A Solution For Preventing Holds On End Zone Safeties?

[Bemular]

The Scenario:

4th down, Ravens kicking from their own end-zone. Harbaugh lets the play clock run to zero (game clock to 0:11*) then calls a timeout.

At this point the Ravens have used ALL of their 40 seconds to run their play. However, because of the rules, the game clock begins as soon as the punter touches the ball.

This effectively gave the Ravens (and gives other teams) additional seconds to run their play that they did not have, in this case, it gave the Ravens eight additional seconds!

The Solution:

Create a rule stating that after a timeout on a change of possession down, the game clock will not begin until either the punter kicks the ball or QB releases the ball.

Thoughts? Exceptions? Problems? (I'm exhausted so there has to be at least one!)

* Play clock was bumped to 0:12 seconds before the punt

 

[MHSL82]

Your proposal is better than mine was, because I hadn't thought of yours. But here's mine from before just to keep ideas in this thread:

My solution: the safety counts and the time goes back to where the play started. I wouldn't go back to when the hold was because then there's less incentive to not hold. I originally was thinking to award a TD, but obviously that's too steep and I would feel bad for a good faith hold. Opposite of a ten second runoff - add ten seconds?

Aside: what if the rule was changed to running out of bounds to avoid a tackle = more than a safety. As in make the fucker take a hit or go down in play. The reason why I mention this is because safety is only the appropriate penalty/reward for being tackled in the end zone when you are trying to punt, pass, or run. Going out of bounds on purpose to run the clock out has none of those purposes. But I'm ok with this, because it is a strategy, just not the hold. It just seemed there was no risk in that play. Hold and you have no punishment, even if called.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't think this got/will get enough play. Everyone's talking about the hold. This is what could be actionable in the competition committee if there was more press and less politics (I think it would be unfruitful if the Niners tried to get this addressed). After all, one day we made need to use this.

 

[MHSL82]

Maybe only in the last quarter or last two minutes? You know, for real cases of blocked punts in mid-game punts. I know it's minute, but sometimes the defense is in the lead and wants to run off the clock a bit (not at the end of the game obviously, when the team is purposely giving a safety).

 

[Bemular]

Well, to me there is an obvious loophole in the rules that allow teams to effectively take over 40 seconds to run a play and commit egregious fouls to permit that additional time to be taken.

Thus, if the clock is not going to start until after the ball is kicked you take away any reason to hold and preserve the integrity of the game - but I'm tired so I could be completely wrong.

 

[MHSL82]

Well, to me there is an obvious loophole in the rules that allow teams to effectively take over 40 seconds to run a play and commit egregious fouls to permit that additional time to be taken.

Thus, if the clock is not going to start until after the ball is kicked you take away any reason to hold and preserve the integrity of the game - but I'm tired so I could be completely wrong.

I don't know about the 40 seconds. The team that's in the lead (either team technically but only the leading team would do it) has the right to run out the clock before they call timeout or snap. We do that all the time, since we win most games. The other team has to conserve TOs to avoid that. But I'm with you 100% on the loophole that allows a team to benefit from a penalty.

 

[MHSL82]

Oh, to those who say that it doesn't matter that no flag was thrown because the result of a penalty in the endzone is a sarety - they need to throw the flag if they see one because what if the punter threw the pass and it gets past the first down marker? The flag would negate it. But if the ref dumbly does not throw it because he doesn't see it or assumes a safety voluntarily, the play would stand. Unlikely, but it could be strategized (I wouldn't assume anyone would risk that, not even St. Louis, but still, all possibilities should be accounted for).

 

[Robotech]

Well, to me there is an obvious loophole in the rules that allow teams to effectively take over 40 seconds to run a play and commit egregious fouls to permit that additional time to be taken.

Thus, if the clock is not going to start until after the ball is kicked you take away any reason to hold and preserve the integrity of the game - but I'm tired so I could be completely wrong.

Pretty good idea. The only thing I would add is that if there is a hold then the free kick would be from the 10 yard line instead of the 20.

 

[MHSL82]

This isn't the best proposal, because it stems from my dislike of purposefully giving the other team points. But I think (not seriously enough) that if you purposefully take a safety, the other team should get the ball at the 50 yard line and 2 points. Perhaps, this could only happen if the safety is purposeful and a hold. Therefore, it's out of field goal range but it would be enough incentive to not do it! It would be subjective, but whatever. But that's just me. I disliked the time we gave the Bengals a safety.

 

[MHSL82]

Seriously though, punishments should be minimally strong enough that people don't want to violate the rule. It shouldn't be the cost of doing business or benefit you. It can't be too strong.

I think that if you commit a penalty in the last 60 minutes of the game, the Niners should get the ball at the opponent's one yard line, first to score wins.

 

[Bemular]

Pretty good idea. The only thing I would add is that if there is a hold then the free kick would be from the 10 yard line instead of the 20.

Excellent idea! I think we have come up with a solution to the loophole in the rules (or the absence of rules) which allows teams to effectively "cheat" to gain an unfair advantage.

Additional note: I was reminded by a friend that all plays run over 40 seconds when the ball is snapped at zero, which caused me to rethink my presentation on the scenario or the issue.

The issue is more about being able to use tactics such as holding (or 12 men on the field) to gain that advantage knowing that while the play may be flagged the time is not put back on the clock.

 

[joshuar56]

I think it would be easier just to put 10 sec back on the clock after a penalty like this.

 

[MHSL82]

Excellent idea! I think we have come up with a solution to the loophole in the rules (or the absence of rules) which allows teams to effectively "cheat" to gain an unfair advantage.

Additional note: I was reminded by a friend that all plays run over 40 seconds when the ball is snapped at zero, which caused me to rethink my presentation on the scenario or the issue.

The issue is more about being able to use tactics such as holding (or 12 men on the field) to gain that advantage knowing that while the play may be flagged the time is not put back on the clock.

Bem, I know you know a lot more about football than I do, I was just curious how this slipped your mind? :P Is this like Kaepernick being a rookie?

I mean, every time that we get up by fewer than 10 points and less than 3 minutes left, I'm calculating the chances of running the clock out by dividing by 40 (minus timeouts that are likely to be taken). I round up a bit because running plays take a few seconds. I thought we all did this nearly every game that we squeak through. That's what I was confused on your being upset with them running 40 seconds off the clock initially. Running out the clock, we do it nearly every game, fortunately.

I do agree 100% with your 1st and 3rd paragraphs.

P.S. I'm teasing you because I know you're old, I mean, how to rephrase this... yeah, you're old. Oh, and wiser about football than I am, and this slipped your mind? Just kidding.

 

[Bemular]

Bem, I know you know a lot more about football than I do, I was just curious how this slipped your mind? :P Is this like Kaepernick being a rookie?

I mean, every time that we get up by fewer than 10 points and less than 3 minutes left, I'm calculating the chances of running the clock out by dividing by 40 (minus timeouts that are likely to be taken). I round up a bit because running plays take a few seconds. I thought we all did this nearly every game that we squeak through. That's what I was confused on your being upset with them running 40 seconds off the clock initially. Running out the clock, we do it nearly every game, fortunately.

I do agree 100% with your 1st and 3rd paragraphs.

P.S. I'm teasing you because I know you're old, I mean, how to rephrase this... yeah, you're old. Oh, and wiser about football than I am, and this slipped your mind? Just kidding.

It didn't slip my mind but I felt my presentation of the scenario left that open which my friend observed and advised me of. The idea is to prevent those additional seconds from happening due to a loophole in the rules structure.

Yes, I am old but when it comes to the 49ers I wear those clothes like a badge of honor - I have been involved with football on many levels and for more years than most on this board have been alive - (Just like Tobers). Even with that said, I still look for things to learn and re-learn.

 

[MHSL82]

It didn't slip my mind but I felt my presentation of the scenario left that open which my friend observed and advised me of. The idea is to prevent those additional seconds from happening due to a loophole in the rules structure.

Yes, I am old but when it comes to the 49ers I wear those clothes like a badge of honor - I have been involved with football on many levels and for more years than most on this board have been alive - (Just like Tobers). Even with that said, I still look for things to learn and re-learn.

Yes, I know this, that's why I vetoed my hesitation for calling you that.

Re: your presentation. Perhaps that was why, because I couldn't get that part of your argument. I saw/got the other part of the loophole. When you first said that, I thought I had remembered wrong, that you were saying the clock ran after the timeout, but then I checked the play-by-play.

You were saying the timeout that allows the team to bleed the clock without delay of game should also freeze the clock until the punt to dissuade such strategy.

 

[Bemular]

Yes, I know this, that's why I vetoed my hesitation for calling you that.

Re: your presentation. Perhaps that was why, because I couldn't get that part of your argument. I saw/got the other part of the loophole. When you first said that, I thought I had remembered wrong, that you were saying the clock ran after the timeout, but then I checked the play-by-play.

You were saying the timeout that allows the team to bleed the clock without delay of game should also freeze the clock until the punt to dissuade such strategy.

Some others have said to just put the time back on the clock among other ideas. When the rules are written in such a way that coaches and players are allowed to make a mockery of the game in order to achieve an advantage over their opponent, then IMO, you have a problem with the rules that needs to be changed.

 

[Robotech]

Some others have said to just put the time back on the clock among other ideas. When the rules are written in such a way that coaches and players are allowed to make a mockery of the game in order to achieve an advantage over their opponent, then IMO, you have a problem with the rules that needs to be changed.

Yeah, former supervisor of officials, Jim Daopoulos, said it best. The NFL can't allow a situation where you gain an advantage from committing a foul.

 

[Bemular]

Yeah, former supervisor of officials, Jim Daopoulos, said it best. The NFL can't allow a situation where you gain an advantage from committing a foul.

That is good to read RT - Maybe they will do something about it this off-season.

What the Ravens did on the Safety in order to gain that advantage was an embarrassment to the game IMO. I honestly hope Goodell plans to address that issue as well as what has to be one of the, if not THE worst officiated SB's in history. No excuses, just truth.

 

[RobertPhD01]

Time is of essence just like the intentional grounding rule, 2 points and add 12 secs to the clock!

 

[RGrabber]

Everyone seems to be concerned that scoring play (a safety is not a penalty) is a rule that should be changed because it makes a mockery of the rules.

Maybe more conversation should address this situation. When a quarterback "clocks" the ball after a firstdown , is there a more blatant expample of "intentional grouding" in the history of game. Yet the rules were changed to allow it.

As far as running out the clock when the other team has no timeouts, I like the arena football lead rule that if a team is leading in the last two minutes of the game they must make positive yardage on the play in order to keep the clock running.

How about this for discussion, when a team on offense is behind the refs rush to get the ball spotted. However, if the defense is behind they take there time in setting the ball before starting the play clock.