Why did clock stop after Allen’s amazing 3rd and 13 run

[JerseyBills]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Because inside the final 5 minutes a penalty stops the clock whether enforced or declined.

never realized it stopped even if penalty is declined, If a play looks like a guaranteed first down in that situation, it's worth 5 yards to stop clock

[GunnerBill]

9 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Well said Shaw, and I’d ad the core problem is that as the rule apparently stands the trailing team is incentivized to purposefully commit a foul in order to stop the clock. That’s obviously a problem for player safety. 

 

It really only incentivises them to do that as a post snap penalty after a first down. 

 

Let's say Allen had been stopped 2 yards short on the run. Then the penalty Miami committed gives them no advantage. Because it gives the Bills a first down and what you really want there as the Fish is to stop the Bills and get the ball back. So the idea that the hold could have been intentional to stop the clock is really a non-starter. 

 

And if you commit a penalty after 2nd down or 3rd down to try and stop the clock you risk giving a fresh set of downs. So that isn't an incentive for the defense. 

 

So the only scenario in which a defense can "game" the system is to commit a post snap penalty right after a 1st down conversion.... which means a personal foul. And the refs know what the score is. They are looking out for it. And they are only calling a flag in that scenario for something egregious which probably equates to an ejection and possible suspension and big fine. I don't think many players are willing to take those punishments in order to stop the clock.

 

So I don't think the system is creating incentives to "game" it. 

 

That is separate to could a team gain an advantage without trying to game the system (as the Dolphins arguably did)? Which obviously can happen. Whether it is sufficiently serious to create a rule change I don't know. The 4th Quarter timing rules are designed to help create close finishes. That is part of the NFL's objective.

[ExiledInIllinois]

13 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Why would it make sense to you? A team should have the option to accept the penalty or not. Not accepting the penalty should run the clock.

Yeah. Teams take penalties to stop the clock. I guess like fouling in basketball??

 

They should do runoffs if penalties are in sequence. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

This is a dumb rule. It should be the same enforcement as if the offense makes a penalty that stops a running clock. You either are forced to use a timeout or there is a 10 sec run off. If the defense has a TO they should be forced to use it or they take 10 sec off clock and start the clock on the snap.

That would at least be consistent. 

[Blackbeard]

Cause Allen’s a show stoppa!

 

 

[GunnerBill]

48 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

This is a dumb rule. It should be the same enforcement as if the offense makes a penalty that stops a running clock. You either are forced to use a timeout or there is a 10 sec run off. If the defense has a TO they should be forced to use it or they take 10 sec off clock and start the clock on the snap.

That would at least be consistent. 

 

I think a 10 second run off would be sensible. I'm more in favour of that than the other solutions. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It really only incentivises them to do that as a post snap penalty after a first down. 

 

Let's say Allen had been stopped 2 yards short on the run. Then the penalty Miami committed gives them no advantage. Because it gives the Bills a first down and what you really want there as the Fish is to stop the Bills and get the ball back. So the idea that the hold could have been intentional to stop the clock is really a non-starter. 

 

And if you commit a penalty after 2nd down or 3rd down to try and stop the clock you risk giving a fresh set of downs. So that isn't an incentive for the defense. 

 

So the only scenario in which a defense can "game" the system is to commit a post snap penalty right after a 1st down conversion.... which means a personal foul. And the refs know what the score is. They are looking out for it. And they are only calling a flag in that scenario for something egregious which probably equates to an ejection and possible suspension and big fine. I don't think many players are willing to take those punishments in order to stop the clock.

 

So I don't think the system is creating incentives to "game" it. 

 

That is separate to could a team gain an advantage without trying to game the system (as the Dolphins arguably did)? Which obviously can happen. Whether it is sufficiently serious to create a rule change I don't know. The 4th Quarter timing rules are designed to help create close finishes. That is part of the NFL's objective.

That’s all logical, but whether intentional or not, there shouldn’t be ANY advantage given when you commit a penalty….especially when it’s been declined. And for what it’s worth, the NFL shouldn’t be in the business of creating close finishes. 

[djp14150]

15 hours ago, Mark Vader said:

I've been wondering this too. Was there an injured player at the end of the play?

The defensive holding penalty stopped the c

Clock with under 5 min to go.

 

this is a rule change needed.

 

a team could strategize when trying to come back and preserve time outs by doing penalties like in this situation.

 

The team could choose, take the penalty and stop clock or let clock run. Since 1st was made without the penalty.

[Rochesterfan]

1 hour ago, djp14150 said:

The defensive holding penalty stopped the c

Clock with under 5 min to go.

 

this is a rule change needed.

 

a team could strategize when trying to come back and preserve time outs by doing penalties like in this situation.

 

The team could choose, take the penalty and stop clock or let clock run. Since 1st was made without the penalty.

 

Although I do not disagree that a timeout or runoff makes sense - the actual architecture of this occurring is a very small and limited example.  Literally the only time it has a slight impact is on a play like in the Bills game where the foul occurred and the Bills got the first down anyway with a lead and the ball.  All other cases it is a huge negative to commit the foul.

 

If Wilkins makes the tackle short - the penalty gives an automatic first down.  If a defense jumps Offside to stop the clock the offense gets 5 yards and the down over. You could do that once, but a second time is a first down.  A personal foul is 15 yards and a first down.  All stopping the clock, but providing yards and downs that the defense is trying to stop.

 

My guess is like the Belichick punt issue of a few years ago - it occurs so infrequently that it has gone unnoticed and it will get presented in the off season for review.  It is not like Miami did it on purpose to gain the advantage because it could have cost them dearly if they had stopped Josh short.  It was a bad play on their part that happened in this case to provide a small amount of help.

 

 

Edited January 11 by Rochesterfan

[Prospector]

17 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nope. By rule the clock stops whether declined or accepted under 5 minutes.

 

It actually shocks me so many regular NFL fans don't know this.

and knowing is half the battle. G. I. JOOOOOOOOOEEESS!!!

[JohnNord]

17 hours ago, rusty shackleford said:

Yeah it stopped because of the holding penalty on Ramsey. The hold resulted in 5 yards added to the end of the run so we accepted. I don't think declining it would have stared the clock again either.

Sal answered this question - it’s something about the clock stopping inside 5:00 minutes.  

[colin]

creates an opportunity to stop the clock when the other team is eating it.

[Doc]

17 hours ago, Charles Romes said:

It’s dumb because the defense can gain for its team a massive time advantage - possibly preserving a chance to win - by committing a penalty.  

 

I did a search and that's the reason for it, i.e. so teams can't just run out the clock.

[Buckets]

17 hours ago, MJS said:

Why is it dumb? It makes sense to me.

Because a team with no time outs remaining and behind by a couple of points can stop the clock with a minor penalty.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s another dumb NFL rule. One of the dumbest. I learn of a new dumb rule every year.

 

I personally don't like the 2 minute warning.  Just feels like an ad break.  

[BringMetheHeadofLeonLett]

All this 'final 5 minutes of the half' time garbage was added so they could run more clock, cram in more commercials, and still keep a game around 3 hours.   
 

Don't care if I 'should' know the rules, they suck and are artificial to the game.  What exactly is more important during those final 5 minutes than in all the prep work leading up to those 5 minutes?  Maybe we should just have 2 five minute halves, since that's when the really important stuff happens.   

[LABILLBACKER]

17 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s another dumb NFL rule. One of the dumbest. I learn of a new dumb rule every year.

Exactly,  it penalizes the team not getting penalized. Obviously stop the clock to resolve the penalty, but start the clock once the ball is set. 

31 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

I personally don't like the 2 minute warning.  Just feels like an ad break.  

It is an ad break. Pretty much everything set up in an NFL game centers around advertising. 

[BisonMan]

As others have said, this is really a non-issue. First, there is no benefit to "stop the clock" when the penalty would just give the offense a free down. For example, going Offside intentionally would stop the clock, but it would give the offense the down over, plus 4 yards. If it gave the offense a first down, it's 4 additional downs to run the clock. Most in-play penalties (holding, interference, etc.) also create an automatic first down (again more free plays, more time used). If Ramsey held on the Bills 3rd and 13 to stop the clock, he's a moron. 

 

The situation here is rare when the offense got the first down "legitimately" and the fouls just added additional yards and stopped the clock. The only place this might be a good strategy is if the offense was 3rd and 1 and was the Eagles. You know they're almost automatically going to "tush push" the first down and giving them an additional 4 yards by being Offside helps by stopping the clock. Pretty rare situation. 

 

I do agree that post-play penalties is something to look at. Then the defense already knows the outcome was a 1st down and could draw an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (i.e. call the ref an #######). I'm actually not sure if those currently stop the clock but competitive teams would have low value players pull that stuff in every game if that did stop it.

There are probably a lot of rules the could have game situational "tweaks" to marginally increase "fairness" like this one. However, making the rules more complicated and more situational doesn't bode well for having better management of games by the refs. More complexity and nuance leads to more mistakes in any situation. The "juice isn't worth the squeeze" to change the rule for this type of somewhat rare situation.

 

Now, fumbling the ball through the endzone....

 

My 2 cents.

[Big Turk]

18 hours ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

It’s another dumb NFL rule. One of the dumbest. I learn of a new dumb rule every year.

 

Yes, because a team false starting itself to victory under 5 minutes would be great for the game.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

5 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Yes, because a team false starting itself to victory under 5 minutes would be great for the game.

What does a false start have to do with a defensive penalty?

[Virgil]

19 hours ago, Airseven said:

The run was so amazing time stood still.

 

It made me immediately forgive him for the first half turnovers

[Buffalo_Stampede]

27 minutes ago, BisonMan said:

As others have said, this is really a non-issue. First, there is no benefit to "stop the clock" when the penalty would just give the offense a free down. For example, going Offside intentionally would stop the clock, but it would give the offense the down over, plus 4 yards. If it gave the offense a first down, it's 4 additional downs to run the clock. Most in-play penalties (holding, interference, etc.) also create an automatic first down (again more free plays, more time used). If Ramsey held on the Bills 3rd and 13 to stop the clock, he's a moron. 

 

The situation here is rare when the offense got the first down "legitimately" and the fouls just added additional yards and stopped the clock. The only place this might be a good strategy is if the offense was 3rd and 1 and was the Eagles. You know they're almost automatically going to "tush push" the first down and giving them an additional 4 yards by being Offside helps by stopping the clock. Pretty rare situation. 

 

I do agree that post-play penalties is something to look at. Then the defense already knows the outcome was a 1st down and could draw an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (i.e. call the ref an #######). I'm actually not sure if those currently stop the clock but competitive teams would have low value players pull that stuff in every game if that did stop it.

There are probably a lot of rules the could have game situational "tweaks" to marginally increase "fairness" like this one. However, making the rules more complicated and more situational doesn't bode well for having better management of games by the refs. More complexity and nuance leads to more mistakes in any situation. The "juice isn't worth the squeeze" to change the rule for this type of somewhat rare situation.

 

Now, fumbling the ball through the endzone....

 

My 2 cents.

It saves the defense 30-40 seconds. It’s a dumb rule and should be changed to give teams the option of running the clock or declining.

 

Luckily it didn’t hurt us but it definitely helped Miami.

 

Imagine if there was 2:30 left when Allen got the first and Miami had no timeouts. Game should be over. Instead the clock stops at 2:30, Bills have to run a play. Miami could get the ball back with 30 seconds or so all because of the rule.

[Shaw66]

Well, I continue to think there are opportunities to game the system.   

 

One problem is the arbitrariness of the time these rules apply.  Why is this rule and the out of bounds rule a 5-minute rule but the 10 second runoff is a 2-minute rule?  If the Dolphins were getting the benefit of the clock stoppage, why not also offer the Bills a 10-second runoff?   

 

I agree with Gunner that the rule probably is designed to give an advantage to the team trying to come back, but why should that be? If my running back gives himself up and passes up chance get more yards so he can keep the clock running, why should my opponent be able stop the clock by committing a penalty? 

 

Whatever. It should be rationalized some way.  If you can stop the clock in the final 5 by going out of bounds, fine.  But committing a penalty?  

[Livinginthepast]

This is another odd rule in a league that is Byzantine already (if you would like a colourful adjective). I also found out on the Sunday that refs can check replay to confirm/rescind penalties but only for the ALL IMPORTANT, illegal man downfield penalty and apparently not for Targeting (like the vicious helmet to helmet hit on Johnson on the goal line right before half time that resulted in a CONCUSSION and 1st and goal for the Bills with a clock stoppage. Or the ridiculous Pass interference on Knox the play before the INT in the endzone. The NFL rules committee and their officials are the worst in sports .

[Tuco]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I continue to think there are opportunities to game the system.   

 

One problem is the arbitrariness of the time these rules apply.  Why is this rule and the out of bounds rule a 5-minute rule but the 10 second runoff is a 2-minute rule?  If the Dolphins were getting the benefit of the clock stoppage, why not also offer the Bills a 10-second runoff?   

 

I agree with Gunner that the rule probably is designed to give an advantage to the team trying to come back, but why should that be? If my running back gives himself up and passes up chance get more yards so he can keep the clock running, why should my opponent be able stop the clock by committing a penalty? 

 

Whatever. It should be rationalized some way.  If you can stop the clock in the final 5 by going out of bounds, fine.  But committing a penalty?  

The reason for the 5-minute rules comes from the evolution of the rules. There was a time, way back when we were young, that the clock stopped for every penalty regardless of when it happened. And it used to stop every time the ball went out of bounds. In an effort to shorten the ever-increasing length of games, changes were made. Now when you go out of bounds before the 5-minute mark the clock only stops until the ball is spotted for the next play, then it starts again. And the clock used to stop every time there was a penalty. They changed the rules to restart the clock after the penalty is assessed and the ball is spotted for play - except in the last 5 minutes. In both cases the 5-minute rule was kept in place for exactly the reasons stated - to keep close games interesting longer.

 

Should it be changed? Probably. It's certainly not the first time a team used a penalty to game the clock. In the below example the rules call for an unsportsmanlike if they did it a third time. I don't know if the same holds true on the defensive side.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipsxeWIZnYY

 

And this vid is shared because it's just fun to watch Belly get steamed when the Titans did the same thing to him the next week.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTsvc9pkZ04