Safety or Not?

[Rich]

It's a great thread, actually. And it's a great example of why every penalty can be broken down to some key questions:

Who committed the foul? Team in possession.
What kind of play? Running play.
What's the basic spot? B-20.
Is the foul behind the basic spot? Yes.

So it's all-but-one (or 3-and-1) enforcement. Spot of the foul is in the end zone. Safety.

I have no problem with the ruling, personally. Don't hold in the end zone.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's a great thread, actually. And it's a great example of why every penalty can be broken down to some key questions:

Who committed the foul? Team in possession.
What kind of play? Running play.
What's the basic spot? B-20.
Is the foul behind the basic spot? Yes.

So it's all-but-one (or 3-and-1) enforcement. Spot of the foul is in the end zone. Safety.

I have no problem with the ruling, personally. Don't hold in the end zone.

Here's why I don't like the rule.

Generally, the idea behind awarding a safety to a team who is fouled in the endzone is that the fouler possibly prevented the fouled team from getting a safety. When the ball is in the EZ and will be a touchback, that possibility does not exist. Fouls like this should be enforced from the 20.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's why I don't like the rule.

Generally, the idea behind awarding a safety to a team who is fouled in the endzone is that the fouler possibly prevented the fouled team from getting a safety. When the ball is in the EZ and will be a touchback, that possibility does not exist. Fouls like this should be enforced from the 20.

I see your point, however, what about when the runner starts to take off?

There is too much grey area of when the play will result in a TB. (remember, we're talking kids here)

Like many have said... Don't foul in the EZ and it's not an issue.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

I see your point, however, what about when the runner starts to take off?

There is too much grey area of when the play will result in a TB. (remember, we're talking kids here)

Like many have said... Don't foul in the EZ and it's not an issue.

If the rule were changed such that a foul in the endzone committed while the ball is in the endzone when a TB would be in effect instead of a safety, the foul is marked from the subsequent spot or the 20, whichever is closest to the end zone, that would still cover your "runner takes off" situation. My wording is not perfect here (then again, what rule is? ), but you know what I mean.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's why I don't like the rule.

Generally, the idea behind awarding a safety to a team who is fouled in the endzone is that the fouler possibly prevented the fouled team from getting a safety. When the ball is in the EZ and will be a touchback, that possibility does not exist. Fouls like this should be enforced from the 20.

This makes so much more sense.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's why I don't like the rule.

Generally, the idea behind awarding a safety to a team who is fouled in the endzone is that the fouler possibly prevented the fouled team from getting a safety. When the ball is in the EZ and will be a touchback, that possibility does not exist. Fouls like this should be enforced from the 20.

While I'll enforce this as a Safety, I agree that the rule should be changed, one way or another. The conflicting rule in question is 8-5-3d, which states "It is a touchback when: ... A forward pass is intercepted in B's end zone and becomes dead there in B's possession."

I don't care how the rule is patched, if they choose to make an exception to 8-5-3d which states that a foul accepted by A would be a safety, or if they choose to award B the ball and enforce the foul from the 20 yard line. As long as it removes any conflicts, it's an improvement.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Here's why I don't like the rule.

Generally, the idea behind awarding a safety to a team who is fouled in the endzone is that the fouler possibly prevented the fouled team from getting a safety. When the ball is in the EZ and will be a touchback, that possibility does not exist. Fouls like this should be enforced from the 20.

But the problem is that we just don't know what might have happened without the foul. Maybe the offended A player hits the ball carrier causing a fumble which A recovers for a TD.

As others have said, don't foul in your own EZ and we don't have this problem.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

But the problem is that we just don't know what might have happened without the foul. Maybe the offended A player hits the ball carrier causing a fumble which A recovers for a TD.

Not seeing the problem on that example either. A would decline the penalty.

[ODJ]

Found the play in Reddings today. (Ch. 11-48.)

Explanation for why it's a safety is once the pass is intercepted, the succeeding spot - B's 20 - becomes the basic spot. Yes, while the play continues.

Because the foul occurs behind the basic spot, All but One, and in the end zone, result is a safety.

I agree with a rule change as A is rewarded two points for throwing an interception.

Thanks for the help.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ODJ

Found the play in Reddings today. (Ch. 11-48.)

Explanation for why it's a safety is once the pass is intercepted, the succeeding spot - B's 20 - becomes the basic spot. Yes, while the play continues.

Because the foul occurs behind the basic spot, All but One, and in the end zone, result is a safety.

I agree with a rule change as A is rewarded two points for throwing an interception.

Thanks for the help.

Well, we told you that above.

And I think it's a perfectly fine application of the rules. Holding in the end zone has consequences.

I'm much more annoyed about using all-but-one on offensive penalties behind the line of scrimmage -- 10 yards from the previous spot is more than enough for a holding penalty, for example. And I'd love to be able to apply K fouls at the end of kicks like in NCAA football.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm much more annoyed about using all-but-one on offensive penalties behind the line of scrimmage -- 10 yards from the previous spot is more than enough for a holding penalty, for example.

This is all about what you think might've happened in the absence of the foul. The pros were 1st to change this, about 40 yrs. ago, in the assumption that if team A hadn't committed illegal use of hands, there would've been an incomplete pass rather than a sacking.

However, if a foul by A springs the runner for a gain, why should it matter whether that gain was from a point behind or beyond the previous spot?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

Well, we told you that above.

And I think it's a perfectly fine application of the rules. Holding in the end zone has consequences.

I'm much more annoyed about using all-but-one on offensive penalties behind the line of scrimmage -- 10 yards from the previous spot is more than enough for a holding penalty, for example. And I'd love to be able to apply K fouls at the end of kicks like in NCAA football.

Have I mentioned how much I love that all of my games are played under NCAA rules?

[BuckeyeRef]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Not seeing the problem on that example either. A would decline the penalty.

The point is, the A player was held and never had the opportunity to tackle the B player and cause the fumble. Then there is no penalty to decline. That's the What If? scenario.