Offensive holding on an intentional safety

[WarDamnGator]

One interesting thing that came out of last night is that holding on an intentional safety is a consequence-less infraction. Holding in the endzone is an automatic safety, but they allow the play to continue. I guess the logic of letting play continue is that the punter could fumble for six points. But whether the penalty is called or not, the result of the play would have been exactly the same, a safety with 4 seconds left on the clock. What I saw was the punt rusher getting bear hugged in the endzone, but no call, which bought the Ravens a few extra seconds. CNNSI says there were multiple players holding on the play.

It seems wrong that a team can "cheat" without penalty. I'm not sure if college has the same rules. Perhaps this is something the rules committees should look at. Maybe give the defense the option of taking the safety at the time of the infraction (would require a replay review) instead of the letting the play run it's course.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Was thinking the exact same thing.

[no_more_cowbell]

I noticed that too. It seems like they should at least have to run the play again after a half-the-distance penalty with no time taken off the clock

[Spurffelbow833]

But whether the penalty is called or not, the result of the play would have been exactly the same, a safety with 4 seconds left on the clock.

It's not six of one and half a dozen of the other. Without the holding allowing the punter to run the clock down more, there probably would have been time for one Hail Mary play after the free kick.

[WarDamnGator]

I agree. That was my point. One team is getting an advantage by intentionally breaking the rules, without any consequence. But whether the refs throw the flag or not, the result of the play is the same. If holding was called, the refs would say "Holding on the safety .... by rule a safety is awarded ... free kick Ravens" ... or whatever ... but they wouldn't put the time back on the clock that was burned after the holds.

[helix139]

I'm surprised the Ravens didn't call out the old Buddy Ryan Polish punt team there. One time on a late punt as coach of the Eagles, Ryan intentionally sent 14 men out on his punt team. He was expecting a penalty to be called, forcing a re-kick with more time wasted off the clock. Instead, the refs didn't throw a flag at all and the Eagles had the safest punt in NFL history. Asked after the game if he thought there was anything wrong with having 14 men on the field intentionally, Ryan said he "should have had 15."

[SmootyGator]

Ummm.... this is no different than players fouling at the end of a basketball game. Everyone knows they are "breaking the rules" intentionally, they just have to pretend that they are doing it accidentally or look like they are "going for the ball" or you'll get called for a Technical. It was a smart play by the Ravens, I don't see what the big deal is.

[WarDamnGator]

Ummm.... this is no different than players fouling at the end of a basketball game. Everyone knows they are "breaking the rules" intentionally, they just have to pretend that they are doing it accidentally or look like they are "going for the ball" or you'll get called for a Technical. It was a smart play by the Ravens, I don't see what the big deal is.

Actually, there is a big difference there. The offending team gets penalized because the other team gets to shoot free throws (typcially). In this case, it's a loophole in the rules that allows one team to break the rules without any penalty.

[acegator]

In addition to the time being put back on the clock for the penalty, they should award another 2 points for the holding bringing the total points awarded on the play to 4. They should not run the clock for the following kick and return play. This would give the receiving team the ball with whatever time was left on the clock before the double safety. That should make them think twice about doing that again.

[SmootyGator]

Actually, there is a big difference there. The offending team gets penalized because the other team gets to shoot free throws (typcially). In this case, it's a loophole in the rules that allows one team to break the rules without any penalty.

Ummm... they get an automatic safety. How is that not a penalty?

[SmootyGator]

Ummmm.... I just realize that I say "Ummmm... " a lot. I'll stop. :D

[IndianaStew]

it was smart. I'm gonna guess you were rooting for the 49ers like I was. Nothing wrong with the play and intentional holding calls. They knew and accepted the consequence.

[WarDamnGator]

They were taking a safety anyway. The holding was intentional to waste time ... It's really not a big deal to me, but it probably did cost the 49ers a play. IMO, it's a loophole that needs to be closed, because it's a bit unsportsmanlike to intentionally break the rules when you know their is no consequence for doing so.

[acegator]

I'm surprised the Ravens didn't call out the old Buddy Ryan Polish punt team there. One time on a late punt as coach of the Eagles, Ryan intentionally sent 14 men out on his punt team. He was expecting a penalty to be called, forcing a re-kick with more time wasted off the clock. Instead, the refs didn't throw a flag at all and the Eagles had the safest punt in NFL history. Asked after the game if he thought there was anything wrong with having 14 men on the field intentionally, Ryan said he "should have had 15."

To solve problem, they should install a rule that states, "Anytime a team with the lead is guilty of a penalty with 3 minutes or less remaining in the game, the team that is trailing can elect to take the penalty along with resetting the clock to the time the ball was last set ready for play."

[WarDamnGator]

it was smart. I'm gonna guess you were rooting for the 49ers like I was. Nothing wrong with the play and intentional holding calls. They knew and accepted the consequence.

No, I didn't care who won, but after game I had a discussion with a friend about why the refs didn't throw the flag for one of the most obvious we'd ever seen. We both concluded that flag or no flag, the play would have stood exactly the same, so we both thought the ref held the flag with that knowledge. But I have to disagree there was (or would have been ) a consequence for the Ravens. They burned another 5-8 seconds off the clock and the play would have been ruled a safety with 4 seconds left either way.

And yeah, it was smart of the Ravens.

[SmootyGator]

To solve problem, they should install a rule that states, "Anytime a team with the lead is guilty of a penalty with 3 minutes or less remaining in the game, the team that is trailing can elect to take the penalty along with resetting the clock to the time the ball was last set ready for play."

Problem? Where's the problem? A team broke the rules of the game intentionally and got the appropriate penalty called.

This happens in basketball in like half of the games. It is done for strategic purposes. It's smart coaching/playing.

Changing this would be like basketball changing the rules so that the team that gets fouled in bonus has the choice to take the foul shots, or just inbound the ball again. Are intentional penalties only OK when they stop the clock, and not when they keep the clock going?

[gatorbogey]

when you really think about it: that was a really smart play on the part of the ravens. i would have just had my guy run around for a few seconds, didn't think to hold on the play.

[gatorfansrule]

Changing this would be like basketball changing the rules so that the team that gets fouled in bonus has the choice to take the foul shots, or just inbound the ball again.

I'd actually like that rule change in basketball.

[SmootyGator]

I'd actually like that rule change in basketball.

To be honest, so would I. I also think they should get rid of the onside kick as well. Not a lot of people I talk about this with agree with me. Oh well. :D

[WarDamnGator]

Actually, just to get the facts straight, no penalty was called. It's possible that the refs ate the flag because they knew there was no punishment. But when the punter is standing nearly still, alone in the endzone, and the nearest guy to him is being bear hugged, I can't imagine the refs didn't see it.

Comparisons of football to basketball don't work. The team that commits the foul gets penalized when the other team is given a free chance to score two more points on them. That's a penalty in addition to the desired results of intentional foul, which is to get the ball back with time on the clock. There is an upside, and a downside to late fouls in BB.

Here, the Ravens only got the desired results of the there play, with no penalty (even if one had been called). They got the safety they wanted, and they wasted a few seconds off the clock. Where is the downside?

But to take it one step further, there is a mandatory 10 second run off if the offensive team is trailing late in the game, has no time outs, and commits a foul. The NFL recognized that teams were committing intentional penalties just to stop the clock, and the upside outweighed the downside. This is the exact opposite. A team that was leading late in the game, when the other team has no time outs, commits a penalty to keep the clock rolling.... can't see why one instance should be banned by the rules and the other not.

Like I said, and others have said, this loophole is easy to correct ... give the fouled team the option to accept the penalty and put time back on the clock ... but the safety stands.

[gatorump]

The only way to prevent this from taking away from the spirit of the game is to make it a loss of down penalty from the previous spot, if it was to be determined that the holding was done to run additional time off the clock. I think it was a great strategy for the Ravens, but bad for football. Most rules are put in place because someone found and exploited a loophole. The officials should just enforce the rulebook. IMO no different than taking a delay of game to give your punter more room or to run off a couple more seconds. Now if the competition committee feels the need to change the rule, then the players and officials will then be bound by them.

BTW how do they not at least call holding on that?

[gatordee]

To be honest, so would I. I also think they should get rid of the onside kick as well. Not a lot of people I talk about this with agree with me. Oh well. :D

Why the onside kick? Because of the onside kick, there have been some great come backs. It is used %95 of the time in desperation and I would bet that the % of it working is slim.

[tegator80]

Put me down as a vote for shrewd move by Baltimore. It sucks that SF couldn't do anything about it but what are the choices? I didn't make the connection that Baltimore held on the play, I just thought that SF was in max protect for a return and didn't pay attention to the game that was being played by the punter.

It ranks right up there with allowing the other team to deliberately score a TD with time on the clock to give your team a chance to win it with your QB. It isn't really a part of the game but what are the choices? I say give mad props to the coaches to figure out the best alternative. Everything else seems to be sour grapes.

[WarDamnGator]

Here's a GIF someone posted, in addition to the bear hug, you can see #37 wraps up and tackles #27, and the other punt rusher is pushed down (but looks legal) ...

The 49ers coach said he would have told his guys to tackle on the same play, but doesn't understand why a flag wasn't thrown, even if it was meaningless.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18dk8woqzwhnhgif/original.gif

[Speedofsand]

^ That's what I saw and mentioned in the game thread, Ravens 37 just straight up tackled SF 27, among others holding. Smart play by Balt., penalty was the same as the intended play. Refs didn't even bother to flag it. Maybe there ought to be a new rule.

[SmootyGator]

Actually, just to get the facts straight, no penalty was called. It's possible that the refs ate the flag because they knew there was no punishment. But when the punter is standing nearly still, alone in the endzone, and the nearest guy to him is being bear hugged, I can't imagine the refs didn't see it.

Comparisons of football to basketball don't work. The team that commits the foul gets penalized when the other team is given a free chance to score two more points on them. That's a penalty in addition to the desired results of intentional foul, which is to get the ball back with time on the clock. There is an upside, and a downside to late fouls in BB.

Here, the Ravens only got the desired results of the there play, with no penalty (even if one had been called). They got the safety they wanted, and they wasted a few seconds off the clock. Where is the downside?

But to take it one step further, there is a mandatory 10 second run off if the offensive team is trailing late in the game, has no time outs, and commits a foul. The NFL recognized that teams were committing intentional penalties just to stop the clock, and the upside outweighed the downside. This is the exact opposite. A team that was leading late in the game, when the other team has no time outs, commits a penalty to keep the clock rolling.... can't see why one instance should be banned by the rules and the other not.

Like I said, and others have said, this loophole is easy to correct ... give the fouled team the option to accept the penalty and put time back on the clock ... but the safety stands.

Downside? The downside is that the other team gets 2 points! Just because the team giving up the 2 points doesn't care about the 2 points doesn't mean that there isn't a "downside".

Sometimes teams take a delay of game penalty in order to keep the clock rolling, albeit only a second or two extra. Do you think that teams should be able to do that? There's no "downside" to doing that if they're still in range of punting it to the goal line. They're intentionally committing a penalty. Same thing?

[samit23]

Holding is not a dead ball foul. You guy are reading something into nothing. The 49ers could have gone after the punter in anticipation and saved the clock.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[g8rboy]

maybe the 49ers should have called better plays on third and fourth and goal and scored.

[WarDamnGator]

Sometimes teams take a delay of game penalty in order to keep the clock rolling, albeit only a second or two extra. Do you think that teams should be able to do that? There's no "downside" to doing that if they're still in range of punting it to the goal line. They're intentionally committing a penalty. Same thing?

When a team takes a delay of game penalty, they lose 5 yards. A down side ... When the play call is "take a safety, tackle the punt rushers, waste time" ... what exactly is the punishment for the illegal act of tackling the punt rushers? I mean, normally, when a team breaks a rule, they receive a punishment that outweighs whatever gains they got ... in this case, they break a rule and get rewarded for it. And like I've said, this is easy to fix with a small rule change. But good for the Ravens for knowing the rule and taking advantage of it.

[SmootyGator]

When a team takes a delay of game penalty, they lose 5 yards. A down side ...

You just said it again. When they take a safety, they lose 2 points which is a downside.

When the play call is "take a safety, tackle the punt rushers, waste time" ... what exactly is the punishment for the illegal act of tackling the punt rushers? I mean, normally, when a team breaks a rule, they receive a punishment that outweighs whatever gains they got ...

Normally they do, but this is a special circumstance where they don't care about giving up 2 points. So you think penalties should be allocated differently given different game time circumstances? If Baltimore did what they did in the middle of the 1st quarter, the penalty should have been different because the circumstances were different?

Going back to the basketball analogy: Teams foul at the end of games because the benefits (stopping the clock) outweigh the punishment they get (giving the other team free-throws). I see no difference here.

in this case, they break a rule and get rewarded for it. And like I've said, this is easy to fix with a small rule change. But good for the Ravens for knowing the rule and taking advantage of it.

See the answer above. Fouling at the end of a basketball game is breaking rules which you get rewarded for.

IMO, the biggest difference between this and my Basketball analogy has to do with a team winning and holding on to the win, as opposed to the team behind trying to come back. People probably think its more acceptable to break rules intentionally when they're behind because they're losing and they've got to do whatever it takes to win.

[SmootyGator]

Why the onside kick? Because of the onside kick, there have been some great come backs. It is used %95 of the time in desperation and I would bet that the % of it working is slim.

I know, I know. Most people don't agree with me. My feeling is that: why should a team have some special rule to give them a shot in the game when they've been getting their butts handed to them the whole time. I realize that on-sides kicks and fouling at the end of B-Ball games makes a lot more games interesting, and that's why most people like the rules. I just disagree, and realize that I'm in the minority.

The basketball fouling (free-throws) really should be a choice from the team that gets fouled. I really think that the team should have the option to decline the penalty depending on whether or not it benefits them, just like football.

[WarDamnGator]

I still don't understand how taking a safety is a punishment when the play call is to take an intentional safety?

So you think penalties should be allocated differently given different game time circumstances?


As I pointed out above, this is already the case. For example, If a team commits a false start in the first 28 minutes of a half, it's a 5 yard penalty. If a team commits a false start in the last two minutes, subject to the situation, it could result in a 5 yard penalty PLUS a loss of 10 seconds or a loss of a time out. So, there is already a precedence in the rules for eliminating abuse of the game clock.

But this seems pretty simple to me. Normally, when a team scores, the clock stops. So, give the defense the option to retroactively stop the clock when they score a safety by offensive holding, which would be at the moment the holding occurred. It's an easy way to remedy a rule that allows one team to abuse the clock rules.

And again, from all examples and basketball analogies you are using, you still have not shown a situation where the violating team does not receive a punishment outside of the intended results which benefit them. That's what makes this so interesting to me. I also can't think of another situation is sports where the violating team can commit a penalty and get rewarded for it, with no downside.

[CHFG8R]

I know it's a little off topic, but on the subject of penalties that were not called, how about the blow to the head on James' fumble. A friend said that it wasn't called because it was shoulder-to-head, but isn't any blow to the head a penalty (and fine)? If that's the case, is a shoulder to the head any better than a hand/arm? And if it's head injuries that NFL is worried about, should that not be a penalty?

That said, how does the NFL deal with a turnover caused by a clear violation? I thought it was interesting how nobody said a thing. Not sure the NFL has a rule to deal with this, but it was clear on the replay: A direct blow to the head caused that fumble.

[oragator1]

If they take away 10 seconds for intentional time wasting as a penalty, why not add 10 seconds as a penalty in that situation? It would have given SFO 2 more plays.

[denny_crane]

Had SF not wasted 2 timeouts earlier, they could've prevented this discussion...

[oragator1]

Had SF not wasted 2 timeouts earlier, they could've prevented this discussion...

Yeah, when they burned the TO to save five yards on third down I thought it was really dumb. If you are passing anyway, 5 yards in the RZ is far less valuable than the 40 seconds if you don't convert. That second TO might very well have cost them the game.

[SmootyGator]

I still don't understand how taking a safety is a punishment when the play call is to take an intentional safety?



As I pointed out above, this is already the case. For example, If a team commits a false start in the first 28 minutes of a half, it's a 5 yard penalty. If a team commits a false start in the last two minutes, subject to the situation, it could result in a 5 yard penalty PLUS a loss of 10 seconds or a loss of a time out. So, there is already a precedence in the rules for eliminating abuse of the game clock.

But this seems pretty simple to me. Normally, when a team scores, the clock stops. So, give the defense the option to retroactively stop the clock when they score a safety by offensive holding, which would be at the moment the holding occurred. It's an easy way to remedy a rule that allows one team to abuse the clock rules.

And again, from all examples and basketball analogies you are using, you still have not shown a situation where the violating team does not receive a punishment outside of the intended results which benefit them. That's what makes this so interesting to me. I also can't think of another situation is sports where the violating team can commit a penalty and get rewarded for it, with no downside.

I guess that we just have a difference of opinion. You think giving up 2 points isn't a "punishment", and I do. What if the punter had rolled to the right, only to discover that he had a receiver wide open down the right side of the field, so he throws it down the field and he catches it for the first down? The play would be called back and a safety (2 points for the other team) would have been called. That would be the down side or punishment. I agree with you that the intent of the punter wasn't to do this, but intent shouldn't be a deciding factor.

You keep saying that the safety benefited Baltimore. How does giving the other team 2 free points benefit them? There wasn't that much time left, but SF still got the ball back via kickoff. What if they ran it all the way down to Baltimore's 20 Yard line and there was a penalty on Baltimore. SF could have kicked a FG to tie the game instead of having to score a TD. That is downside of taking the safety. The fact that they chose to take the safety has nothing to do with anything.

[WarDamnGator]

You keep saying that the safety benefited Baltimore. How does giving the other team 2 free points benefit them?

I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the safety was to Raven's advantage or benefit. I'm pretty sure the Baltimore head coach thought so, as well. But that really has nothing to do with it. The point is, the situation in the game exposed a loophole that allows one team to break the rules (holding to burn extra seconds), gain an advantage, and have virtually no penalty outside of their desired outcome of their called play. The leagues have done quite a few things to end the manipulation of clock rules (10 second run offs, requiring a Time Out for late game injuries, etc.), so I wouldn't be surprised to see this get addressed.

[GatorLaw]

When a team takes a delay of game penalty, they lose 5 yards. A down side ... . .

Not necessarily. Sometimes the extra five yards of room to kick is an advantage. At a minimum it's not a disadvantage as long as after the penalty the punter can still kick it near the goal line.

[allig8ralli]

It's called being Outcoached. That is all.

[RealDeal]

the officiating in the super bowl was terrible

[Bedlam]

It's shocking to me that there are people on here defending a play where everyone blocking on offense holds and tackles the defense in a move that obviously benefits the offense. It's gaming the rules in a way not intended by the makers of the rules. There's a reason that roughing the kicker can be enforced on the ensuing kickoff, or dead ball fouls after a scoring play can be enforced on the ensuing kickoff, or obviously the 10 second runoff in the last minute, or automatic timeouts for injury. I will be shocked if this scenario is not addressed this off-season.

[samit23]

It's shocking to me that there are people on here defending a play where everyone blocking on offense holds and tackles the defense in a move that obviously benefits the offense. It's gaming the rules in a way not intended by the makers of the rules. There's a reason that roughing the kicker can be enforced on the ensuing kickoff, or dead ball fouls after a scoring play can be enforced on the ensuing kickoff, or obviously the 10 second runoff in the last minute, or automatic timeouts for injury. I will be shocked if this scenario is not addressed this off-season.

Lame. Did the "everyone" blocking on offense really hold and tackle their defensive counterpart. Did it really have anything to do with the outcome? Is it the job of the NFL to look at every rule from every possible eventuality? Maybe the 49ers could have just anticipated that the punter would dance around the endzone? Maybe they could have called a sensible play on the goal line instead of the 4 bad ones they did call? Either way this play was probably the least relevant play of the entire 2nd half. I would be shocked if it addressed in any way.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

[Bedlam]

Lame. Did the "everyone" blocking on offense really hold and tackle their defensive counterpart. Did it really have anything to do with the outcome? Is it the job of the NFL to look at every rule from every possible eventuality? Maybe the 49ers could have just anticipated that the punter would dance around the endzone? Maybe they could have called a sensible play on the goal line instead of the 4 bad ones they did call? Either way this play was probably the least relevant play of the entire 2nd half. I would be shocked if it addressed in any way.

Sent from my iPhone using GatorCountry

I am by no means saying that play was the reason they lost. But "Is it the job of the NFL to look at every rule from every possible eventuality?" Uh, yes. Obviously. Why on earth would they not try to make their rules the best and most fair they possibly could be? And 49ers did anticipate the punter was going to dance around the endzone, they were too busy being held and tackled to get to him for 7 seconds. It's the difference between having enough time to be able to take the safety kickoff for a small return then chuck a hail mary, or only having enough time to try to return a kick for a TD.

[bperkins10]

During the normal course of a game, when is time ever put back on the clock after a penalty? Even if the throws the flag the result is exactly the same and the time stays of the clock.

I heard this morning that coaches tell their players to hold just so the punter doesn't get killed.

[co_gator89]

They really don't need to change the rules over this. The situation where the best move is to take an intentional safety is so rare that changing the rules would be an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist, just like when they changed the OT rules. The Ravens were smart. I wouldn't have thought of that.

Someone mentioned letting the other team score earlier in this thread which is a good point. Look no further than last year's Super Bowl. New England had the option of either letting the Giants run the clock down and kick a very high percentage FG, or they could let them in and give themselves a chance to put one of the best QBs of all time back on the field and try and win the game. And sure enough, their D parted like the Red Sea and they had a chance to win on a hail mary at the very end even though they lost anyway.

Some people may not like it, but really it's excellent strategy.

[danky1313]

They really don't need to change the rules over this. The situation where the best move is to take an intentional safety is so rare that changing the rules would be an attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist, just like when they changed the OT rules. The Ravens were smart. I wouldn't have thought of that.


Some people may not like it, but really it's excellent strategy.

You make the points for it TO be fixed. It's an excellent strategy because it's an unfair advantage to break a rule for you're own benefit. I don't care if it's inconsequential to the outcome of the game, if SF "should've" played better, or if it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game...it's glaringly obvious it's a loophole that should be changed so that it doesn't affect an outcome of a future game in the same situation. If the Gators got burned because of something similar in a future game, and I'm not saying SF got burned, then everyone here would be in agreement on it's unfairness.

[gatorbogey]

related to this - if an opposing team got near the goal line, the evil coach in me would have me take multiple personal foul penalties, that just amount to half the distance to the goal whenever the opposing team got down to my one yard line. there's virtually no damage, but i could really abuse the OL - hitting them before their 'ready', jumping the gap and smearing the qb. i'd put in scrubs in case they got ejected, and i'd be on the sideline pretending i was upset that they were jumping offsides.

[SmootyGator]

You make the points for it TO be fixed. It's an excellent strategy because it's an unfair advantage to break a rule for you're own benefit. I don't care if it's inconsequential to the outcome of the game, if SF "should've" played better, or if it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game...it's glaringly obvious it's a loophole that should be changed so that it doesn't affect an outcome of a future game in the same situation. If the Gators got burned because of something similar in a future game, and I'm not saying SF got burned, then everyone here would be in agreement on it's unfairness.

People break rules intentionally for their own benefits in sports all the time. Especially in football. I don't see how people think this is different.

[g8rboy]

SF didn't get burned on the intentional safety, they just didn't score enough points.

[WarDamnGator]

The media is picking up this, now.

Holding on intentional safety exposes loophole in rules

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/04/holding-on-intentional-safety-exposes-loophole-in-rules/

In Super Bowl XLVI, the unintended use of an extra man on defense exposed a loophole that the NFL promptly closed. In Super Bowl XLVII, another loophole has been exposed.

.....

Helping Koch delay as long as possible his exit from the field of play were multiple Ravens players who held 49ers defenders who were trying to get to Koch more quickly. And while a flag for holding inexplicably wasn’t thrown, the outcome would have been no different. Holding in the end zone by the offensive team triggers a safety, and that’s exactly what the Ravens were willing to concede.

Under the circumstances, avoiding the safety was irrelevant. Using as much time as possible was the goal.

The challenge comes from finding an acceptable way to address the situation. For a play that ends in a safety with a holding penalty committed in the end zone, the most obvious solution would be to enforce the penalty on the free kick, moving the ball from the 20 to the 10. But that won’t remedy the fact that a deliberate penalty created a strategic advantage by taking time off the clock.

So perhaps the fairest outcome would be to award the safety, and to restore the clock to the time remaining before the play in question began.

Regardless, it’s a situation that cries out for further study by the Competition Committee.

This was posted late last night, but echoes a lot things said here.

[SmootyGator]

Funny you mention the extra man on the field. I didn't hear about that one and had always been curious about why no coaches ever did that. I mean, if there's like 30 seconds left and you want to run the clock out, but you're on defense, just throw 25 players out there. You'll only give up 5 yards per play (on the penalty), but you'll run like 5-6 seconds off each time! That's pretty egregious, even for me! :D

The thing that I disagree with is how they judge if a player is "running off" the field, they will let the play go and administer the penalty in the normal fashion. This puts more judgement calls into the refs hands, which I HATE! There's either too many men on the field or not. Call it, or don't call it, the penalty should be called the same way.

[danky1313]

SF didn't get burned on the intentional safety, they just didn't score enough points.

True and I clarified in my post SF DID NOT get burned. But the FACT is with the additional time taken off by all the holding there WOULD have been a chance they could've had time to throw a hail mary and chance it could've been caught. The odds of that happening are probably 1 in several million but as long as there's a chance (so you're saying there's a chance :) then the issue should be addressed and corrected with a rule change regardless of how improbable that scenario may be.

[bantab]

related to this - if an opposing team got near the goal line, the evil coach in me would have me take multiple personal foul penalties, that just amount to half the distance to the goal whenever the opposing team got down to my one yard line. there's virtually no damage, but i could really abuse the OL - hitting them before their 'ready', jumping the gap and smearing the qb. i'd put in scrubs in case they got ejected, and i'd be on the sideline pretending i was upset that they were jumping offsides.

Exactly. If the opposing team is on the one and you're winning, just keep fouling till you have the opportunity for a turnover...

[Dreamliner]

The San Francisco Fortywhiners.

[Bushmaster]

This is not much different that a basketball team that is leading by 3 with seconds to play and intentionally fouling a player not in the act of shooting to send them to the line for 2 shots.

Baltimore should have gone all MMA on SF and they could have effectively killed the whole play. Lost in this discussion is the fact that the Baltimore punter could have run out of the endzone and probably only had to beat the punt return man for SF for a touchdown. I don't think there was anyone to that side of the field.

Of course, he would have been killed by Ray Lewis in the parking lot after the game.

[Swampmaster]

if rules allow things, it's not "cheating" if you do them.

[gatorump]

if rules allow things, it's not "cheating" if you do them.

But the rules should also be made so as to discourage the breaking of them when doing so gives an advantage. The rules are to punish the offender not the offended. That's why I suggested making it a half the distance from the previous spot and a loss of down. This would have given the 49ers the ball inside the five, obviously this would discourage an intentional hold. But I would make it so that it would only be implemented in obvious situations like we saw in the Super Bowl.

[Swampmaster]

But the rules should also be made so as to discourage the breaking of them when doing so gives an advantage. The rules are to punish the offender not the offended. That's why I suggested making it a half the distance from the previous spot and a loss of down. This would have given the 49ers the ball inside the five, obviously this would discourage an intentional hold. But I would make it so that it would only be implemented in obvious situations like we saw in the Super Bowl.

the current rule for holding in the endzone is a safety. Why change the rules if the safety is "intentional"?

[SmootyGator]

But the rules should also be made so as to discourage the breaking of them when doing so gives an advantage. The rules are to punish the offender not the offended. That's why I suggested making it a half the distance from the previous spot and a loss of down. This would have given the 49ers the ball inside the five, obviously this would discourage an intentional hold. But I would make it so that it would only be implemented in obvious situations like we saw in the Super Bowl.

They were punished. They gave San Francisco 2 points. Did you not notice that?

Do you think that teams shouldn't be allowed to foul at the end of a basketball game to stop the clock?

Should teams not be able to take a voluntary delay of game in order to let the clock run as long as possible?

Should a DB not be allowed to intentionally interfere with a receiver (college) to give up 15 yards to save a touchdown?

These are examples of when taking a penalty outweighs the consequences given the situation. It happens in sports. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples.

[WarDamnGator]

But the rules should also be made so as to discourage the breaking of them when doing so gives an advantage. The rules are to punish the offender not the offended. That's why I suggested making it a half the distance from the previous spot and a loss of down. This would have given the 49ers the ball inside the five, obviously this would discourage an intentional hold. But I would make it so that it would only be implemented in obvious situations like we saw in the Super Bowl.

I think enough attention has been brought to this that the rules committee will look into it this off season. I think your solution is too punitive, though. It's basically awarding a first and goal to a team for being held. Putting the time back on the clock is a fair solution that would end this little loophole ... but I also like the idea from the article I posted above of enforcing a 10 yard penalty on the kick-off. At least enforce some penalty to discourage the intentional holding.

It's really not a big deal, and I'm not a fan of either team, or the NFL for that matter, but the rules should be written to discourage a team from trying to get an advantage through an illegal play when there is really no downside to getting caught.

[g8rboy]

They were punished. They gave San Francisco 2 points. Did you not notice that?

Do you think that teams shouldn't be allowed to foul at the end of a basketball game to stop the clock?

Should teams not be able to take a voluntary delay of game in order to let the clock run as long as possible?

Should a DB not be allowed to intentionally interfere with a receiver (college) to give up 15 yards to save a touchdown?

These are examples of when taking a penalty outweighs the consequences given the situation. It happens in sports. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples.

agreed. they were just smart enough to make the right move.

now, let's get the play clock back to 30 or 35 seconds......

[WESGATORS]

I don't have a problem with the holding, but if the NFL decides it doesn't want it, then the simple fix is to instruct the refs to call an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Another option would be to throw a marker indicative of when the play will be ruled dead if the penalty is accepted.

There is a penalty, and that penalty does come with risk. With 2 more seconds, a top NFL kicker could have tried a game-tying kick from the spot of the return. That's a small margin of error when you are banking on holding calls to delay the game. But there is indeed risk involved there.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[bantab]

Of course, he would have been killed by Ray Lewis in the parking lot after the game.

That's totally uncalled for and unfair. He would have been obstruction-of-justice'd. Twice.

[Bushmaster]

The penalty for holding is 10 yards and unsportsmanlike is 15 yards.

Award the safety, free kick from the 10 instead of the 20.

[tilly]

I was surprised he fielded the snap and ran around with it. I would have snapped it out of the back of the end zone. The running around by a punter...not used to carrying the ball ..could have led to a botched snap or fumble leading to the craziest TD in Superbowl history. I say, snap that thing through the goal posts. Take your chances on a hail mary.

[tilly]

Would the problem be solved by making it an automatic personal foul in the last two minutes...thus assessing it on the free kick? Ted Ginn fielding the ball 15 yards closer could be a deterrent. They would then basically be punting from the 5 taking away part of the strategy.

Making this rule only in the last two minutes protects a team who gets flagged for holding on a pass play in the third qtr for instance. The two points is penalty enough in that case.

[oragator1]

I was thinking about this a bit more last night, if there is a perceived intentional penalty in the last 2 minutes they could simply offer a loss of down option, giving the other team the ball at the LOS in this circumstance. That would stop it.

[tilly]

I was thinking about this a bit more last night, if there is a perceived intentional penalty in the last 2 minutes they could simply offer a loss of down option, giving the other team the ball at the LOS in this circumstance. That would stop it.

Loss of down on 4th down does not give the other team the ball at the line of scrimmage. Loss of down is irrelevant in 4th down. On 4th down the result of the play stands unless it results in a first down for the offending team. In this case the result of the play was a safety.

Loss of down penalties are generally spot fouls with the loss of down (grounding). In this case the spot of a penalty in the end zone is by rule a safety.

[gator85jd]

I was surprised he fielded the snap and ran around with it. I would have snapped it out of the back of the end zone. The running around by a punter...not used to carrying the ball ..could have led to a botched snap or fumble leading to the craziest TD in Superbowl history. I say, snap that thing through the goal posts. Take your chances on a hail mary.

A punter isn't used to handling the ball? Since when?

[tilly]

A punter isn't used to handling the ball? Since when?
Good point...

I was meaning running around with it. And punters drop snaps. I was just thinking what a disaster if he muffs the snap or fumbles. Safest thing would be snap it into the 15th row.

[gator07]

They were punished. They gave San Francisco 2 points. Did you not notice that?

Do you think that teams shouldn't be allowed to foul at the end of a basketball game to stop the clock?

Should teams not be able to take a voluntary delay of game in order to let the clock run as long as possible?

Should a DB not be allowed to intentionally interfere with a receiver (college) to give up 15 yards to save a touchdown?

These are examples of when taking a penalty outweighs the consequences given the situation. It happens in sports. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples.

Best argument. They were aware of the consequences of their actions and accepted them.

[gator07]

This is not much different that a basketball team that is leading by 3 with seconds to play and intentionally fouling a player not in the act of shooting to send them to the line for 2 shots.


Great analogy.

[Bedlam]

Great analogy.

No, it's not. With that analogy, you commit the foul, the other team shoots freethrows. You don't foul, they don't shoot freethrows. Two entirely separate outcomes.

The holding situation is like this: You don't hold, a safety occurs (on purpose). You do hold, a safety occurs, but more time ticks off the clock. There is no repercussion for holding in this situation - only an advantage.

[gator07]

No, it's not. With that analogy, you commit the foul, the other team shoots freethrows. You don't foul, they don't shoot freethrows. Two entirely separate outcomes.

The holding situation is like this: You don't hold, a safety occurs (on purpose). You do hold, a safety occurs, but more time ticks off the clock. There is no repercussion for holding in this situation - only an advantage.

I disagree. You hold its a safety. You don't hold its not a safety...until you do something else like run out of bounds.

To me, the fact that they actually want a safety is irrelevant.

[tebowharvin]

Why not make a safety worth a touchdown (6 points and a PAT)? You are, effectively, forcing the ball to be downed in the goal you are trying to score on (which I imagine is where the term came from). No more touchbacks either.

I am dead serious.

[SmootyGator]

I was thinking about this a bit more last night, if there is a perceived intentional penalty in the last 2 minutes they could simply offer a loss of down option, giving the other team the ball at the LOS in this circumstance. That would stop it.

I really don't care that much about any rule change regarding this. I mean, this will probably only happen a handful of times during the season. My main concern is not having judgement calls by the refs (I know, holding is already a "judgment" call). I think everything should left out of the ref's hands as much as possible. I can already see there being so many debates over whether or not offensive linemen were holding, or "intentionally holding". I thought it was an excellent move when they got rid of the two types of facemask penalties. It's either a facemask or not, it should be the same with holding.

[SmootyGator]

For some reason, I keep thinking about this thread... so I propose another scenario where one might be able to exploit the system.

Here is the situation. You're on defense, and up by one point. The other team has the ball on their own 20 with like 45-50 seconds left in the game. Sure the clock is in your favor, but how many times have we seen a team play prevent defense only give up the last second field goal and lose.

Here's what you do on defense. As soon as the ball is snapped, have your DB's or linebackers tackle, grab, hold, do whatever it takes to get all 5 of their eligible receiver down on the ground. Once on the ground, you can just sit on them and not let them go anywhere. Now, the QB has to run it. Meanwhile, your D-Linemen are just sort of playing "contain" not letting the QB get too far up field or out of bounds. Sure, you're going to get a 5 yard, automatic first down penalty, but you're also going to run a bunch of time off the clock while only giving up 5 yards.

To me, this is way more egregious than what happened in the Superbowl, but technically, it's still legal. Imagine what would happen if some team did this!

[No1GatorFreak]

Not cheating when you are doing things within the rule books to gain a competitive advantage. Can't have subjective calls for different points in the games. Like it or not there is nothing anybody can do about it.

And, FWIW i do not have a dog in this fight.

[Swampmaster]

"intentional" penalties should be punished differently than "unintentional" penalties? how do you determine intent?

[BobK89]

B-ball: Flagrant foul - 2 shots (points) and the ball.

Safety: 2 points and the ball.

So we are now going to claim that an intentional holding in the end zone is worth 4 points? Again, who determines intent.

[tilly]

"intentional" penalties should be punished differently than "unintentional" penalties? how do you determine intent?

The league solves this problem by changing the consequences late in the game. They already do this on other penalties. They have time run-offs and such now.

Simply make a blanket rule for any end zone penalties in the final minute of play. (i.e. kicking from 15 yards back, or replaying the down from the previous spot...with the clock reset to the previous time.) The defense gets to chose which.

This would eliminate the strategy and you'd never see it again.

[bantab]

Holding in the end zone in the last two minutes: option for either safety or loss of down? Thoughts?

[g8rboy]

i think they should leave the rule exactly as it is. too damn bad if you are losing, get to the punter quicker.

[bantab]

i think they should leave the rule exactly as it is. too damn bad if you are losing, get to the punter quicker.

The problem is that if you really take advantage of this rule, you can run a minute or more off the clock. Just keep tackling everyone.

[gatorump]

They were punished. They gave San Francisco 2 points. Did you not notice that?

Do you think that teams shouldn't be allowed to foul at the end of a basketball game to stop the clock?

Should teams not be able to take a voluntary delay of game in order to let the clock run as long as possible?

Should a DB not be allowed to intentionally interfere with a receiver (college) to give up 15 yards to save a touchdown?

These are examples of when taking a penalty outweighs the consequences given the situation. It happens in sports. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples.


First of all of course I noticed that SF got 2 points I watched the game. I am talking about a team using the rules to gain an unfair advantage that might need to be addressed by a competition committee. Do I think it was cheating? Nope but I think it shows a loophole that might need to be changed. And I was only weighing in on a possible solution.

Second, the fouling at the end of the game has already been addressed this is why the refs have the option to call a foul intentional. Maybe you didn't notice. :joecool:

Third the delay of game. IMO I was shocked that the Ravens didn't take a delay penalty since it was obvious to me that they would take a safety. Don't see where this applies but whatever.

Fourth If the Gators are up 6 and fsu has the ball on their side of the field and our cornerback gets burned on a bomb, I hope he takes the penalty and the 15 yards. I actually think that needs to be reviewed as well. The punishment should fit the crime. If a pass is going to go for 60 yards where is the incentive not to foul if all you will get is 15 yards for interference.

It all goes back to playing by the rules which the Ravens did, All I am suggesting is that maybe the rule needs to be revisited if someone is gaining an unfair advantage by using them in a way not meant for in the spirit of the rules.

They have a history of changing rules for this very purpose. Look at the holding in the endzone (oh wait we are) that was put in place because the offensive line realized that it was better to hold in the endzone then to give up a sack. Now that a team has found an end of the game situation to help them with that why not revisit it again?

[tilly]

Holding in the end zone in the last two minutes: option for either safety or loss of down? Thoughts?

But again...loss of down does not apply on 4th down does it?. So its not an option in this specific case. A loss of down penalty on 4th down does not give the ball over on downs to my memory.

For instance: intentional grounding on 4th down. That has to be declined by the defense...thus making the result of the 4th down play an incomplete pass and only then a turnover on downs. (But who would ground it on 4th down anyway)

I do not know of a case where loss of down alone turns the ball over at the spot.

Anyone know if I'm on track here?

[gatorump]

But again...loss of down does not apply on 4th down. So its not an option in this specific case. A loss of down penalty on 4th down does not give the ball over on downs.

For isntance: intentional grounding on 4th down. That has to be declined by the defense...thus making the result of the 4th down play an incomplete pass and only then a turnover on downs. (But who would ground it on 4th down anyway)

There is no case where loss of down alone turns the ball over at the spot.

It is my understanding that a loss of down on forth down turns the ball over on downs. Not saying you are wrong, but that would be a new one on me and I have officiated for several years.

[bantab]

There is no case where loss of down alone turns the ball over at the spot.

Exactly. They lose the ball because it is fourth down. They don't get to replay the down because of loss of down. The penalty does not turn the ball over, the fourth down does.

[tilly]

It is my understanding that a loss of down on forth down turns the ball over on downs. Not saying you are wrong, but that would be a new one on me and I have officiated for several years.
To clarify..I think the NFL and HS have different rules on this . I was just reading a HS ref forum that stated your point.

I think the NFL rule is different.

Scenario: 4th down. Tom Brady completes a first down to AH. .but was across the line of scrimmage when he threw the ball. That is a loss of down penalty. I don't recall ever seeing the ball turnover on downs at that point. Same with intelligible man down field. Also a loss of down I believe.

I agree I could be mistaken ..but I believe it remains 4th down in those cases.

Of course the reason we are unsure is because it rarely ever happens...which may be the ONLY reason I don't recall seeing the turnover on downs take place.

[bantab]

To clarify..I think the NFL and HS have different rules on this . I was just reading a HS ref forum that stated your point.

I think the NFL rule is different.

Scenario: 4th down. Tom Brady completes a first down to AH. .but was across the line of scrimmage when he threw the ball. That is a loss of down penalty. I don't recall ever seeing the ball turnover on downs at that point. Same with intelligible man down field. Also a loss of down I believe.

I agree I could be mistaken ..but I believe it remains 4th down in those cases.

Seeing a loss of down penalty (illegal pass beyond the line, intentional grounding, batting the ball, backwards pass, illegal kick beyond the line, ineligible receiver, fumblerooski) would be very rare on a fourth down in the NFL. The published NCAA rules would result in turnover on downs because of the play. The NFL does not publicly distribute their rules, but it would be quite a deviation to have a penalty not count because it is fourth down.

[tilly]

Seeing a loss of down penalty (illegal pass beyond the line, intentional grounding, batting the ball, backwards pass, illegal kick beyond the line, ineligible receiver, fumnlerooski) would be very rare on a fourth down in the NFL. The published NCAA rules would result in turnover on downs because of the play. The NFL does not publicly distribute their rules, but it would be quite a deviation to have a penalty not count because it is fourth down.
Man...that's interesting. Thanks for setting me straight..lol.

[tideh8rGator]

I was surprised he fielded the snap and ran around with it. I would have snapped it out of the back of the end zone. The running around by a punter...not used to carrying the ball ..could have led to a botched snap or fumble leading to the craziest TD in Superbowl history.

The niners would have absolutely killed that punter if the ravens hadn't held. They wanted to SAVE time and they were rushing that guy with mayhem in mind, to cause exactly what you are talking about. They knew the ball would never be kicked and they wanted to tear the kid up in the end zone and cause a turnover, they never set up for a runback at all. The holding by the ravens may have saved life and limb LOL. THAT fact probably was part of the reason there was no call by the officials. They were protecting him in the same way they protect an exposed, vulnerable QB with special rules.

Think of the uproar if the 9ers mutilate the guy and wind up getting a PF call against them. The refs would have been handing the game to the ravens on the spot.