Orange Blooded [4521]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 11829
Joined: 11/11/00
|
Why no 10 second run off in Auburn game?
[1]
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:40 PM
|
|
I thought if you committed an offensive penalty, you had to take TO or run 10 seconds off
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [8047]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8508
Joined: 2/14/15
|
Re: Why no 10 second run off in Auburn game?
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:41 PM
|
|
Lsu didn't have any TO......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4521]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 11829
Joined: 11/11/00
|
exactly, no TO = game ove, no play***
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10577]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5320
Joined: 1/27/16
|
illegal shift is a pre-snap penalty
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:43 PM
|
|
all i can think of
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1186]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2140
Joined: 8/30/08
|
Re: illegal shift is a pre-snap penalty
[1]
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:47 PM
|
|
Same thing happened in the Stanford game just before half and the did the runoff.
I am now officially lost on this rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4521]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 11829
Joined: 11/11/00
|
well if that is the reason, kind of a dumb rule
[1]
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:47 PM
|
|
The whole point was to prevent a team from being able to stop the clock with no TO. So now just commit an illegal shift and stop the clock. Doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3939]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5313
Joined: 12/30/06
|
Exactly!*********
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34733
Joined: 8/28/00
|
SO is false start
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:50 PM
|
|
And that carries the run off for sure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trainer [44]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 106
Joined: 6/5/15
|
Re: SO is false start
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:52 PM
|
|
False start is a dead ball foul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34733
Joined: 8/28/00
|
True.
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:56 PM
|
|
I didn't see the end of the game, but if the illegal shift didn't cause the play to be called dead then there is no runoff after the end of the play.
In this case, I'd assume the play in which there was an illegal shift was completed normally, and as such there would be no run off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1539
Joined: 11/8/14
|
Re: illegal shift is a pre-snap penalty-- NOT!
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:09 PM
|
|
Just like illegal formation, it is a live ball foul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2428]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3400
Joined: 12/19/13
|
Re: Why no 10 second run off in Auburn game?
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 9:47 PM
|
|
It's not a dead ball foul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3420]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 6148
Joined: 9/13/00
|
Should've been game over.***
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9418
Joined: 9/9/03
|
It's the SEC!!!!!
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:03 PM
|
|
'Splains a lot....
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6996]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9418
Joined: 9/9/03
|
It's the SEC!!!!!
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:04 PM
|
|
'Splains a lot....
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1681]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1539
Joined: 11/8/14
|
Re: Why no 10 second run off in Auburn game?
Posted: Sep 24, 2016 10:07 PM
|
|
First, Illegal Shift is not a dead ball foul, so the clock correctly continued to run until the play was whistled dead.
Second, I believe there should have been a 10-second run-off, and the game should have ended. I'm not 100% sure on this, but reading the rule and the reason it was instituted in Wikipedia, it appears that the 10-second run-off would have been appropriate.
Third, the Referee clearly announced that the clock would start on his signal. Since the ball could not be snapped prior to the ready for play signal, it was virtually impossible for it to be snapped prior to time expiring.
Fourth, contratulations to Les Miles for, once again, mismanaging the game clock!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
