This is probably a stupid question but... (1 Viewer)

[Wilk]

This situation happens probably 3-4 times every Sunday. With less than 20 seconds left in a game and the team with the ball is trailing by less than 1 score and is out of timouts. They complete 10 yard pass over the middle and the guy runs for another 10 yards before being tackled. Of course, the clock continues to run and time expires before they can run another play.

My question is this. Why doesn't the guy stop before being tackled, and wing the ball laterally out of bounds, thus stopping the clock? Or, why doesn't a guy who is fighting to get out of bounds but isn't going to make it just lateral the ball out of bounds to stop the clock?

I assume this must be a penalty or else it would be done all the time, right?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

yes there is some kind of fumblerooksy rule in effect.

 

[Marc Levin]

yes there is some kind of fumblerooksy rule in effect.

I think the ball only comes back to the point of the fumble.That said, if the refs think a player deliberately threw the bal lout of bounds, they'd probably call it an illegal lateral in some way - if it goes forward, it's an illegal foprward pass and 10 yards from the spot of foul.If the ball goes backwards, I imagine there is some penalty they can call, but I can't imagine what it is.I don't know why you can't throw the ball out of bounds backwards to stop the clock- just pretend you missed the guy running up the sidelines for the lateral.Anyone?

 

[dawgtrails]

Found this

There is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

 

[Wilk]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot. Maybe even worth 1 win over the course of a season.

 

[dawgtrails]

Found this

There is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot. Maybe even worth 1 win over the course of a season.

Slow down there kiddo. 1 win a year?

 

[Marc Levin]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

 

[Wilk]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

It usually takes far more than 10 seconds for players to unpile, the ref to run over and spot the ball, all of the lineman to run up 30 yards and everybody get set (in a legal formation), and then spike the ball. It usually takes (I'm guessing here) about 15 seconds. I can think of lots of situations where by the tradeoff of 5 yards for 5 seconds makes sense.

 

[kutta]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

It usually takes far more than 10 seconds for players to unpile, the ref to run over and spot the ball, all of the lineman to run up 30 yards and everybody get set (in a legal formation), and then spike the ball. It usually takes (I'm guessing here) about 15 seconds. I can think of lots of situations where by the tradeoff of 5 yards for 5 seconds makes sense.

It is not easy to heave the ball out of bounds while being tackled by a couple huge beasts. The chance of that throw turning into a fumble is very big, and not worth any potential time/yardage trade off.

 

[Marc Levin]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

It usually takes far more than 10 seconds for players to unpile, the ref to run over and spot the ball, all of the lineman to run up 30 yards and everybody get set (in a legal formation), and then spike the ball. It usually takes (I'm guessing here) about 15 seconds. I can think of lots of situations where by the tradeoff of 5 yards for 5 seconds makes sense.

It is not easy to heave the ball out of bounds while being tackled by a couple huge beasts. The chance of that throw turning into a fumble is very big, and not worth any potential time/yardage trade off.

Esp conmsidering your trade off is not 5 yards - it is 15 yards.You said:

They complete 10 yard pass over the middle and the guy runs for another 10 yards before being tackled. Why doesn't the guy stop before being tackled, and wing the ball laterally out of bounds, thus stopping the clock?

15 yards is a HUGE difference for a FG try.

 

[Wilk]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

It usually takes far more than 10 seconds for players to unpile, the ref to run over and spot the ball, all of the lineman to run up 30 yards and everybody get set (in a legal formation), and then spike the ball. It usually takes (I'm guessing here) about 15 seconds. I can think of lots of situations where by the tradeoff of 5 yards for 5 seconds makes sense.

It is not easy to heave the ball out of bounds while being tackled by a couple huge beasts. The chance of that throw turning into a fumble is very big, and not worth any potential time/yardage trade off.

Esp conmsidering your trade off is not 5 yards - it is 15 yards.You said:

They complete 10 yard pass over the middle and the guy runs for another 10 yards before being tackled. Why doesn't the guy stop before being tackled, and wing the ball laterally out of bounds, thus stopping the clock?

15 yards is a HUGE difference for a FG try.

15 is huge. For some reason I thought he said 5.

 

[Marc Levin]

Found thisThere is a section in the NFL rulebook that states that a team is not permitted to conserve time by throwing a backward pass out-of-bounds with the intent to conserve time. When this occurs, a five-yard penalty is enforced against the passing team and if this act occurs in the last minute of either half, 10 additional seconds are run off the clock before the ball is next put in play. This is a good rule and prevents a team for gaining an unfair advantage in the closing moments of the ball game.

If true, I still think it would usually be worth the 5 yard penalty. It takes much longer than 10 seconds for the ref to spot the ball, teams to line up, and a play to start. I would bet it would very often be good strategy after a long gain to "fumble" the ball out of bounds, take the 10 second runoff, spike the ball, then kick the field goal or take another shot.

keep reading - they run second off the clock.It is never worth the risk of the yards plus the time to let theball out of your hands - MUCH MUCH better to RUN FORWARD 10 yards and rush up to the line and spike the ball.There's a system in place for you to stop th eclock after the play without throwing a live ball out of bounds.It will be ab EXTREMELY RARE situation where a team thinks it is worth it to take the yardage penalty plus the time run off the clock.

It usually takes far more than 10 seconds for players to unpile, the ref to run over and spot the ball, all of the lineman to run up 30 yards and everybody get set (in a legal formation), and then spike the ball. It usually takes (I'm guessing here) about 15 seconds. I can think of lots of situations where by the tradeoff of 5 yards for 5 seconds makes sense.

It is not easy to heave the ball out of bounds while being tackled by a couple huge beasts. The chance of that throw turning into a fumble is very big, and not worth any potential time/yardage trade off.

Esp conmsidering your trade off is not 5 yards - it is 15 yards.You said:

They complete 10 yard pass over the middle and the guy runs for another 10 yards before being tackled. Why doesn't the guy stop before being tackled, and wing the ball laterally out of bounds, thus stopping the clock?

15 yards is a HUGE difference for a FG try.

15 is huge. For some reason I thought he said 5.

5 yard penalty, but your statement was that, instead of going another 10 yards, the guy laterals the bal ouit of bounds to stop the clock. The player thereby foregoes the additional 10 yards of field position. Net loss in field position = 15 yards.

 

[Tornacl]

I have seen it done where a player running near the sideline fumbled out of bounds when being tackled. Hard to tell if it was intentional or not, which is why it worked.

I've also seen where a player fumbled and a smart player swatted the ball out of bounds rather than piling on top of it. No penalty was called, so I assume that was legit.

 

[SKribbles]

Would the clock not start right away causing more time than just the 10 seconds?

 

[Marc Levin]

I have seen it done where a player running near the sideline fumbled out of bounds when being tackled. Hard to tell if it was intentional or not, which is why it worked. I've also seen where a player fumbled and a smart player swatted the ball out of bounds rather than piling on top of it. No penalty was called, so I assume that was legit.

Viable fumble - definitely legal.There's no rule about swatting the ball out of bounds - lateralling it out of bounds appears to be the rule. I wonder if an intentional lateral that hits the ground and, therefore, becomes a fumble is still gonna draw the penalty.Doesn;t matter - if you have the second to spare to run off by taking the penalty, you are better off taking the extra 10 yards and hustling up to the LOS.