The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2005, 08:12pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally posted by stevesmith
NCAA- Okay, there is confusion on the block below the waist. It can be legal. For the sake of arguement, change it to a clip or hold on A, and now we're back to B benefiting by commiting a foul.
That's the way it goes. I don't think B is going to be thinking "we should foul as well cuz then they will offset and we'll go all the way back to the PS."

NFL, the only thing is if there is a 5 vs 15 foul, only the 15 is administered.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2005, 09:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mullica Hill, NJ
Posts: 798
OK. Just to make it easy let's just say equal yardage vs. equal yardage (eg: 10-yd penalty v. a 10-yard penalty). Does NFL go back to previous?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 30, 2005, 10:17pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally posted by ljudge
OK. Just to make it easy let's just say equal yardage vs. equal yardage (eg: 10-yd penalty v. a 10-yard penalty). Does NFL go back to previous?
Yep!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 12:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 146
How many other ways can we think of where B benefits by committing a penalty (other than the obvious of fouling to prevent a big play such as pass interference)?

Something about this is just grossly wrong! I can honestly say in my 19 years of football, I can't remember a situation like this where there is such an extreme and unjust effect of penalty enforcement.
__________________
Steven S. Smith
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 07:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally posted by stevesmith
How many other ways can we think of where B benefits by committing a penalty (other than the obvious of fouling to prevent a big play such as pass interference)?

Something about this is just grossly wrong! I can honestly say in my 19 years of football, I can't remember a situation like this where there is such an extreme and unjust effect of penalty enforcement.
Steve
Nothing is wrong here. If B had not fouled the penalty for A foul is enforced per each code. In this case the penalty is enforced from B’s 10. The lessen for team A is, if you want to keep all of the yardage that you gained during a play don’t foul.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 01:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 146
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by Dale Smith
Steve
Nothing is wrong here. If B had not fouled the penalty for A foul is enforced per each code. In this case the penalty is enforced from B’s 10. The lessen for team A is, if you want to keep all of the yardage that you gained during a play don’t foul.
Not true. The lesson here would be for team B to commit a foul and they come out much better than if they had not committed a foul. By fouling, the down is replayed from the original LOS. By not fouling, B loses all the yards A gained before their foul. So in this case, B is better off with "dirty hands" than with "clean hands".
__________________
Steven S. Smith
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 01:55pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally posted by stevesmith
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by Dale Smith
Steve
Nothing is wrong here. If B had not fouled the penalty for A foul is enforced per each code. In this case the penalty is enforced from B’s 10. The lessen for team A is, if you want to keep all of the yardage that you gained during a play don’t foul.
Not true. The lesson here would be for team B to commit a foul and they come out much better than if they had not committed a foul. By fouling, the down is replayed from the original LOS. By not fouling, B loses all the yards A gained before their foul. So in this case, B is better off with "dirty hands" than with "clean hands".
In my opinion, Dale's point about "if A wants to keep all their yardage, don't foul" is the best point brought out.

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 02:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 146
Okay, I think everyone is missing my point. This not about A, other than they committed a foul. This is about B gaining an advantage by fouling. Let's start at the beginning and look at all the possibilities.....

Same play, long run by A, we'll say 80 yard run.

1- Only A fouls near the end of the run. A is penalized from the spot of the foul. End result is a gain of 65 yards.

2- Only B fouls (live ball). In the example given, yardage is tacked onto the end of the A's run. End result is a gain of 85 yards.

3- A and B foul. End result is to replay the down.

My point is that because of A's foul, the best possible result for B is to also foul. By fouling, B loses no yards on the play, and A is actually penalized for B's foul. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.
__________________
Steven S. Smith
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 05:14pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stevesmith
Okay, I think everyone is missing my point. This not about A, other than they committed a foul. This is about B gaining an advantage by fouling. Let's start at the beginning and look at all the possibilities.....

Same play, long run by A, we'll say 80 yard run.

1- Only A fouls near the end of the run. A is penalized from the spot of the foul. End result is a gain of 65 yards.

2- Only B fouls (live ball). In the example given, yardage is tacked onto the end of the A's run. End result is a gain of 85 yards.

3- A and B foul. End result is to replay the down.

My point is that because of A's foul, the best possible result for B is to also foul. By fouling, B loses no yards on the play, and A is actually penalized for B's foul. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.
[/QUOTE

We see your point, but ours is, if A doesn't like it, they should not have fouled in the first place. As some people say "them's the rules!"

How about the fact that if B holds A during a pitch, and they run for 50 yards, A has to decline the penalty cuz it would be enforced from the PS, but if they had held on a running play, it would be tacked on to the end of the run. That follows your same philosophy as unfair, doesn't it? So what do you do with that one??
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 31, 2005, 05:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
I've always maintained that an easy way to fix this is to allow A to decline B's foul (or vice versa). Seems to me that you should ALWAYS be allowed to decline a foul by the other team. You would only do so, obviously, in cases where the outcome is better for you had the other team not fouled. You can do this on plays where you don't foul - why not on plays like this one?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1