Post by fan on Sept 4, 2018 20:04:09 GMT -5
I remember watching the game linked below as a 10 year old kid, and I remember being stunned as to how the game ended. I had not given it another thought again until I happened to be searching for something else and ran across this link on YouTube.
The fun begins at the 2:44 mark. The camera angles aren't great (Hey, this was 1992), but what is clear is that there is a fumble recovered by the offense, and the Head Linesman quickly makes that ruling because you can see him pointing to the ground. What happens next is unclear because the camera cuts to the defensive coach yelling for his players to stay down. It appears that the defense takes their time getting ready (as their coach is instructing), that the offense is up at the line ready to try one more play with about 3-4 seconds left, and somehow of another, the ball ends up well over outside the hashmark as time expired. The TV guys (including the late John Saunders R.I.P.) spend a good ten minutes on both sides of the commercial insisting the officials should have stopped the clock.
While I am just a fan and have no officiating training or experience, I have a few thoughts about this play on both sides of any debate about this. I would like to offer my thoughts and then get your thoughts as officials:
--The TV guys (who I know are quite often misguided) are insisting that the clock should have stopped because there is a fumble. However, as a fan, I typically have only seen officials stop the clock on a fumble when recovered by the defense (obviously due to the change of possession) or when there is a pile. In this case, it appears that the head linesman clearly sees the offense recover because he runs in pointing to the ground. So, stopping the clock for that reason does not seem necessary in my opinion.
--The offense has to know that running the ball with 19 seconds left and no timeouts is a huge risk. So, in the end, they can blame themselves for running a very high risk play.
--Due to the camera cutting to the shot of the defensive coach, we cannot really see what went on during the chaotic seconds as time was winding down. It appears though that the defense probably was taking their time (especially since their coach is instructing them to do so). Also, somehow of another, the ball ended up well outside the hashmark and was innocently laying there as time wound down. How it got there is a mystery: Perhaps, the defense intentionally batted it over there; perhaps, it was dropped; or perhaps, in all the chaos, it just accidentally got batted over there. But, however it got there, it was just innocently laying on the ground. As a result of the defense apparently stalling and/or the ball somehow ending up way over there, it appears that there probably was a longer than normal delay in getting the ball spotted.
--As the late John Saunders points out on the other side of the commercial, it looks like one official tries to stop the clock with about two seconds left but quickly quits signalling.
So, with the obvious constraints of not knowing exactly whether the defense stalled and how the ball ended up so far away, what are your thoughts as to how this was handled? In a game ending situation like this, under what circumstances should officials stop the clock when there is a longer than normal delay in spotting the ball (as it appears that one official was trying to do with about two seconds left)?
The fun begins at the 2:44 mark. The camera angles aren't great (Hey, this was 1992), but what is clear is that there is a fumble recovered by the offense, and the Head Linesman quickly makes that ruling because you can see him pointing to the ground. What happens next is unclear because the camera cuts to the defensive coach yelling for his players to stay down. It appears that the defense takes their time getting ready (as their coach is instructing), that the offense is up at the line ready to try one more play with about 3-4 seconds left, and somehow of another, the ball ends up well over outside the hashmark as time expired. The TV guys (including the late John Saunders R.I.P.) spend a good ten minutes on both sides of the commercial insisting the officials should have stopped the clock.
While I am just a fan and have no officiating training or experience, I have a few thoughts about this play on both sides of any debate about this. I would like to offer my thoughts and then get your thoughts as officials:
--The TV guys (who I know are quite often misguided) are insisting that the clock should have stopped because there is a fumble. However, as a fan, I typically have only seen officials stop the clock on a fumble when recovered by the defense (obviously due to the change of possession) or when there is a pile. In this case, it appears that the head linesman clearly sees the offense recover because he runs in pointing to the ground. So, stopping the clock for that reason does not seem necessary in my opinion.
--The offense has to know that running the ball with 19 seconds left and no timeouts is a huge risk. So, in the end, they can blame themselves for running a very high risk play.
--Due to the camera cutting to the shot of the defensive coach, we cannot really see what went on during the chaotic seconds as time was winding down. It appears though that the defense probably was taking their time (especially since their coach is instructing them to do so). Also, somehow of another, the ball ended up well outside the hashmark and was innocently laying there as time wound down. How it got there is a mystery: Perhaps, the defense intentionally batted it over there; perhaps, it was dropped; or perhaps, in all the chaos, it just accidentally got batted over there. But, however it got there, it was just innocently laying on the ground. As a result of the defense apparently stalling and/or the ball somehow ending up way over there, it appears that there probably was a longer than normal delay in getting the ball spotted.
--As the late John Saunders points out on the other side of the commercial, it looks like one official tries to stop the clock with about two seconds left but quickly quits signalling.
So, with the obvious constraints of not knowing exactly whether the defense stalled and how the ball ended up so far away, what are your thoughts as to how this was handled? In a game ending situation like this, under what circumstances should officials stop the clock when there is a longer than normal delay in spotting the ball (as it appears that one official was trying to do with about two seconds left)?