Offensive holding on an intentional safety

[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]

Originally Posted by Swampmaster

"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]

Originally Posted by g8rboy

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]

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by bantab

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]

Originally Posted by tilly

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]

Originally Posted by tilly

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]

Originally Posted by gatorump

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]

Originally Posted by tilly

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]

Originally Posted by bantab

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]

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.

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.