News Article: Very interesting USAToday take on UT's "extra second..."

JPT4Bama

Hall of Fame
Aug 21, 2006
5,793
0
0
Hoover, AL
I for one am really eager to move on past this little episode. I agree the article was thought provoking as I had not considered all the possible consequences but I vote we put the clock management issue behind us. :smile:
 

RedElephant92

3rd Team
Jan 23, 2008
205
0
35
It was also a very valuable second for Mack Brown. If that second isn't added to the clock, not only does he not get the $2,000,000 raise, he is also compared to Les Miles forever and ever.
 

Croaker

Scout Team
Aug 27, 2001
171
0
0
Monterey, CA
1 second...doesn't really matter to me...but the look on McCoy's face was priceless. Imagine if the play stood with time expiring and if you are McCoy...having to live with such a blunder for the rest of your life...wow.....

can't wait for the 7th.
 

jps1983

Hall of Fame
Aug 30, 2006
7,459
0
0
but the look on McCoy's face was priceless. Imagine if the play stood with time expiring and if you are McCoy...having to live with such a blunder for the rest of your life...wow.....
I'd honestly have felt really bad for him. He'd go down in history with Bill Buckner for that type of mistake. I'm sure he's learned from it, and it sounds like he wants to prove something if you read his comments or the comments his teammates make about him. I really hope we can get consistent pressure on him all night.
 

TRUTIDE

All-SEC
Oct 14, 1999
1,502
0
0
Spanish Fort, AL
So if a player calls a timeout before the play clock expires, the ref sees it and whistles the play dead but after time on the play clock has run off is it a delay of game penalty? You can be assured this will happen once a week during football season.
The Ref stops the clock, not a coach or player. I've seen plenty of times when a coach was trying to get a time out and the ref did not see it before the ball is snapped. If the ref sees it and knows in his mind that there was one second left on the play clock, then he will normally award the timeout anyway. There is no way the ref sees the ball hitting the ground and the time on the clock at the same time. This is just football. Part of the game.

Or how about this. Your QB is running to the sideline and takes a full step out of bounds but before the whistle can be blown the linebacker knocks the you know what out of him. Is that a penalty? How can it be a penalty if the ref hasn't blown his whistle yet?
Again, the player does not make this determination. The player plays untill the whistle blows. What if the ref did not see him step out and the QB steps back in and takes off up the field. Players are taught to play till the whistle blows. Late hits are accessed after the play is dead. I've also seen this called both ways but I have never seen them go to instant replay to determine if there was a late hit or not. These plays are routinely reviewed after the game to determine if the official missed the call but never during a game.

This is football. The official is part of the game. The clock operator is part of the game. Many times an official will add time back to the clock when many seconds were accidently run off. If they worried about every "second" in a game then they would probally have to reset the clock after every play. I do not even see this as an error made by the official or the clock operator. The clock operator cannot stop the clock untill he sees an official stop the clock. No matter if it is Pee Wee or the NFL, this happens every weekend in every football game played. There is no telling how many seconds are left floating around out there. Now if we are talking about 4 or 5 seconds, then sure. But 1 second?

I do not doubt that 90% of the people on this board wanted Texas to win that game. I know I did. For the potential matchup, most of the country probally did as well. But...I agree with the other posters that this was a strange call in a football game. It is the first time I can recall that a play was reviewed to determine when a ball touched down out of bounds.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
33,247
27,982
337
49
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
But here's the million dollar question. At what point is the clock suppose to stop? Is the clock suppose to stop AFTER the ref finishes his signaling the play is over or is the clock suppose to stop at the point when the ref begins signaling the play is over? I believe the rule is the clock stops when the official initially signals the play is over. NOT after he physically goes through the act of the signal which can take two to three additional seconds.

I've seen many times where the ref puts time back on the clock. This is nothing new. It happens in the NFL as well as CFB. This review in particular was just magnified because it was the difference in the game. But the goal of replay is to get the right call. And according to the video evidence replay did it's job. The clock had :01 second left on the clock when the official initially made the call.


The Ref stops the clock, not a coach or player. I've seen plenty of times when a coach was trying to get a time out and the ref did not see it before the ball is snapped. If the ref sees it and knows in his mind that there was one second left on the play clock, then he will normally award the timeout anyway. There is no way the ref sees the ball hitting the ground and the time on the clock at the same time. This is just football. Part of the game.


I do not doubt that 90% of the people on this board wanted Texas to win that game. I know I did. For the potential matchup, most of the country probally did as well. But...I agree with the other posters that this was a strange call in a football game. It is the first time I can recall that a play was reviewed to determine when a ball touched down out of bounds.
 

TexasLidig8r

New Member
Dec 8, 2009
24
0
0
Well.. we Texas fans feel very fortunate and we are just happy to be there. Luck was with us and as very large underdogs in this game, we hope to be able to give you and the nation watching, a competitive ball game.
 

JustaBamaFan

3rd Team
Jun 28, 2002
212
0
0
73
Carrollton,GA,USA
The 2009 Big 12 Championship Game is history. The better team won... They played a terrible game and Nebraska made their offense look extremely poor but in the end Texas won the game and Nebraska lost (fair or not the debate will not change the outcome). All we can do is to be confident that Bama will be prepared to play the best game they have played this season. We can be certain that Texas will be prepared to play it's best game. Roll Tide Roll !!! Knock the horns off the steers!!!
 

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
13,029
10,622
287
Birmingham
Yeah at some point it makes you wonder when they are going to take all the actual officials off the field and do it all solely watching cameras in a booth somewhere.

Either way, :01 left or not, Nebraska totally laid an egg at the end of that game by 1)kicking the ball out of bounds and 2)horse-collaring the UT player. When you do silly, needless things, you put yourself in position to get beat in a fluke-like manner. I hate it for them, but the Huskers beat themselves.
Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner, and all that stuff. If there is a reason for UT fans and players to feel fortunate to be in the BCS championship game, it is outlined above.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
33,247
27,982
337
49
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
Nick Saban is going to make dang well sure our players and staff don't buy into this type bull crap mentality. As your coach is playing up this role like it was his only motivating tool.


Well.. we Texas fans feel very fortunate and we are just happy to be there. Luck was with us and as very large underdogs in this game, we hope to be able to give you and the nation watching, a competitive ball game.
 

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
13,029
10,622
287
Birmingham
Well.. we Texas fans feel very fortunate and we are just happy to be there. Luck was with us and as very large underdogs in this game, we hope to be able to give you and the nation watching, a competitive ball game.
I disagree sir, it is the Alabama Crimson Tide who are the very large underdogs in this game. Texas has the winningest QB in all college football history, and his roommate to boot!
 

TRUTIDE

All-SEC
Oct 14, 1999
1,502
0
0
Spanish Fort, AL
But here's the million dollar question. At what point is the clock suppose to stop? Is the clock suppose to stop AFTER the ref finishes his signaling the play is over or is the clock suppose to stop at the point when the ref begins signaling the play is over? I believe the rule is the clock stops when the official initially signals the play is over. NOT after he physically goes through the act of the signal which can take two to three additional seconds.

I've seen many times where the ref puts time back on the clock. This is nothing new. It happens in the NFL as well as CFB. This review in particular was just magnified because it was the difference in the game. But the goal of replay is to get the right call. And according to the video evidence replay did it's job. The clock had :01 second left on the clock when the official initially made the call.
But this could be the case in every football game played. As someone else said, add up all of the seconds that run off the clock during the game and many games could have different results. How come that 1 second at the end is anymore important than the other 3559 seconds. The clock keeper should stop the clock when he recognizes an official signaling him to stop the clock. We are not talking about anything obvious like 4 or 5 seconds. We are talking about 1 second. Breaking this game down to 1 second intervals would change a lot of things. It is all part of the game. I'm sure Drew Breeze and a whole lot of Saints fans would have liked the clock operator to have stopped the clock a little quicker during that final drive against the Cowboys. It may have given him time for an extra play. Clock management is a part of the game. How the clock is operated is a part of the game. That official in the middle of the field in the Auburn game was a part of the game. He repeatedly ended up in the throwing lane Gmac was trying to use. He got in the way of some of the recievers and GMac pegged him a couple. It was troublesome for us but that official was a part of the game. We did not get a re-do everytime it happened but we found a way to work around him with Julio.

The clock keeper is as much a part of the officiating crew as the chain gang. I can see instant replay helping to determine a touchdown, if someone stepped out of bounds or for a legitimate mistake where alot of time inadvertently ran off the clock. But for "1 second"? This was not even a mistake or an error. Do we need to attach some kind of electrodes to the officials to determine when exactly they are going to wave their arms? Instant replay would be fine if it is used on a limited basis and mainly to correct a mistake or misjudgement. This was not the case in this instance. No mistake was made. It was just the normal flow of the game. Is half a second or even 1 second enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field? It is geeting a little ridiculous. Why not start using instant replay to determine late hits, pass interference calls or holding penalties? What about when a coach comes too far out onto the field. I'm sure instant replay would be great for determining that. I use these examples just to point out that anything and everything can help determine the out come of a came. We can make it perfect by going to instant replay for everything but what does this take away from the game?
 
Last edited:

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
33,247
27,982
337
49
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
The system is not perfect. College football has collectively decided that within a certain time frame of games (last few minutes of games) there will be more scrutiny toward calls and events in the game. That's why you see things that for the first "3559 seconds" weren't reviewed but now are. Yeah, in theory the "right" thing to do is give as much scrutiny to every single call at any point in the game as you would the last few minutes. But reasonableness has to come into play along with the time factor of applying that theory. So you do the best you can.


But this could be the case in every football game played. As someone else said, add up all of the seconds that run off the clock during the game and many games could have different results. How come that 1 second at the end is anymore important than the other 3559 seconds. The clock keeper should stop the clock when he recognizes an official signaling him to stop the clock. We are not talking about anything obvious like 4 or 5 seconds. We are talking about 1 second. Breaking this game down to 1 second intervals would change a lot of things. It is all part of the game. I'm sure Drew Breeze and a whole lot of Saints fans would have liked the clock operator to have stopped the clock a little quicker during that final drive against the Cowboys. It may have given him time for an extra play. Clock management is a part of the game. How the clock is operated is a part of the game. That official in the middle of the field in the Auburn game was a part of the game. He repeatedly ended up in the throwing lane Gmac was trying to use. He got in the way of some of the recievers and GMac pegged him a couple. It was troublesome for us but that official was a part of the game. We did not get a re-do everytime it happened but we found a way to work around him with Julio.

The clock keeper is as much a part of the officiating crew as the chain gang. I can see instant replay helping to determine a touchdown, if someone stepped out of bounds or for a legitimate mistake where alot of time inadvertently ran off the clock. But for "1 second"? This was not even a mistake or an error. Do we need to attach some kind of electrodes to the officials to determine when exactly they are going to wave their arms? Instant replay would be fine if it is used on a limited basis and mainly to correct a mistake or misjudgement. This was not the case in this instance. No mistake was made. It was just the normal flow of the game. Is half a second or even 1 second enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field? It is geeting a little ridiculous. Why not start using instant replay to determine late hits, pass interference calls or holding penalties? What about when a coach comes too far out onto the field. I'm sure instant replay would be great for determining that.
 

Dallas4Bama

Suspended
Sep 27, 2006
3,882
0
0
Dallas, Texas
But this could be the case in every football game played. As someone else said, add up all of the seconds that run off the clock during the game and many games could have different results. How come that 1 second at the end is anymore important than the other 3559 seconds. The clock keeper should stop the clock when he recognizes an official signaling him to stop the clock. We are not talking about anything obvious like 4 or 5 seconds. We are talking about 1 second. Breaking this game down to 1 second intervals would change a lot of things. It is all part of the game. I'm sure Drew Breeze and a whole lot of Saints fans would have liked the clock operator to have stopped the clock a little quicker during that final drive against the Cowboys. It may have given him time for an extra play. Clock management is a part of the game. How the clock is operated is a part of the game. That official in the middle of the field in the Auburn game was a part of the game. He repeatedly ended up in the throwing lane Gmac was trying to use. He got in the way of some of the recievers and GMac pegged him a couple. It was troublesome for us but that official was a part of the game. We did not get a re-do everytime it happened but we found a way to work around him with Julio.

The clock keeper is as much a part of the officiating crew as the chain gang. I can see instant replay helping to determine a touchdown, if someone stepped out of bounds or for a legitimate mistake where alot of time inadvertently ran off the clock. But for "1 second"? This was not even a mistake or an error. Do we need to attach some kind of electrodes to the officials to determine when exactly they are going to wave their arms? Instant replay would be fine if it is used on a limited basis and mainly to correct a mistake or misjudgement. This was not the case in this instance. No mistake was made. It was just the normal flow of the game. Is half a second or even 1 second enough evidence to overturn the ruling on the field? It is geeting a little ridiculous. Why not start using instant replay to determine late hits, pass interference calls or holding penalties? What about when a coach comes too far out onto the field. I'm sure instant replay would be great for determining that. I use these examples just to point out that anything and everything can help determine the out come of a came. We can make it perfect by going to instant replay for everything but what does this take away from the game?
We could just let the games be played on video games and it could all be electronic. That would eliminate human error. :D
 

TideFans.shop - 25% off Fan Favorites!

TideFans.shop - 25% off!

20oz Tervis Tumbler
20oz Tervis Tumbler from TideFansStore.com

Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!

Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Latest threads