flaw" in the rules. So if no penalty is called, the clock potentially runs out and Seattle doesn't even get another play off. However due to a penalty they benefit and get a FG attempt. The penalty BENEFITED them. Again I dont care what the rules state, its a FLAW in the rules. You should NEVER be benefited by a penalty.

 

[Jstack34]

That makes no sense... again hence the word "flaw" in the rules. So if no penalty is called, the clock potentially runs out and Seattle doesn't even get another play off. However due to a penalty they benefit and get a FG attempt. The penalty BENEFITED them. Again I dont care what the rules state, its a FLAW in the rules. You should NEVER be benefited by a penalty.

You lose 10 yards, thats the penalty. A penalty isn't designed to impact the clock. Things can have unintended benefits without being flawed.

 

[Jstack34]

No it was a running play, the previous play has nothing to do with anything

Your failing to realize the penalty negates the play so it doesn't matter if it is running or passing

 

[terps1313]

Your failing to realize the penalty negates the play so it doesn't matter if it is running or passing

If penalties aren't intended to impact the clock why do they have penalties which impact the clock?

 

[terps1313]

Your failing to realize the penalty negates the play so it doesn't matter if it is running or passing

You are failing to realize the penalty benefited them... any rule where a penalty benefits you needs to be looked at

 

[shane-o-mac]

If penalties aren't intended to impact the clock why do they have penalties which impact the clock?

I can't think of any penalty in football that is intended to impact the clock. It is only the time during which the penalty occurs that affects the clock.

 

[terps1313]

I can't think of any penalty in football that is intended to impact the clock. It is only the time during which the penalty occurs that affects the clock.

Read the rule book... all kinds of clock run-offs that benefit the offense

 

[shane-o-mac]

Read the rule book... all kinds of clock run-offs that benefit the offense

How would a clock run off benefit the offense?