Per the KHSAA's Running Clock Provisions for football, the clock continues to run constantly during a game "any time the score differential reaches thirty-six (36) points or more".

 

Even if the trailing team in the game is able to close the score differential to less than 36 points, the clock continues to run, with the exception of a small handful of things such as timeouts, scoring, penalty assessments, official timeouts, and quarter changes.

 

There was a post in another thread today that indicated that the running clock makes the game more difficult for the trailing team to keep the score of the game close. What are your thoughts on this? Generally, is the running clock more likely to keep a game from "getting out of hand", or does it usually play out as more of a hindrance for the trailing team's chance to get back into the game? Do you think it has any real effectiveness in preventing potential injuries by keeping the game moving along?

I think it holds the score down because it shortens the game. Although, a superior team could leave starters in and name the score, if they wanted.

If you're down by 36, is there really that much of a chance at coming back? I would rather the running clock start at 35 instead, that way no one has to go for 2 and kind of look like a jerk.

 

It's really hard to have a lot of possessions after a running clock is started. I mean, if you get one starting the 2nd half, you're going to have maybe 2 possessions per quarter after that.

 

I'm a big running clock advocate in every capacity. I don't think there is a downside, other that people not getting to watch a longer game.

 

Edit: And if you're a team that can effectively control time of possession and bleed the clock, you really could easily hold the ball for an entire quarter.

If you're down by 36, is there really that much of a chance at coming back? I would rather the running clock start at 35 instead, that way no one has to go for 2 and kind of look like a jerk.

 

It's really hard to have a lot of possessions after a running clock is started. I mean, if you get one starting the 2nd half, you're going to have maybe 2 possessions per quarter after that.

 

I'm a big running clock advocate in every capacity. I don't think there is a downside, other that people not getting to watch a longer game.

 

My thoughts exactly. I don't even have to say anything else.

With a 36 point deficit, the game is already out of hand. If that happens early, it’s pretty clear the losing team can’t stop the other team from scoring, and will never have a chance to catch up. If it doesn’t happen until late, there’s not enough time for the losing team to catch up. The running clock simply is a way to get the game over with, and hopefully keep each team healthy. Once a team is up 5 or 6 TD’s, the game is over.

Its purpose is to keep injuries down. I have no problem with the rule.

 

By the way, for conversation, Ohio's rule is slightly different. It is 30 points instead of 36 and if the losing team can reduce the spread to under 30, the running clock goes back to being a normal clock.

Just out of curiosity...has the losing team ever came back to win once the running clock was in place?

I feel for teams on the losing end of a running clock. It's no fun to lose, and it's got to only feel worse losing with the KHSAA's coup de gras rule added in on top of things. But then when I think of that, I remind myself of a CCH blowout from Highlands years I was at umpteen years ago, and how much I felt like I just wanted the game to end so we wouldn't be scored on any more.

 

The running clock measure is a good rule. For every one game where a team down 36 points has a legitimate shot at a comeback, there are probably a thousand games where the teams down 36 points don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting back into things.

I think it prevents the 2nd or 3rd string players getting game time. When they get the chance to go out there, they are now rushed on every aspect of play. That in my opinion is a Very big downside.

Just out of curiosity...has the losing team ever came back to win once the running clock was in place?

 

I think Warren Central and LexCath have come the closest but offhand I am pretty sure it has never happened.

 

I'm pretty sure Warren Central and LexCath almost did it against the program.

I think it prevents the 2nd or 3rd string players getting game time. When they get the chance to go out there, they are now rushed on every aspect of play. That in my opinion is a Very big downside.

 

I agree that this is a downside. Honest question, though...how often do losing teams put in their backups once the game is out of hand?

 

I attended several running clock games last season where Cov Cath had their 2nd and 3rd stringers in during the 4th quarter against the opposing team's starters, but I don't recall many of the opponents putting in their backups. That definitely supports your post.

 

The choice then for the losing team is to either keep their starters in and try to reduce the gap on the scoreboard, or put in their backups as well once they see the winning team's backups going in.

If you didn't have a running clock, teams could easily be beat 100-0. I like it the way it is, once the running clock starts, it doesn't stop the rest of the game.

Just out of curiosity...has the losing team ever came back to win once the running clock was in place?

 

Yes, there was a playoff game in the early 2000's where that happened.

I think it prevents the 2nd or 3rd string players getting game time. When they get the chance to go out there, they are now rushed on every aspect of play. That in my opinion is a Very big downside.

 

I agree, it really should be 42 instead of 36 IMO.

Yes, there was a playoff game in the early 2000's where that happened.

 

Running clock used to be 45 up until a few years ago, correct? That's insanely impressive.