It's fine as it is. You give up 36 unanswered points the you suffer the consequences. That's 5 touchdowns. That's an overmatched team.

Obviously the question is being asked because of the HHS/LC game last night. But really, how often does it happen that the losing team comes back. Especially back far enough to make the game competitive.

 

I see no reason why the rule couldn't be modified to go back to regular timing rules if the score differential dropped below 36. It may happen a handful of times each season in the hundreds of running clock games that occur.

Obviously the question is being asked because of the HHS/LC game last night. But really, how often does it happen that the losing team comes back. Especially back far enough to make the game competitive.

 

I see no reason why the rule couldn't be modified to go back to regular timing rules if the score differential dropped below 36. It may happen a handful of times each season in the hundreds of running clock games that occur.

 

On this, I could agree.

 

I have seen 21 point fourth quarter comebacks before. Last night I saw a 27 point comeback where John Hardin took the lead before losing at the end. Lexington Catholic trailed by 36 and later 35 (42-7) before scoring 28 straight prior to an onside kick. 36 points to me is not that far beyond that. I find it conceivable that if the timing had not forced them to do so, LexCath might have played defense instead of kicking onside at the end, which was returned to the 12 and set up the final Highlands TD.

No running clock starting in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

After some consideration, I would prefer a higher starting point and a return to normal timing at some lower point. For example, even if you keep it at 36 to start, return to normal timing when lead drops below 25 points (4 possessions). I don't like those games where you get running clock and then the opponent's 1st team scores quickly on the 2nd team to return to normal timing. This would at least give some cushion to play some reserves.

 

Although admittedly a rarity, my main reason is to keep the system from being "gamed" and making a farce of things. For example, if HHS wanted to, they could have simply chosen to:

 

* tackle any receiver that got behind a DB (penalty is pass interference and the clock continues to run while they figure it out and assess it)

* anticipate the snap count aggressively (if you are offsides, again it is only 5 yds and the clock runs while assessed; if you guess right, you can blow up the play and could conceivably cause injuries)

* take multiple illegal procedure or delay of game penalties (clock runs) on offense

* take a knee after gaining a 1st down to allow more plays to run clock via longer drive

 

Most of the above would have been "smart" strategy to get the clock to run and limit LexCath possessions (and chances to score) but not real sportsmanlike IMO.

I say..."just play football"...:thumb:

I hate the running clock. Period. Lexington Catholic proved the point, IMO. We'll never know what might have been had the clock not been running. It frankly de-legitimizes the game. LexCath did not get a chance to play a full game. Had they been able to, they might have kicked off at the end instead of an onside kick. A 3 and out by HHS, and who knows? (FYI, I'm not a disgruntled LexCath fan....just an opponent of the running clock)

 

YES, this was undoubtedly a rarity in games when a running clock is currently used. And NO, we don't know what might have happened in the LexCath - Highlands game. We'll never know.

 

If we're going to have rules that stack everything against the team that's behind so as to make it nearly impossible to rally, then maybe we should just stop the game altogether when the margin reaches 36....

 

Just play.

Using the Lexington Catholic/Highlands as an example is a bad example. We all know the rules and LexCath definitely knew the rules. It's a simple process, don't spot your opponent 36 unanswered points and the clock won't run. There is absolutely no way in hell Highlands loses that game last Friday, running clock or not. That game is a poor example to use.

 

I am in favor normal clock operations once the lead gets below 36 points but IMO any team that gives up 36 unanswered points deserves to have a running clock put on them. Especially in the state semifinals.

After some consideration, I would prefer a higher starting point and a return to normal timing at some lower point. For example, even if you keep it at 36 to start, return to normal timing when lead drops below 25 points (4 possessions). I don't like those games where you get running clock and then the opponent's 1st team scores quickly on the 2nd team to return to normal timing. This would at least give some cushion to play some reserves.

 

Although admittedly a rarity, my main reason is to keep the system from being "gamed" and making a farce of things. For example, if HHS wanted to, they could have simply chosen to:

 

* tackle any receiver that got behind a DB (penalty is pass interference and the clock continues to run while they figure it out and assess it)

* anticipate the snap count aggressively (if you are offsides, again it is only 5 yds and the clock runs while assessed; if you guess right, you can blow up the play and could conceivably cause injuries)

* take multiple illegal procedure or delay of game penalties (clock runs) on offense

* take a knee after gaining a 1st down to allow more plays to run clock via longer drive

 

Most of the above would have been "smart" strategy to get the clock to run and limit LexCath possessions (and chances to score) but not real sportsmanlike IMO.

 

Wow jpa. This could possibly happen. Could you see the backlash if HHS did this. It's actually pretty creative. HHS would have won by 28+ if this was implemented Fri against LexCath. Maybe something like this needs to happen to get the KHSAA to realize not everyone needs a ribbon!

I hate the running clock. Period. Lexington Catholic proved the point, IMO.

 

For every Highlands/Lexington Catholic game I'll show you:

 

-Mayfield 57, Caverna 14

-Williamsburg 58, Jenkins 0

-DeSales 42, Metcalfe County 3

-Newport Central Catholic 47, Owen County 14

-Wayne County 54, Larue County 7

-Belfry 42, Jackson County 6

-Collins 56, Moore 6

-Highlands 70, Boyd County 6

-Bowling Green 49, Apollo 7

-Meade County 47, Marshall County 13

-Scott County 63, Clark County 34

 

And there are many others.

 

The question I have is: Has any team ever came back and won during a running clock since Kentucky instituted it? I can't recall a situation where it happened.

I will refer to my post in August.

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/ky-football-high/running-clock-rule-258341-page2.html#post4750748

 

I indicated that 35 felt low. 40 seemed better.

 

 

Going into the game in question it was known it would likely be a high scoring game.

 

So in a game of high scoring teams a couple of early miscues get you to 35/36 pretty easily. Highlands total time of possession for its first 3 scores was 2 minutes 56 seconds taking 16 plays.

 

By contrast, with the running clock, the opening drive of the second half by LexCath took 2 plays (both passing) and ran 2 minutes and 5 seconds off the clock.

 

The 36 point rule may fit for ground and pound running football. But when teams can score with long pass plays its not hard to get to 36. And its not hard to come back from such a deficit.

 

Highlands may have milked the clock some after it was running but did not take every second off. I did see a team literally hold the ball until the 5 second warning on each snap this year to burn clock when they had the ball. Nothing at all wrong with the strategy. Certainly HHS did not go to extreme measures as noted above to leverage the rule.

 

I never thought when I said in August that 35 was too low that it actually would come into play in a key game. But I certainly believe that it is too low for modern high powered 2013 football offenses. The BG/JH game was just one score away from the same situation. But JH roared back to take the lead. Its not just one game that shows the flaw last weekend but two.

 

No sour grapes. LexCath dug its own hole with 3 critical errors early in the game. But 36 is too low when teams can score on each other quickly and often.

For every Highlands/Lexington Catholic game I'll show you:

 

-Mayfield 57, Caverna 14

-Williamsburg 58, Jenkins 0

-DeSales 42, Metcalfe County 3

-Newport Central Catholic 47, Owen County 14

-Wayne County 54, Larue County 7

-Belfry 42, Jackson County 6

-Collins 56, Moore 6

-Highlands 70, Boyd County 6

-Bowling Green 49, Apollo 7

-Meade County 47, Marshall County 13

-Scott County 63, Clark County 34

 

And there are many others.

 

The question I have is: Has any team ever came back and won during a running clock since Kentucky instituted it? I can't recall a situation where it happened.

 

The rule is specifically designed to prevent a comeback. It is meant to declare a winner at the point the clock runs so that the emotions are deflated and the competition subsides to prevent 'hurt feelings' and at times injuries if the teams are severely physically mismatched.

The reason the clock does not go back to normal if a team gets back under 36 is because teams would then make sure they racked up 50 or 60 before they put in their reserves so that they didn't risk losing the running clock with the backups in...which would totally defeat the purpose of the running clock "blowout rule".

The reason the clock does not go back to normal if a team gets back under 36 is because teams would then make sure they racked up 50 or 60 before they put in their reserves so that they didn't risk losing the running clock with the backups in...which would totally defeat the purpose of the running clock "blowout rule".

 

 

Makes sense.

I will refer to my post in August.

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/ky-football-high/running-clock-rule-258341-page2.html#post4750748

 

I indicated that 35 felt low. 40 seemed better.

 

 

Going into the game in question it was known it would likely be a high scoring game.

 

So in a game of high scoring teams a couple of early miscues get you to 35/36 pretty easily. Highlands total time of possession for its first 3 scores was 2 minutes 56 seconds taking 16 plays.

 

By contrast, with the running clock, the opening drive of the second half by LexCath took 2 plays (both passing) and ran 2 minutes and 5 seconds off the clock.

 

The 36 point rule may fit for ground and pound running football. But when teams can score with long pass plays its not hard to get to 36. And its not hard to come back from such a deficit.

 

Highlands may have milked the clock some after it was running but did not take every second off. I did see a team literally hold the ball until the 5 second warning on each snap this year to burn clock when they had the ball. Nothing at all wrong with the strategy. Certainly HHS did not go to extreme measures as noted above to leverage the rule.

 

I never thought when I said in August that 35 was too low that it actually would come into play in a key game. But I certainly believe that it is too low for modern high powered 2013 football offenses. The BG/JH game was just one score away from the same situation. But JH roared back to take the lead. Its not just one game that shows the flaw last weekend but two.

 

No sour grapes. LexCath dug its own hole with 3 critical errors early in the game. But 36 is too low when teams can score on each other quickly and often.

 

The BG/JH game can't come into play because it was just 27-0 at one point. JH then decided to play the football they are capable of playing and made it a game.

 

The LexCath/Highlands game can't come into play because once the clock started running continuously Highlands quit playing. Did they even run their regular offense when they had the ball or did they "try to show some class" and just run it the whole time while waiting for the clock to hit zeroes?

 

You know I love you BGC but even if the rule had called for the clock to stop after the deficit is below 36 we all know that Highlands would have put this game away with relative ease if and when they wanted to. 36 may be too low but the running clock and the deficit it takes to trigger the running clock had little to do with the outcome of the game IMO.