Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner
If the OP was looking for the deeper "why", I believe the rule was initially designed to solve the problem of a penalty enforcement that would place the ball beyond the goal line. For example without the half the distance rule, an offensive holding penalty enforced from the offense's 9 yard line would result in the ball being place 1 yard into the endzone. Conversely, a roughing the passer penalty enforced from the defense's 10 yard line would move the ball 5 yards into the endzone. The logically conclusion to either of these situations would be to award the appropriate score (a safety in the first situation and a TD in the second), so the purpose of the rule is to avoid awarding scores awarded by penalty
|
If that were the case there'd be more appropriate ways to do it. One simple way would've just been to make it that no penalty carries the ball closer than X to the goal line, which is how they do it in rugby.
No, the half-the-distance provision was adopted to reflect the fact that a distance penalty disproportionately affects play near a goal line. It may be a bit inequitable in that regard when it comes to penalties that move the ball
away from close to a goal line.
What apparently they haven't figured out (because so rare, I guess) is a similar way to handle the option team R has of taking the ball a given distance beyond the last spot for a free kick out of bounds, when that's greater than the distance to the goal line. I'm told here that since that's not penalty yardage, half -the-distance doesn't apply, leaving the implication that it's either a touchback or the option is off the table.
The Canadian formula is a little more complicated in its treatment of 25 yard penalties near a goal line, and due to the fact that the ball is not allowed to be scrimmaged inside either 1 yard line.