Jump to content

WO-S vs BYE


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

the announcers on the stream were wondering how it took place. he even says when the tackle on 3rd down was made " the Mustangs can't stop the clock"   the one guy says ," I have never seen this before"

even still when 4th the qb spiked the ball but somehow the refs blew whistle to add a second to the clock. AND they broke huddle with to many players. announcer even calls it.

know what though them DAWGS STILL WON !! LMAO!  

It wasn't 4th down. It was 3rd down because of the holding penalty on the prior play. Have to replay the down unless opposing team declines the penalty which they did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

It wasn't 4th down. It was 3rd down because of the holding penalty on the prior play. Have to replay the down unless opposing team declines the penalty which they did not.

Please don't argue with him. He knows  better than anyone else. Plus he'll lock the topic and hide if you keep trying to explain yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am beating a dead horse but I had to do it. Since yall know the rules so well, you should know that in 2019 this one was added to UIL football.

This season, Texas high school football will include the NCAA 10-second runoff provision. Inside the last minute of either half, if there is a foul that stops the clock, such as a false start, defensive offside with contact, illegal forward pass, injury or helmet coming off, the opposing team will have the option of taking the penalty yardage and taking a 10-second runoff.

The fouling team can “buy” the time back by taking a timeout. If the offended team declines the penalty yardage, they lose the option of taking the 10-second runoff. If the foul occurs with less than 10-seconds remaining in the half or game, the foul could end the half or game.

according to yall the holding penalty stopped the clock so if that actually was true then still no more plays should happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

I am beating a dead horse but I had to do it. Since yall know the rules so well, you should know that in 2019 this one was added to UIL football.

This season, Texas high school football will include the NCAA 10-second runoff provision. Inside the last minute of either half, if there is a foul that stops the clock, such as a false start, defensive offside with contact, illegal forward pass, injury or helmet coming off, the opposing team will have the option of taking the penalty yardage and taking a 10-second runoff.

The fouling team can “buy” the time back by taking a timeout. If the offended team declines the penalty yardage, they lose the option of taking the 10-second runoff. If the foul occurs with less than 10-seconds remaining in the half or game, the foul could end the half or game.

according to yall the holding penalty stopped the clock so if that actually was true then still no more plays should happen. 

That's the only thing I was curious about. The 10 second run off. Why wasn't it used or was it even an option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AggiesAreWe said:

That's the only thing I was curious about. The 10 second run off. Why wasn't it used or was it even an option?

well according to what happened it should have. because the penalty is what kept time from running out. a penalty that causes clock stoppage falls within the guideline of 10 second run off.  because the penalty was accepted and yards marked off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

well according to what happened it should have. because the penalty is what kept time from running out. a penalty that causes clock stoppage falls within the guideline of 10 second run off.  because the penalty was accepted and yards marked off

really the good thing for the Qb they have he was saved from the embarrassing spiking of the ball on 4th down when the decided to add a second to clock. because that what he did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

really the good thing for the Qb they have he was saved from the embarrassing spiking of the ball on 4th down when the decided to add a second to clock. because that what he did

It wasn't 4th down. Because of the penalty on the prior play, they replayed 3rd down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AggiesAreWe said:

It wasn't 4th down. Because of the penalty on the prior play, they replayed 3rd down.

ok let me try thus to help.

cause sorry to break it to yall but regardless of what society is doing these days you can't have it both ways. 

the play SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

just discussed the 10 second runoff. 

or the correct procedure happens and the clock runs out because Turner was tackled in bounds on third down that started with 9 seconds left.

either way another play should NOT HAPPEN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

ok let me try thus to help.

cause sorry to break it to yall but regardless of what society is doing these days you can't have it both ways. 

the play SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

just discussed the 10 second runoff. 

or the correct procedure happens and the clock runs out because Turner was tackled in bounds on third down that started with 9 seconds left.

either way another play should NOT HAPPEN.

I was just correcting that you said it was 4th down when he spiked the ball. It was 3rd down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dirty_but_Dazzling said:

ok let me try thus to help.

cause sorry to break it to yall but regardless of what society is doing these days you can't have it both ways. 

the play SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

just discussed the 10 second runoff. 

or the correct procedure happens and the clock runs out because Turner was tackled in bounds on third down that started with 9 seconds left.

either way another play should NOT HAPPEN.

Extension of Periods
ARTICLE 3. a. A period shall be extended for an untimed down if one or more
of the following occurs during a down in which time expires
(A.R. 3-2-3-I-VIII):
1. A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-
a). At the option of the offended team, the period is not extended if
the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty
includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII).
2. There are offsetting fouls.
3. An official sounds their whistle inadvertently or otherwise incorrectly
signals the ball dead.

b. Additional untimed downs will be played until a down is free of the
circumstances in statements 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 3-2-3-a (above).
c. If a touchdown is scored during a down in which time in a period expires,
the period is extended for the try (Exception: Rule 8-3-2-a).

If the official incorrectly signaled the ball dead, then an untimed down is appropriate. That's the rule that has me curious. I don't know if that's happened one way or the other. I'm merely stating contrary to our riled up little bulldog that there are other circumstances for an extended period after time has expired (see above).

@Dirty_but_Dazzling, you clearly stated the only reason for an untimed down was for a defensive penalty. You were wrong. Own it. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be right and wrong at the same time. You also said "NO TIME = END OF GAME". Wrong again mama...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Extension of Periods
ARTICLE 3. a. A period shall be extended for an untimed down if one or more
of the following occurs during a down in which time expires
(A.R. 3-2-3-I-VIII):
1. A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-
a). At the option of the offended team, the period is not extended if
the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty
includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII).
2. There are offsetting fouls.
3. An official sounds their whistle inadvertently or otherwise incorrectly
signals the ball dead.

b. Additional untimed downs will be played until a down is free of the
circumstances in statements 1, 2 and 3 of Rule 3-2-3-a (above).
c. If a touchdown is scored during a down in which time in a period expires,
the period is extended for the try (Exception: Rule 8-3-2-a).

If the official incorrectly signaled the ball dead, then an untimed down is appropriate. That's the rule that has me curious. I don't know if that happened one way or the other. I'm merely stating contrary to our riled up little bulldog that there are other circumstances for an extended period after time has expired (see above).

@Dirty_but_Dazzling, you clearly stated the only reason for an untimed down was for a defensive penalty. You were wrong. Own it. Sorry to break it to you, but you can't have it both ways. You can't be right and wrong at the same time. You also said "NO TIME = END OF GAME". Wrong again mama...

Smash you would be heck of a ref

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I know Chad very well.

He was officiating some youth football games Saturday morning. My grandson was playing in one of them. Chad saw me and came over and showed me the text message.

Like I said, from that text, Crumedy was pleased with the officiating Friday night.

I wonder if you could get some clarification from your friend Chad about the extension of play after time expired. It's really a pretty interesting topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both parties are partially right here. Looking at the video the penalty is offensive holding on a play resulting in the time continuing to run. The flag stops the clock for penalty enforcement (10 yards and replay the down) to be restarted on the "ready for play whistle". This is an offensive penalty and carries a 10 second run off unless the offense uses a timeout. By these accounts the game should have ended due to the penalty. The crew messed this up.

But you can only go by what actually happened so....

3rd down: WOS snaps as soon as the ready for play whistle is blown and spikes the ball. This play takes 1 maybe 2 seconds tops leaving 1 second left to snap the ball for 4th down. The true game time is held on the field with the back judge who would be prepared to stop the clock in these situations. So with greater than 0 seconds left on the official game clock WOs is able to play 4th down. If the clock operator makes an error and runs it to zero it should be corrected but in all honesty as long as the coaches and players know there is still time for a play to be ran then the scoreboard doesn't matter. In this case it seems it was easier for the official to call it an untimed down instead of taking 1-2 minutes to get the operators attention to put 1 second on since there is only time for 1 final play barring a defensive penalty. Fans may be upset and not understand whats happening but the coaches appear to be informed of whats happening

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

This is the most entertaining thread of the week so far. 🍿

it was locked because if the bickering(that I let myself get caught up in and the thread topic wasn't being talked about) I have seen they locked for less.  next time I will just delete. But the satisfaction of knowing what I was talking about AND them DAWGS coming back from 17 down. Ain't nobody happier than me.  😂  he'll I will LMAO right along with yall but least am 100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I know Chad very well.

He was officiating some youth football games Saturday morning. My grandson was playing in one of them. Chad saw me and came over and showed me the text message.

Like I said, from that text, Crumedy was pleased with the officiating Friday night.

the more I thought about it thar could be true. I can see him coming to and "damn check this out. can you believe after the way we did them he text saying good job?"

other than that it seems that text from a coach isn't worth going around to show your "pals".  if should be the norm, to where you aren't so excited to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...