Offensive holding on an intentional safety

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by samit23

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]

Originally Posted by 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.


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]

Originally Posted by danky1313

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...hole-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!

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]

Originally Posted by g8rboy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Swampmaster

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]

Originally Posted by gatorump

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]

Originally Posted by gatorump

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.