[81alum]

Perhaps someone who watched this on TV can explain what happened.  In the stands, it seemed as if the game clock ran off many extra seconds, forcing us to kick the field goal on 3rd down instead of having time for another play.

After the long pass and the PI penalty to get us to the four, there were 22 seconds by the time the play was dead.  But for some reason they let the clock tick down to 17 seconds after the play was dead and never corrected it.  Then we got set, ASU called a timeout, but they let the clock tick off a second down to 16 seconds even though a time out had been called.  Not corrected.  After the second incomplete pass the clock was allowed to tick off several extra seconds without stopping, leaving us with I think 6 seconds on third down.  Had the clock been stopped promptly each time, we would have had another chance at a touchdown.

It felt like the notorious U SC timekeeper had hijacked the time keeping machine in Stanford Stadium and was trying to help ASU out.

[81alum]

Perhaps someone who watched this on TV can explain what happened.  In the stands, it seemed as if the game clock ran off many extra seconds, forcing us to kick the field goal on 3rd down instead of having time for another play.

After the long pass and the PI penalty to get us to the four, there were 22 seconds by the time the play was dead.  But for some reason they let the clock tick down to 17 seconds after the play was dead and never corrected it.  Then we got set, ASU called a timeout, but they let the clock tick off a second down to 16 seconds even though a time out had been called.  Not corrected.  After the second incomplete pass the clock was allowed to tick off several extra seconds without stopping, leaving us with I think 6 seconds on third down.  Had the clock been stopped promptly each time, we would have had another chance at a touchdown.

It felt like the notorious U SC timekeeper had hijacked the time keeping machine in Stanford Stadium and was trying to help ASU out.

[CTcard]

Perhaps someone who watched this on TV can explain what happened.  In the stands, it seemed as if the game clock ran off many extra seconds, forcing us to kick the field goal on 3rd down instead of having time for another play.

After the long pass and the PI penalty to get us to the four, there were 22 seconds by the time the play was dead.  But for some reason they let the clock tick down to 17 seconds after the play was dead and never corrected it.  Then we got set, ASU called a timeout, but they let the clock tick off a second down to 16 seconds even though a time out had been called.  Not corrected.  After the second incomplete pass the clock was allowed to tick off several extra seconds without stopping, leaving us with I think 6 seconds on third down.  Had the clock been stopped promptly each time, we would have had another chance at a touchdown.

It felt like the notorious U SC timekeeper had hijacked the time keeping machine in Stanford Stadium and was trying to help ASU out.

A play or two earlier, the clock kept ticking after an incomplete pass. It ran off a fair amount and I didn't notice if it was corrected.

I was a little confused at the 17 16 tick off after the JJAW catch. The play by play says ASU took a TO, which seems irrelevant to the 1 second tick off.

I believe that second down play started at 10 seconds left, though not completely sure.

At least after the JJAW catch, I don't think we really lost a chance for another play.

[CTcard]

Perhaps someone who watched this on TV can explain what happened.  In the stands, it seemed as if the game clock ran off many extra seconds, forcing us to kick the field goal on 3rd down instead of having time for another play.

After the long pass and the PI penalty to get us to the four, there were 22 seconds by the time the play was dead.  But for some reason they let the clock tick down to 17 seconds after the play was dead and never corrected it.  Then we got set, ASU called a timeout, but they let the clock tick off a second down to 16 seconds even though a time out had been called.  Not corrected.  After the second incomplete pass the clock was allowed to tick off several extra seconds without stopping, leaving us with I think 6 seconds on third down.  Had the clock been stopped promptly each time, we would have had another chance at a touchdown.

It felt like the notorious U SC timekeeper had hijacked the time keeping machine in Stanford Stadium and was trying to help ASU out.

A play or two earlier, the clock kept ticking after an incomplete pass. It ran off a fair amount and I didn't notice if it was corrected.

I was a little confused at the 17 16 tick off after the JJAW catch. The play by play says ASU took a TO, which seems irrelevant to the 1 second tick off.

I believe that second down play started at 10 seconds left, though not completely sure.

At least after the JJAW catch, I don't think we really lost a chance for another play.

[teejers1]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

[teejers1]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

[81alum]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

I wondered about that.  But there was a penalty.  When you decline a penalty, does the clock start running?

Also, the clock ran down to 17 seconds and stopped there long before the timeout.  When we got set for our play it ticked a second before ASU called their time out.

At least that is how it looked on the game clock.  Neither of those makes sense to me.  Is there a replay of the game available somewhere so I can check my memory?

[81alum]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

I wondered about that.  But there was a penalty.  When you decline a penalty, does the clock start running?

Also, the clock ran down to 17 seconds and stopped there long before the timeout.  When we got set for our play it ticked a second before ASU called their time out.

At least that is how it looked on the game clock.  Neither of those makes sense to me.  Is there a replay of the game available somewhere so I can check my memory?

[qwerty49]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

I have to agree with you. Especially with JJAW out at that point. I think Shaw just figured two shots were better than one.

[qwerty49]

The long completion to JJAW was downed in bounds.  Thus, when ball set the clock starts running, absent a timeout (which ASU called after a bit).

My complaint at end of half is this:  Stanford should have run the ball from the 4 yard line (and then used TO before attempting final kick).  I actually liked Love's chances of getting in over another fade.  A relatively minor point, but still . . .

I have to agree with you. Especially with JJAW out at that point. I think Shaw just figured two shots were better than one.

[CTcard]

I have to agree with you. Especially with JJAW out at that point. I think Shaw just figured two shots were better than one.

No question that on the first play they should have passed, in order to get a second try. The attempt to Stewart was sort of a mess, but the idea of passing there was appropriate.

It was the second play that they could have run. I was thinking should have run, but percentages probably weren't wildly different either way. That second pass was right there - Smith should have caught it.

[CTcard]

I have to agree with you. Especially with JJAW out at that point. I think Shaw just figured two shots were better than one.

No question that on the first play they should have passed, in order to get a second try. The attempt to Stewart was sort of a mess, but the idea of passing there was appropriate.

It was the second play that they could have run. I was thinking should have run, but percentages probably weren't wildly different either way. That second pass was right there - Smith should have caught it.

[OutsiderFan]

Whoever is in charge of Stanford's end of first half clock management needs to be schooled.

I listened to the end of first half on the radio.  They said Stanford had the ball 1st and Goal at the 4 yd line with 16 seconds and one timeout.  They threw two incomplete fade passes, and then settled for a FG with 4 secs on the clock, and didn't use their time out.

Aside from letting extra time runoff that would have given them more than 16 seconds, I have all kinds of problems with the play calling in that situation.  First of all, you should be able to get 3 plays off and still have time for a FG, with 16 secs left. 

Quick slants use up probably 3-4 seconds.  Fade passes use up double that.  And, Stanford certainly could have handed off, used the zone read or a bootleg, and had Costello run.  In any case, they would have been able to quickly use a timeout or even have saved it had the run been wide and the ball carrier gotten out of bounds. 

You had time to run ONE fade route, not two, to ensure yourself three plays to score the TD, and still preserver the FG opportunity if the first three plays failed to get in the end zone.  For a place that prides itself on its intellectual superiority, Stanford's offense can be quite dumb some times.

[OutsiderFan]

Whoever is in charge of Stanford's end of first half clock management needs to be schooled.

I listened to the end of first half on the radio.  They said Stanford had the ball 1st and Goal at the 4 yd line with 16 seconds and one timeout.  They threw two incomplete fade passes, and then settled for a FG with 4 secs on the clock, and didn't use their time out.

Aside from letting extra time runoff that would have given them more than 16 seconds, I have all kinds of problems with the play calling in that situation.  First of all, you should be able to get 3 plays off and still have time for a FG, with 16 secs left. 

Quick slants use up probably 3-4 seconds.  Fade passes use up double that.  And, Stanford certainly could have handed off, used the zone read or a bootleg, and had Costello run.  In any case, they would have been able to quickly use a timeout or even have saved it had the run been wide and the ball carrier gotten out of bounds. 

You had time to run ONE fade route, not two, to ensure yourself three plays to score the TD, and still preserver the FG opportunity if the first three plays failed to get in the end zone.  For a place that prides itself on its intellectual superiority, Stanford's offense can be quite dumb some times.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

Whoever is in charge of Stanford's end of first half clock management needs to be schooled.

I listened to the end of first half on the radio.  They said Stanford had the ball 1st and Goal at the 4 yd line with 16 seconds and one timeout.  They threw two incomplete fade passes, and then settled for a FG with 4 secs on the clock, and didn't use their time out.

Aside from letting extra time runoff that would have given them more than 16 seconds, I have all kinds of problems with the play calling in that situation.  First of all, you should be able to get 3 plays off and still have time for a FG, with 16 secs left. 

Quick slants use up probably 3-4 seconds.  Fade passes use up double that.  And, Stanford certainly could have handed off, used the zone read or a bootleg, and had Costello run.  In any case, they would have been able to quickly use a timeout or even have saved it had the run been wide and the ball carrier gotten out of bounds. 

You had time to run ONE fade route, not two, to ensure yourself three plays to score the TD, and still preserver the FG opportunity if the first three plays failed to get in the end zone.  For a place that prides itself on its intellectual superiority, Stanford's offense can be quite dumb some times.

Good summary, thanks  :)

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

Whoever is in charge of Stanford's end of first half clock management needs to be schooled.

I listened to the end of first half on the radio.  They said Stanford had the ball 1st and Goal at the 4 yd line with 16 seconds and one timeout.  They threw two incomplete fade passes, and then settled for a FG with 4 secs on the clock, and didn't use their time out.

Aside from letting extra time runoff that would have given them more than 16 seconds, I have all kinds of problems with the play calling in that situation.  First of all, you should be able to get 3 plays off and still have time for a FG, with 16 secs left. 

Quick slants use up probably 3-4 seconds.  Fade passes use up double that.  And, Stanford certainly could have handed off, used the zone read or a bootleg, and had Costello run.  In any case, they would have been able to quickly use a timeout or even have saved it had the run been wide and the ball carrier gotten out of bounds. 

You had time to run ONE fade route, not two, to ensure yourself three plays to score the TD, and still preserver the FG opportunity if the first three plays failed to get in the end zone.  For a place that prides itself on its intellectual superiority, Stanford's offense can be quite dumb some times.

Good summary, thanks  :)

[81alum]

They repeated the game on Pac 12 Bay Area last night and so I was able to watch the clock at the end of the first half and confirm what I suspected.

After the long pass and PI penalty to the four, one of the referees could be seen waving his arms to stop the clock at 22 seconds, but the clock was not stopped until 17.  The clock also was allowed to tick off an additional second after Stanford got set for the next play even though ASU called a timeout before the play began.  That is a total of six seconds inexplicably taken off the clock for no reason I can discern

On the incomplete passes, the clock was allowed to tick off  two seconds after each incomplete ball was out-of-bounds.  That also sometimes (though not always) happened elsewhere on the field, so I am not sure if that is "normal" but it felt very much otherwise.

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

[81alum]

They repeated the game on Pac 12 Bay Area last night and so I was able to watch the clock at the end of the first half and confirm what I suspected.

After the long pass and PI penalty to the four, one of the referees could be seen waving his arms to stop the clock at 22 seconds, but the clock was not stopped until 17.  The clock also was allowed to tick off an additional second after Stanford got set for the next play even though ASU called a timeout before the play began.  That is a total of six seconds inexplicably taken off the clock for no reason I can discern

On the incomplete passes, the clock was allowed to tick off  two seconds after each incomplete ball was out-of-bounds.  That also sometimes (though not always) happened elsewhere on the field, so I am not sure if that is "normal" but it felt very much otherwise.

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

[stupac2]

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

I think it's a stadium employee, and they must be new. Last game the ref had them reset clock a completely ridiculous number of times, I think more than I'd witnessed in all other home games I've been to combined. It was insane. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just not up to the task.

[stupac2]

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

I think it's a stadium employee, and they must be new. Last game the ref had them reset clock a completely ridiculous number of times, I think more than I'd witnessed in all other home games I've been to combined. It was insane. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just not up to the task.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=17547.msg203818#msg203818 date=1506943523]Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

I think it's a stadium employee, and they must be new. Last game the ref had them reset clock a completely ridiculous number of times, I think more than I'd witnessed in all other home games I've been to combined. It was insane. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just not up to the task.
[/quote]
It might have cost us 4 points in this game, which thankfully was not enough to matter.  But they had better get someone competent or else timekeeping mistakes could wind up determining a game later this season.  How awful would it be to have a game decided by something like that!  Ugh.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=17547.msg203818#msg203818 date=1506943523]Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

I think it's a stadium employee, and they must be new. Last game the ref had them reset clock a completely ridiculous number of times, I think more than I'd witnessed in all other home games I've been to combined. It was insane. It wouldn't surprise me if they're just not up to the task.
[/quote]
It might have cost us 4 points in this game, which thankfully was not enough to matter.  But they had better get someone competent or else timekeeping mistakes could wind up determining a game later this season.  How awful would it be to have a game decided by something like that!  Ugh.

[shinsengumi]

Ben Muth wasn't too happy with the clock operator during the game.

https://twitter.com/FO_wordofmuth/status...8527026182

[shinsengumi]

Ben Muth wasn't too happy with the clock operator during the game.

https://twitter.com/FO_wordofmuth/status...8527026182

[Mick]

Ben Muth wasn't too happy with the clock operator during the game.

https://twitter.com/FO_wordofmuth/status...8527026182

I thought this was pretty funny...https://twitter.com/RuleofTree/status/91...4356290560

[Mick]

Ben Muth wasn't too happy with the clock operator during the game.

https://twitter.com/FO_wordofmuth/status...8527026182

I thought this was pretty funny...https://twitter.com/RuleofTree/status/91...4356290560

[mutoo1]

teejers--shaw did second guess himself to a reporter about not calling a run on second down and then using his timeout to stop clock, then try a pass.

[mutoo1]

teejers--shaw did second guess himself to a reporter about not calling a run on second down and then using his timeout to stop clock, then try a pass.

[Number 6]

They repeated the game on Pac 12 Bay Area last night and so I was able to watch the clock at the end of the first half and confirm what I suspected.

After the long pass and PI penalty to the four, one of the referees could be seen waving his arms to stop the clock at 22 seconds, but the clock was not stopped until 17.  The clock also was allowed to tick off an additional second after Stanford got set for the next play even though ASU called a timeout before the play began.  That is a total of six seconds inexplicably taken off the clock for no reason I can discern

On the incomplete passes, the clock was allowed to tick off  two seconds after each incomplete ball was out-of-bounds.  That also sometimes (though not always) happened elsewhere on the field, so I am not sure if that is "normal" but it felt very much otherwise.

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

[Number 6]

They repeated the game on Pac 12 Bay Area last night and so I was able to watch the clock at the end of the first half and confirm what I suspected.

After the long pass and PI penalty to the four, one of the referees could be seen waving his arms to stop the clock at 22 seconds, but the clock was not stopped until 17.  The clock also was allowed to tick off an additional second after Stanford got set for the next play even though ASU called a timeout before the play began.  That is a total of six seconds inexplicably taken off the clock for no reason I can discern

On the incomplete passes, the clock was allowed to tick off  two seconds after each incomplete ball was out-of-bounds.  That also sometimes (though not always) happened elsewhere on the field, so I am not sure if that is "normal" but it felt very much otherwise.

Is there a member of the officiating crew who manages the game clock?  Could this person have been new and completely incompetent?

Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

Once the ball is set at the line doesn't the clock start running again? I assume that's where the 1 second run off came from, although I missed the 22 to 17 when I was in the stadium.

I agree with most here I would have rather seen a run on the second play, but at the same time if Smith had caught the ball I don't think any of us would care. I was OK with those calls (and I think Smith should have caught the ball).

[CrazedZooChimp]

Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

Once the ball is set at the line doesn't the clock start running again? I assume that's where the 1 second run off came from, although I missed the 22 to 17 when I was in the stadium.

I agree with most here I would have rather seen a run on the second play, but at the same time if Smith had caught the ball I don't think any of us would care. I was OK with those calls (and I think Smith should have caught the ball).

[Number 6]

[quote author=Number 6 link=topic=17547.msg203942#msg203942 date=1506979270]
Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

Once the ball is set at the line doesn't the clock start running again? I assume that's where the 1 second run off came from, although I missed the 22 to 17 when I was in the stadium.

I agree with most here I would have rather seen a run on the second play, but at the same time if Smith had caught the ball I don't think any of us would care. I was OK with those calls (and I think Smith should have caught the ball).
[/quote]

Those extra five or six seconds ran off while JJAW was still down and before the ball was set at the line of scrimmage. That was also a first down play so the clock should have stopped anyway to reset the chains.

[Number 6]

[quote author=Number 6 link=topic=17547.msg203942#msg203942 date=1506979270]
Yep, the clock had to be stopped due to the penalty, regardless of the ball being caught in bounds. The fact that our coaching staff seemed oblivious and did not ask for the time back is a little concerning - they should notice that stuff. We could have had first and goal with 22 or 23 seconds, enough for an additional play.

Once the ball is set at the line doesn't the clock start running again? I assume that's where the 1 second run off came from, although I missed the 22 to 17 when I was in the stadium.

I agree with most here I would have rather seen a run on the second play, but at the same time if Smith had caught the ball I don't think any of us would care. I was OK with those calls (and I think Smith should have caught the ball).
[/quote]

Those extra five or six seconds ran off while JJAW was still down and before the ball was set at the line of scrimmage. That was also a first down play so the clock should have stopped anyway to reset the chains.