Just curious whas that a mess up or something? All the anouncers were saying it was a 10 second run off, but then they didnt do it, or take away there timeout? Was judt weird how once they didnt run it off or take the timeout that they just swept it under the bus?
What happened with the 10 second run off on the penalty?
- Thread starter HawkDabz
- Start date
seabowl
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 4,487
- Reaction score
- 1,298
I was wondering that too. Unfortunately they wouldn't have needed the extra 10 secs anyway.
Seahawks4life
Member
yep another Ref error, that really is costly. There should have been a 10 sec run off.
BocciHawk
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,108
- Reaction score
- 5
The explanation I heard was that since the clock was running before the ball was snapped, and the play was allowed to occur, the clock had already been "run off" before the penalty was assessed.
i.e. the only time there is a 10 second run off is when the offense commits a penalty when the clock is stopped before the play starts OR if the penalty is pre snap.
Since the snap occurred before the penalty was called, and the play clock was running, there is no run off.
i.e. the only time there is a 10 second run off is when the offense commits a penalty when the clock is stopped before the play starts OR if the penalty is pre snap.
Since the snap occurred before the penalty was called, and the play clock was running, there is no run off.
I think you're right, Bocci.
Here's an article I found about it. Ironically enough, the Seahawks benefited from this back in 2006 and Scott Linehan wasn't too happy about it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2628616
And this was back in 2006. Still can't believe they haven't changed the actual rule in the rule book. I know Pete wasn't happy about it. You could hear him screaming "runoff runoff runoff!" just from watching on TV. I'm sure he'll have something to say about the matter behind closed doors.
Here's an article I found about it. Ironically enough, the Seahawks benefited from this back in 2006 and Scott Linehan wasn't too happy about it.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2628616
And this was back in 2006. Still can't believe they haven't changed the actual rule in the rule book. I know Pete wasn't happy about it. You could hear him screaming "runoff runoff runoff!" just from watching on TV. I'm sure he'll have something to say about the matter behind closed doors.
NYCoug":fiwtc4pv said:
I don't think that is right. The whole point of the rule was to punish those trying to stop the clock and not being set. The announcers said if the clock was stopped it wouldn't have been a runoff, but said that because clock was still running a run off should have occurred.
Similar threads
