[QUOTE=RichMSN;623872]
Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I think a key part of getting a firm grasp of the all-but-one is understanding the philosophy behind this enforcement.
|
The philosophy of the "1" in 3-and-1 is based on a longstanding assumption and compromise. That is, they knew the assumption was only somewhat valid, but traded off the degree of invalidity for ease of administration. And it was in most cases better than what preceded it.
The assumption is that the spot of the foul is where the live ball was or would've gotten to. You held the would-be tackler, the runner was or would've gotten to that point without the assistance of any illegality. But it's only an approximation. Sometimes the foul occurs at a spot the ball is
already downfield from, although usually not far (assuming it's not unnecessary roughness). Sometimes the foul just kept the fouled player from advancing and tackling a runner who was well
behind the spot of the foul, who then completes a run and moves the basic spot beyond the spot of the foul. (I won't get into pass play enforcement which became arguably even a worse gyp in that case starting almost 40 yrs. ago.)
Canadian football has a "point ball held" spot. However, that does require determining the spot of the ball at the same time as a foul that might've been some distance away. The worse the disparity produced by the "1" of 3-and-1 enforcement, the greater the imprecision in point ball held enforcement.
Spots in rugby for enforcement of live ball fouls are generally spot-of-foul and not the equivalent of any of the other North American football enforcement spots. This can produce some strangeness too, chiefly related to lateral placement (when someone is offside far from where the ball is) and non-tactical fouls (like punching someone far away from where the ball is). IIRC, however, unsporting conduct by a coach on the sideline is theoretically penalized from where the ball in play was at that moment.
The lack of "tacked on" enforcements in rugby does noticeably increase the incentive by the defense to foul tactically, and seems to lead to many referees giving what seems IMO an extravagant amount of "advantage play" to compensate.
Robert