Offensive holding on an intentional safety

[WarDamnGator]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

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]

Originally Posted by Bushmaster

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[tilly]

Originally Posted by gator85jd

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]

Originally Posted by SmootyGator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great analogy.

[Bedlam]

Originally Posted by gator07

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]

Originally Posted by Bedlam

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?