- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was Adding a Second to the Clock in UT vs NU Right?
Posted on 12/10/09 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 12/10/09 at 6:17 pm
I've seen the youtube video. However, the natural delay in human reaction time is always allowed to run off the clock. That is how it has always been and is the de facto standard. But UT got the replay.
Now, if LSU had gotten a replay on the TT catch against OM, LSU would have had 2 if not 3 seconds on the clock and time to spike the ball and get the fg team on the field.
I'm not trying to excuse LM because he completely blew that game and deserved and continues to deserve all criticism.
But, this action to add a second back to the clock is precedent setting.
What if the NU team had swarmed the field celebrating? Could the officials have contained it and would they have tried?
From the video the ball hit the ground w/ 1 second showing, that is not in dispute. But that same precedent would have provided LSU an fg opportunity over OM.
Now, if LSU had gotten a replay on the TT catch against OM, LSU would have had 2 if not 3 seconds on the clock and time to spike the ball and get the fg team on the field.
I'm not trying to excuse LM because he completely blew that game and deserved and continues to deserve all criticism.
But, this action to add a second back to the clock is precedent setting.
What if the NU team had swarmed the field celebrating? Could the officials have contained it and would they have tried?
From the video the ball hit the ground w/ 1 second showing, that is not in dispute. But that same precedent would have provided LSU an fg opportunity over OM.
4
Posted on 12/10/09 at 6:20 pm to specs1
First off, LSU got fricked. Going from 3 to 1 seconds left was the same effect as 1 to 0 given the situation.
I think that a play like that, human delay or not, is going to be reviewed. Never do you see the clock reviewed and the reviewer looks for the official. They look for the moment the ball touched the ground, and there was a second left (or fraction thereof).
I've been more pissed about Texas' other 10 points since they were all a gift of pass interference calls that they refused to call for Nebraska. Had those been even calls, Nebraska wins anyway.
I think that a play like that, human delay or not, is going to be reviewed. Never do you see the clock reviewed and the reviewer looks for the official. They look for the moment the ball touched the ground, and there was a second left (or fraction thereof).
I've been more pissed about Texas' other 10 points since they were all a gift of pass interference calls that they refused to call for Nebraska. Had those been even calls, Nebraska wins anyway.
Posted on 12/10/09 at 6:26 pm to Eternalmajin
Posted on 12/10/09 at 6:58 pm to specs1
quote:
But, this action to add a second back to the clock is precedent setting.
No it isn't
quote:
What if the NU team had swarmed the field celebrating? Could the officials have contained it and would they have tried?
They were able to do it doing a NC game, Fla. St. v Nebraska
Posted on 12/10/09 at 7:49 pm to TigerintheNO
Think about it this way, if Nebraska was down 12-10 and driving and ran that same play, do you think the officials would have put a second back on the clock for Nebraska to kick the winning fg and keep Texas out of the NC? No way. If you believe otherwise, you're crazy.
Posted on 12/10/09 at 8:03 pm to specs1
quote:
specs1
i feel the same way you do and I think we can all agree that this is a ridiculous grey area that the NCAA needs to address very soon. The refs' selective use of replay for this purpose is quite unsettling, to say the least
Posted on 12/10/09 at 8:05 pm to Feed Me Popeyes
I believe it would have been very beneficial had they run the clock to 0 against LSU...that would have given Miles time to have the FG team ready...I think... 
Posted on 12/10/09 at 8:32 pm to rpg37
quote:
I believe it would have been very beneficial had they run the clock to 0
True. That would have prompted a look at the replay at least. Good point.
The play is dead when the player is down. Toliver was actually down between 3 and 4 seconds. Ref started blowing whistle and waving at 3 seconds. Human delay counted for the difference between 3 and 1.
The Texas situation was identical to LSU's w/ the exception of the clock going to O for Texas. So again you make a good point.
Posted on 12/10/09 at 10:01 pm to specs1
Clock error is only reviewable according to the rules for "egregious error". This did not even approach that standard. The review itself violated NCAA rules. By that standard, it was wrong.
Was there a second left? Yeah. So from the fairness standpoint, it was correct.
Was there a second left? Yeah. So from the fairness standpoint, it was correct.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 1:09 am to rpg37
quote:
believe it would have been very beneficial had they run the clock to 0 against LSU
I've said that on here before.
Leaving :01 meant we had to run down to get a snap off, confusion is everywhere, and the replay booth really had no time to check the play to see if it warranted a review.
If it ran to :00, i have no doubt in my mind it would have beeen reviewed and time added, giving us ample time to put the FG team on the field.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 1:12 am to Baloo
quote:
Clock error is only reviewable according to the rules for "egregious error". This did not even approach that standard. The review itself violated NCAA rules. By that standard, it was wrong
i see what you're saying and I know the counter-argument already, that every second is as important as the next.
No one is worrying about that extra second on an incomplete pass with 7:18 left in the 2nd quarter. NO coach would ever bitch about it.
But in reality, that final second is more important at the time then all the other seconds when neither coach cared about running off.
I'm still miffed that so many people are mad about this. If they let it stay at :00 and end the game, Texas has a MUCH better argument for being screwed than the way it stands now.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 7:26 am to Cornholio
NO.. the clock does not stop on the incompletion it stops when signaled to do so by the referee closest to the play.. which was afte 0.0
Posted on 12/11/09 at 7:45 am to choupiquesushi
quote:
NO.. the clock does not stop on the incompletion it stops when signaled to do so by the referee closest to the play.. which was afte 0.0
So you agree two different procedures were used in these two different games. The UT/NU precedent was different than the norm. Under this precedent LSU should have had 3 seconds against OM.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:01 am to choupiquesushi
quote:
NO.. the clock does not stop on the incompletion it stops when signaled to do so by the referee closest to the play..
Good grief.
The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped, by rule; the signal is merely an indicator it is already dead.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:04 am to arrakis
quote:
The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped, by rule; the signal is merely an indicator it is already dead.
Exactly. So, my point that LSU got robbed of 2 seconds is correct.
Further, Mack Brown was releived of displacing Miles as the punchline of the 2009 cfb season.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:07 am to specs1
quote:
Exactly. So, my point that LSU got robbed of 2 seconds is correct.
You are as wrong as choupiquesushi
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:27 am to arrakis
had the play started with 1 minute plus(same amount of seconds) left on the clock, i bet the clock would've stopped at 59seconds left and there would had not been a replay to add more time to the clock.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:33 am to shel311
"Egregious error" doesn't mean how importnat the second is, it means the error is egregious. the example in the rulebook is the clock continuing to run for a minute while the refs measure for a first down. THAT is egregious error, not the human reflex being too slow to hit the button in the second.
Anyone who pretends timing or yardage in football is exact is a liar. You lose yards and seconds all of the time.
Anyone who pretends timing or yardage in football is exact is a liar. You lose yards and seconds all of the time.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:34 am to arrakis
quote:
Good grief.
The ball is dead, and the clock is stopped, by rule; the signal is merely an indicator it is already dead.
what if clock operator cannot see if ball is incomplete or complete.
Posted on 12/11/09 at 8:38 am to lsu xman
quote:
had the play started with 1 minute plus(same amount of seconds) left on the clock, i bet the clock would've stopped at 59seconds left and there would had not been a replay to add more time to the clock.
By your logic, should the officials not go into "hurry up mode" to match the pace of the game?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News