Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 692964)

After watching an intentional grounding call tonight in the Texas/tech game (made partly by a friend of mine!!), I needed to double check on a half the distance enforcement. The enforcement spot on grounding is the spot of the foul. There's no additional yardage markoff. Yet, there is no exception in Rule 10 for half distance enforcement. I know if its in the end zone, its a safety, but if it is at the two, we put it at the 2?

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 692964)

NCAA: After watching an intentional grounding call tonight in the Texas/tech game (made partly by a friend of mine!!), I needed to double check on a half the distance enforcement. The enforcement spot on grounding is the spot of the foul. There's no additional yardage markoff. Yet, there is no exception in Rule 10 for half distance enforcement. I know if its in the end zone, its a safety, but if it is at the two, we put it at the 2?

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 692997)

This is a rules conflict since there is the clear statement of "no penalty" shall be enforced more than half the distance and the exception isn't given here as it is for, say, DPI.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 693020)

So we have a foul, a penalty, and a probable loss of yardage due to the foul. I think one way to look at distance is to compare what it would have been had the flag not been thrown.

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 693020)

I think "spot of the foul" potentially makes it a distance penalty. Had it said previous spot, like on a first touching by player OOB, you'd be right. The only reason the ball is brought back to the spot is because we flagged it (obviously). So we have a foul, a penalty, and a probable loss of yardage due to the foul. I think one way to look at distance is to compare what it would have been had the flag not been thrown.

However, I get the point and I think if this has come up with the committee, they probably viewed it as you do.

I still think there's enough potential confusion to make an editorial change.



The problem is that you could look at that in many different ways. Think macro for a second: is the intent of the rules committee, except in specified situations, to make ANY loss of yardage due to penalty no more than half the distance to the goal line? If so, there needs to be an specified exception.

The definition of clipping already includes an exception regarding the runner, but the specific rule prohibiting clipping includes that reference again. Thus, there's a bit of redundancy already in the book.

Originally Posted by TXMike (Post 692980)

If your buddy was the L, that sum***** can fly!!! I recall on one interception he reversed field and really zipped quite a distance to the goal line!!

Originally Posted by mbcrowder (Post 693057)

This "penalty" is one of the dumbest penalties in the book... There is NO penalty, and in fact (and the OP is a perfect example) the offense gains an advantage from the foul.

Had QB simply taken the sack, we have a hot clock, and their ball at the spot of the tackle. Instead, he throws it away - ball at the same spot - AND A DEAD CLOCK. This play WAS during the part of the game where offense was trying to conserve time. If there was any sitch where the 5 should have been marked off, it was this one, but they didn't.

Overall well officiated game, I should add. Texas and Tech fans watching with me both agreed, although the crucial taunting penalty seemed poorly timed (even to me, a Texas fan) as Texas was stopped... they'd been jawing all day, and no calls - now Tech stops Texas on 3rd forcing a long FG that would put them up 6, and the hanky came out. Was surprised to say the least. PLEASED... but surprised. Texas went on to score and go up 10. game over.

Originally Posted by barkmo (Post 693405)

Did you seem to forget the taunting on the Texas player 3 plays earlier that wasn't called? Can't see much difference other than one gets a flag and the other doesn't.