Sincere Question on the Clock loophole thing Bill exploited

[BTTA]

right but if there was only 1:45 on the clock and we had a 3 point lead, and it was 4th down, we could kill the clock if they had no timeouts? I just want to know if that is true, because that is a major loop hole if true. I mean if there was anything less than two minutes like 1:57 after the warning the game could be killed.

If penalty is declined, clock runs and punting team can keep doing it until ref says cut the crap just like Monday night.

So why don't teams do this? This situation has got to have come up many times over the years.

 

[aluminum seats]

I just wonder why Bill tried it at such a meaningless time—seems like it would’ve been interesting to pull out at a more significant moment. Although with the way the Patriots are playing, there might not be any significant moments this season.

 

[mosslost]

If penalty is declined, clock runs and punting team can keep doing it until ref says cut the crap just like Monday night.

ok. Others have said that it does not matter if it is declined or accepted the clock keeps running.. so I was just wondering if they are wrong about that

 

[RobertWeathers]

ok. Others have said that it does not matter if it is declined or accepted the clock keeps running.. so I was just wondering if they are wrong about that

My understanding is if it's accepted, the clock stops.

 

[mosslost]

I just wonder why Bill tried it at such a meaningless time—seems like it would’ve been interesting to pull out at a more significant moment. Although with the way the Patriots are playing, there might not be any significant moments this season.

I was just thinking about the end of Super Bowl 39.

I remember the clock was running when we punted them to the Eagles 3 yard line and there was like just a minute left.

In that situation, if Belichick had taken the delay of game, could he have nearly killed the last minute before the punt?

I guess the main question still is, does the clock stop if the penalty is accepted. Someone said it does not matter. That is what would make this kind a moot point.

 

[mosslost]

My understanding is if it's accepted, the clock stops.

that is what would make the conversation end lol

 

[qbno12]

 

[mosslost]

that still does not say the clock stops if the penalty is enforced, as far as I can tell

 

[AlexB]

So why don't teams do this? This situation has got to have come up many times over the years.

Because (a) you can apparently only do this twice before getting an unsportsmanlike penalty with the clock stopping on the third attempt and (b) clock stops in the last five minutes on a penalty.

 

[The Scrizz]

Plus, only an idiot would fall for this trick now that they have seen it. Gase surely had no clue. BB knows the rule book as well as, if not better, than refs. He probably has a copy with red circles on all of the rules he can't wait to exploit.

 

[rochrist]

I just wonder why Bill tried it at such a meaningless time—seems like it would’ve been interesting to pull out at a more significant moment. Although with the way the Patriots are playing, there might not be any significant moments this season.

Sticking it to the Jets is never a meaningless time to Bill. Also, I expect he wouldn't want the flack he'd get if he'd done it during an important game.

 

[aluminum seats]

Also, I expect he wouldn't want the flack he'd get if he'd done it during an important game.

If he thought it would help the team I don't think he'd care about flack.

 

[Ring 6]

Does the clock only keep running if the opponent declines the penalty?

So imagine this scenario:

Pats winning a playoff game (or any team) 20-19

It's 3rd down, Pats have the ball at about their own 45 and it is after the two minute warning with like 1:45 left.

The opponent has no time outs.

We ran the run the ball, clock is running, so it gets close to 1 minute before we would "punt".

But we take the delay.. the clock keeps running? (does that only happen if the other coach declines the penalty, that is what I don't know yet).

So then it gets down to like 20 seconds, and you do the false start thing..

Can you kill the game off that way?

No

 

[Ring 6]

So why don't teams do this? This situation has got to have come up many times over the years.

Because there are rarely situations where the team would decline the penalty.

 

[DaBruinz]

Question on the Clock loophole thing Bill exploited

So Since the clock was running, he takes the penalty, the clock keeps running after they reset.

So, Bill has them take a deliberate false start to repeat and keep clock running.

My question is, what if they kept doing it? Did Gase have to decline for it to work that way? If he accepted the penalty would the clock not reset? Sincerely wondering how many deliberate false starts and clock running they could have done?

It was already answered by someone else. There is a rule against it and it would result in a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and the clock being reset to the original time..

 

[Canuck]

Now I wish they would have assessed the 15 yard penalty. Patriots wanted to give the punter some more room but Gase declined the two penalties. I wonder what Gase's reaction would be? I don't think he could decline the 15 yard penalty.

 

[BTTA]

It was already answered by someone else. There is a rule against it and it would result in a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and the clock being reset to the original time..

What was confusing about the specifics of the rule information provided was that it was about delay of game penalties specifically, not other 5 yard, pre snap penalties.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I just wonder why Bill tried it at such a meaningless time—seems like it would’ve been interesting to pull out at a more significant moment. Although with the way the Patriots are playing, there might not be any significant moments this season.

He did this exactly because it WAS such a meaningless time. The goal was to pointedly force a rule change for the future. Showing this in a (nationally televised) game is much more effective than just saying something at a press conference.

 

[aluminum seats]

He did this exactly because it WAS such a meaningless time. The goal was to pointedly force a rule change for the future. Showing this in a (nationally televised) game is much more effective than just saying something at a press conference.

But it’s something that could help to win a game right?

 

[TruthSeeker]

But it’s something that could help to win a game right?

Not in the last 5 minutes. And now you're getting into reputation issues as well (cheating Patriots). I like the approach Belichick took.