<CLOCK STOPPAGES: If you thought the clock stopped on every out-of-bounds play and didn't start again until the ball was snapped, well, think again.

For years, the NFL has restarted the clock after the ball carrier has gone out of bounds, except in the final two minutes of the first half, the final five minutes of the fourth quarter, and in the regular season, the final five minutes of overtime.>

Well, now, I get it, same as basketball, the clock does not start (after a dead-ball) until the inbound pass is touched by someone.

To conserve time/clock, inbounding team will often let the ball bounce as far up court as defender will allow, before touching the ball.

When the ball takes the hop when it strikes the ground and become live?>

On sides kicks are rare and I usually watch the play, not the clock, but it is a kick off so the same timing rules apply, AFAI.

Which means that you're own answer is the right one:

<WannaBe: I would think the clock starts when someone touches the ball, in theory, an on-side kick can still go out of bounds...>

I had to read this 3 times to figure out why you thought it proved you right, since it clearly makes the point that the clock starts before the next snap.>

The reason it proves me right is that the clock ALWAYS stops in the NFL when the runner goes out of bounds. This is what I stated! Then I went on to explain the times when the clock was restarted when the ball was spotted versus when the ball is snapped.

In order to clear up why this makes me right, I will (again) cite your earlier post, to which I was responding:

<<OhioChessFan: <And they stop the clock if if a player or the ball goes out of bounds, somebody scores, or a coach uses a time out?>

In an effort to have games end in under 4 hours, no, running out of bounds doesn't alway stop the clock.>

Those are your words. They might be right for college, but they are wrong for the NFL. Either you forgot you wrote that, or you didn't read all of my posts (who can blame you?).

<Okay, I can compromise with the clock <temporarily> stops when a runner runs out of bounds, though I sure didn't think that was the point under discussion.>

All clock stoppages are "temporary" until it says all zeros! The only variable is what action restarts it, the spotting, the marking ready, or the snap. It depends on the situation.

So, this is not a compromise, this is you trying to avoid admitting your earlier post was wrong. I am talking about this particular snipet you wrote:

<no, running out of bounds doesn't alway stop the clock.>

"The only variable" is what I thought was under consideration. There is a <HUGE> difference between the clock stopping until the next snap or until the ball is spotted, and that is the basis of an immense amount of strategic considerations.

Anyway, here's what I responded to:

<And they stop the clock if if a player or the ball goes out of bounds, somebody scores, or a coach uses a time out?>

And here's what I said:

<In an effort to have games end in under 4 hours, no, running out of bounds doesn't alway stop the clock.>

<CLOCK STOPPAGES: If you thought the clock stopped on every out-of-bounds play and didn't start again until the ball was snapped, well, think again.>>

The way the guy wrote this is deceptive (to you, not me). First of all, he has 2 conditions in it, not 1.

First condition: "clock stopped on every out of bounds play".

Second condition: the game clock "didn't start again until the ball was snapped'.

For someone to think this, and be wrong, only one condition has to be wrong.

Well, that IS the case, technically he is correct. However, <ONE AND ONLY ONE> condition is wrong, the second one.

Also, referring to this part: <If you thought the clock stopped on every out-of-bounds play and didn't start again until the ball was snapped>, I NEVER thought this, because I know the rules better than most folks, even some NFL commentators (Dick Enberg, for one, who screwed up in Superbowl XXVII)).

HuffPost guy goes on to write:

<For years, the NFL has restarted the clock after the ball carrier has gone out of bounds, except in the final two minutes of the first half, the final five minutes of the fourth quarter, and in the regular season, the final five minutes of overtime.>

Note TWO things. First, <the NFL has restarted the clock after the ball carrier has gone out of bounds>

In order to be restarted, the clock has to be stopped!!!

Second thing: <except in the final two minutes of the first half, the final five minutes of the fourth quarter, and in the regular season, the final five minutes of overtime.>>

I explained <all> of this already (except the part about overtime, because I expect everyone to know that the last 5 minutes of OT are treated like the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter). If you don't believe me, go back and read my multiple posts and you will see.

<I'm simply never wrong. It's a curse.>

"The only variable" is what I thought was under consideration.>

That is no reason to give out incorrect information.

<There is a <HUGE> difference between the clock stopping until the next snap or until the ball is spotted,>

Well, of course there is! But stating the obvious is hardly adding to the conversation, and does not change the fact that the clock is always stopped when the ball carrier advances it out of bounds. Always.

<and that is the basis of an immense amount of strategic considerations>

Irrelevant to the discussion, which was NFL timing rules. Trying to change the subject to avoid admitting your mistake.

Better make that "wrong 3 times not two".

The game clock is not started if the kicking team recovers the ball in the field of play, before the receiving team touches it.

Then I remembered, it already does.

Voila, Alas, Eureka! I get it now. >

I have strong feelings on pedagogy, it may not surprise you to know.

In college it kind of bothered me when professors would just jump into stuff without explaining the concept.

For example, in my fluid dynamics class the prof taught us Bernoulli's Equation and then gave homework on the subject.

He told us how each of the terms represented this or that type of energy, but he never <explicitly> explained that the whole thing was derived from the principle of conservation of energy.

In my first post on the arcane topic of NFL time stoppage rules I wrote (on Nov. 22, page 1176 of this forum)

<Also, the clock is stopped after a score, which will frequently be accompanied by a commercial time out. After the score, the clock is not restarted until the subsequent free kick by the scoring team is put in play by a player (of either side).>

But today, I wrote <The game clock is not started if the kicking team recovers the ball in the field of play, before the receiving team touches it.>

The attentive reader might wonder, isn't one of these statements incorrect?

Possibly. Notice the distinction. Two days ago I was talking about the ball being put into play <by a player (of either side)>, but that is different from the kicking team <recovering> the ball.

Because, up until now, I was fairly sure that the kicking team can advance a free kick (a kick off) if they recover it after it goes 10 or more yards, and are not down by contact. But I don't know with certainty.

Years ago I saw the Steelers play the 49ers in San Francisco. After a score, SF kicked off and the ball stopped in the end zone. Barry "Bananas" Foster, in either his first or second year (maybe 3rd), was the returner.

He treated the ball as a punt and let it die. SF recovered for a TD. According to timing rules, no time should have elapsed.

But hypothesize that Foster lets the kick die at say, the 5 yard line. I think SF can recover it and then advance it. If so, then the ball would be "in play" once the ball carrier starts running towards the end zone.

It seems like the game clock should run when he is advancing the ball, but I cannot find any mention of that in the rules.

NFL does have certain plays where the clock never runs, and this hypothetical example might be an instance of that.

Since the rule is that the game clock "shall not start" if "the kicking team recovers the ball in the field of play" I am now convinced that even if by rule the kicking team can advance it, I think the entire down would be untimed.

Then I thought, what if the kicking team recovers, advances, fumbles, and the receiving team gets the fumble and advances it. Then the clock should start.

Which makes me think that the kicking team can recover but not advance a free kick, much like they can recover but not advance a muffed punt.

First, a response to this: <OCF:...<In an effort to have games end in under 4 hours, no, running out of bounds doesn't alway stop the clock.>

I was referencing the game being shortened. Why did I only reference one of the 3 cited examples? Because for that one, the clock stoppage is temporary (temporary in terms of the play clock being started again before the snap, which is of ultimate importance in a football game). I referenced the end of the half/game difference, which again clearly demonstrates my point of emphasis. In your view, that difference must mean nothing.>

Did you see <JFQ>'s follow-up question?

<<Ohio> I never heard about that before- how do the refs decide when running out of bounds doesn't stop the clock, and when it does stop the clock?>

Your error created confusion in her mind, for which she sought clarification. The clarification is, your statement was wrong, going out of bounds <always> stops the clock.

So when you say <In your view, that difference must mean nothing.> this is a typical tactic you use to avoid admitting an error - trying to change the topic of conversation into something it wasn't initially. I have seen it employed by you on the Rogoff page many times.

The difference between a temporary stoppage to spot the ball and a different (but still temporary!) stoppage, until the snap, is irrelevant to the topic, which is "when is the clock stopped?". You are just trying to change the topic. Why? To avoid admission of error.

Also, <In your view, that difference must mean nothing.> is wrong too! You are not a mind reader - if you want to know what I think, don't tell me what I think (because you will get it wrong.). Just ask. The answer is, no the difference <is> meaningful (which is why they made the rule to begin with!!), but irrelevant to <JFQ>'s question.

Second thing is your answer to <WannaBe>, which was wrong.

Clock Stoppage Officials - Time Out

Please recall that our gracious queen does not abide disputes in her domain.

<Teem> I wouldn't call this a dispute yet, since nobody is actually insulting anyone else.

<Hozza> I know it sounds insane, but I just glanced at your post for a millisecond before scrolling down, because I haven't seen the Tottenham or Crystal Palace fixtures yet and I'm afraid of SPOILERS. I will catch up soon and then post a response to your sure to be trenchant analyses!

Are you kidding me? Here's the context:

<<thegoodanarchist> I am now curious, on an on-side kick, where there's no fair catch, when does the clock start?>

<Teem> I wouldn't call this a dispute yet, since nobody is actually insulting anyone else.>

Are you kidding me? Here's the context...>

Kidding? Yes and no. Yes, in that my numerous lengthy missives were, in part, supposed to be a kind of joke about the excruciating complexity of NFL time stoppage rules.

At times I purposely added length to a couple of posts to highlight that an off-hand, one-or-two line reply is often insufficient to answer a seemingly simple question on the topic. In a sense, I was kidding with everyone.

But in another sense, no. The NFL emphasizes having a fair game. Of course, some rules intentionally favor offense, but one of the key tenants is that all players have a right to try to get the football (except ineligible receivers during a pass).