holding in the endzone

[cougar729]

MJT's got it, someone's intitial reaction might be to enforce from the 20 since the result was a touchback, but since B got the ball with clean hands, they surely can't committ a penalty in their own endzone, it would be just like A holing in their own endzone. Safety.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by cougar729

MJT's got it, someone's intitial reaction might be to enforce from the 20 since the result was a touchback, but since B got the ball with clean hands, they surely can't committ a penalty in their own endzone, it would be just like A holing in their own endzone. Safety.

REPLY: Right...just remember that B's 20 (succeeding spot) is the basic spot when the result of the play is a touchback. You still need to apply the "all-but-one" principle to that in order to get the true enforcement spot.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by cougar729

MJT's got it, someone's intitial reaction might be to enforce from the 20 since the result was a touchback, but since B got the ball with clean hands, they surely can't committ a penalty in their own endzone, it would be just like A holing in their own endzone. Safety.

By rule, you're right - it is (by rule) enforced just like A holding in their endzone.

But the reason I hate this, and would make this my 1 rule change if I had the chance is this:

In the play where A holds in their own endzone, the ballcarrier was in the EZ in danger of a safety. It's possible or even probable that A's hold prevented an actual safety.

In the OP, with B's penalty in the EZ, the ballcarrier was in the EZ, but was NOT in danger of a safety. If B's penalty prevented a tackle in the EZ, all it prevented was a touchback.

If Fairness is our goal when constructing our penalty enforcements, it makes no sense (from a fairness point of view) to award a safety because of a penalty that did not help the penalized team avoid a safety.

(And yes, on the field, I'm awarding the safety and biting my tongue).

[cougar729]

While B's ball carrier was not in danger of a safety, your still holding in the endzone and whether the result is a TB, safety, or other, that team is still responsible for fouling behind their own goalline, regardless of what they were trying to prevent.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by cougar729

While B's ball carrier was not in danger of a safety, your still holding in the endzone and whether the result is a TB, safety, or other, that team is still responsible for fouling behind their own goalline, regardless of what they were trying to prevent.

I agree with you that that's how the rule is currently written.

The issue, for me, is that a safety requires some pretty specific things - a player with the ball, outside his own endzone, bringing it back into his own endzone and being stuck there, unable to get out. Except in this one incongruous instance, where a player has the ball in his own EZ because of the OTHER team putting it there, and solely due to an accident of timing, someone fouls while he's still in there (even if he's only got it for 2 seconds, and is in the process of kneeling down).

The logic of the normal play (A foul in the EZ while A has the ball in the EZ) makes sense - if not for the foul, it's possible that there would be a safety - so the penalty for illegally preventing a safety should be ... a safety.

The logic of this one makes no sense - if not for the foul, B would have the ball on the 20. The foul does not prevent A from scoring 2 points and getting the ball back - so the penalty for that foul should not be 2 points and getting the ball back. The punishment doesn't fit the crime, so to speak.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by cougar729

While B's ball carrier was not in danger of a safety, your still holding in the endzone and whether the result is a TB, safety, or other, that team is still responsible for fouling behind their own goalline, regardless of what they were trying to prevent.

I think we all realize that is the rule, as written. What crowder is saying, and I agree, is that the punishment doesn't seem to fit this situation.

When A holds in the EZ to prevent a sack on his QB, he prevented a safety from occurring. However, in the above example, as has been mentioned, all the foul did was prevent a touchback.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC

I think we all realize that is the rule, as written. What crowder is saying, and I agree, is that the punishment doesn't seem to fit this situation.

When A holds in the EZ to prevent a sack on his QB, he prevented a safety from occurring. However, in the above example, as has been mentioned, all the foul did was prevent a touchback.

It would take a two-arms-around-the-waist at the point of attack tackle for me to throw such a flag, too.

Of course, I'm a WH and I wouldn't be the one down there, either

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC

...However, in the above example, as has been mentioned, all the foul did was prevent a touchback.

REPLY: Did it? What if in (b) the defender ran it out of the endzone and took it 102 yards? Then the hold facilitated a TD...right?

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Did it? What if in (b) the defender ran it out of the endzone and took it 102 yards? Then the hold facilitated a TD...right?

Well, of course. And I didn't mean for it come accross that there should be no penalty for the foul. Just don't think a safety should be the result.

I think there needs to be a special enforcement for this.

[Theisey]

Great, except the NF really hates to have exceptions to their rules.
We all should now that by now!
How about we just propose to say once a ball is recovered or intercepted in the EZ, the ball is D.E.A.D.

However, I as an official could be retrained to learn it and enforce it.