Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

XFL Football discussion.
User avatar
Andibald
Coach
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:38 pm

Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by Andibald » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:48 pm

https://twitter.com/TheSpringLeague/st ... 383893513
XFL Retweeted

The Spring League

Verified account

@TheSpringLeague
47m47 minutes ago
More
Today, the @xfl2020 Football Operations team tested the pace of play changes that include a shortened play clock. The team measured the amount of time between plays in team drills to see if the proposal was realistic for the players
I hope 25 seconds works for the players. That would make for a fast paced game!
Image

User avatar
Tank55
Quarterback
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by Tank55 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:55 pm

Putting mics in all the helmets would make this much more feasible. I'd also be in favor of something of a delayed penalty of sorts -- if you don't get the snap off in time, they take five yards off the result of the play, rather than stopping the game first. Some wrinkles would need to be ironed out -- maybe can't apply in the 4th quarter -- but the time it takes to enforce a delay of game of penalty sort of ruins the benefits of the fast play clock.

User avatar
MikeMitchell
XFLBoard Correspondent
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 5:28 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by MikeMitchell » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:08 pm

I love the idea of having the head coach/play caller being able to communicate to all his players.

Imagine how fast the game will be with a reduced play clock, ball spotters and that type of technology.

Imagine if the clock had 1.5 seconds on it or 0.8. Using that type of play clock in football like it’s used in basketball would be unique

mnelson
Receiver
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by mnelson » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:21 pm

It is nice to see the XFL sharing these details with the fans. It further demonstrates they are serious about the football this time around.

User avatar
SamTheRam28
Running Back
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 11:16 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by SamTheRam28 » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:32 pm

https://twitter.com/xfl2020/status/1112 ... 80832?s=19

XFL testing a 30-second play clock, dedicated ball-spotter, 4 total timeouts per team, and a running game clock.
St. Louis Stallions

User avatar
Andibald
Coach
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by Andibald » Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:48 pm

SamTheRam28 wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:32 pm
https://twitter.com/xfl2020/status/1112 ... 80832?s=19

XFL testing a 30-second play clock, dedicated ball-spotter, 4 total timeouts per team, and a running game clock.
Image
Image

youngorst
Running Back
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by youngorst » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:32 pm

A running game clock is not a good idea. I think this could actually hurt the game.

Play clocks aren't that big of a deal either. I need more details, is it a 30 second clock like the NFL's 40 second clock (starts basically as soon as the previous play ends) or more like the high school 25 second play clock (starts on the refs whistle)? Till I know that telling me it is 30 seconds means nothing.

Honestly, I don't hear many people complaining about the length of football games, this is one issue where I think the XFL is searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Most people I know (including me) prefer the college clock system which actually leads to longer games than the NFL system.

Teams play once per week, I am not more likely to watch because the game will be 30-45 minutes shorter. It is a non issue for me and virtually everyone I personally know.

User avatar
Tank55
Quarterback
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:57 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by Tank55 » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 pm

Yeah, I agree. Football has a commercial problem, but I don't think it has a place of play problem.

User avatar
Andibald
Coach
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by Andibald » Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:38 am

youngorst wrote:
Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:32 pm
A running game clock is not a good idea. I think this could actually hurt the game.

Play clocks aren't that big of a deal either. I need more details, is it a 30 second clock like the NFL's 40 second clock (starts basically as soon as the previous play ends) or more like the high school 25 second play clock (starts on the refs whistle)? Till I know that telling me it is 30 seconds means nothing.

Honestly, I don't hear many people complaining about the length of football games, this is one issue where I think the XFL is searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Most people I know (including me) prefer the college clock system which actually leads to longer games than the NFL system.

Teams play once per week, I am not more likely to watch because the game will be 30-45 minutes shorter. It is a non issue for me and virtually everyone I personally know.
Until I hear differently, this is how I think it will work...30 second play clock like the NFL's 40...restarts after previous play is dead. With the proposed ball spotter position, the ball can be ready for play with the officials already in position, unlike the NFL when they are trying to spot the ball quickly.

As for length of games, the games need to fit in a TV time slot without too much risk of running over. It was an XFL 1.0 game that ran over into Saturday Night Live https://nypost.com/2001/02/13/ouch-lat ... gs-dive/ ...I don't think they want to repeat that.
If they can get games down to 2:30 - 2:45 that should fit in a 3hr time slot comfortably depending on what they might do for overtime games.

I believe the running clock will generally work like the Indoor Football League. Running clock except for penalties and scores with some traditional rules inside of 1 or 2 minutes of each half. My concerns with a running clock and 30 second play clock as opposed to a 25 second play clock, is there will potentially be fewer actual football plays run. Without special timing rules inside of 1 or 2 minutes, if teams use the full 30 seconds per play, they will get about 25 plays per quarter (100 per game). That includes special teams. A 25 second play clock would bring us to 30 plays per quarter (120 per game) which is a little close to the NFL avg (I think around 130 per game). Of course, if teams use less than the full play clock, the numbers of plays will go up.
Image

youngorst
Running Back
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: Testing the Play Clock in the Spring League

Post by youngorst » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:18 am

Andibald wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:38 am
I believe the running clock will generally work like the Indoor Football League. Running clock except for penalties and scores with some traditional rules inside of 1 or 2 minutes of each half. My concerns with a running clock and 30 second play clock as opposed to a 25 second play clock, is there will potentially be fewer actual football plays run. Without special timing rules inside of 1 or 2 minutes, if teams use the full 30 seconds per play, they will get about 25 plays per quarter (100 per game). That includes special teams. A 25 second play clock would bring us to 30 plays per quarter (120 per game) which is a little close to the NFL avg (I think around 130 per game). Of course, if teams use less than the full play clock, the numbers of plays will go up.
I believe you are probably right and if you are right I probably won't watch because I just think those will be stupid rules.

If you want to be able to fit into a 3 hour window there are far better ways.

Post Reply