A Solution For Preventing Holds On End Zone Safeties?

[Bemular]

...

Just don't start the clock until the ball is either kicked or received - problem solved.

I done with this one brother

 

[imac_21]

Just don't start the clock until the ball is either kicked or received - problem solved.

I done with this one brother

So if you're punting with 5 seconds left and are up by 2, you can't have your punter run around to kill the clock?

Your solution makes sense if there's a hold (or clip, or any other offensive penalty), but what if the punting team plays it clean, doesn't commit a foul, and the clock doesn't start until the ball is kicked/received?

I suppose in that case, you leave the offense on the field and let the QB run around to kill the clock.

 

[Bemular]

So if you're punting with 5 seconds left and are up by 2, you can't have your punter run around to kill the clock?

Your solution makes sense if there's a hold (or clip, or any other offensive penalty), but what if the punting team plays it clean, doesn't commit a foul, and the clock doesn't start until the ball is kicked/received?

I suppose in that case, you leave the offense on the field and let the QB run around to kill the clock.

Specifically, on the Ravens safety there was a timeout prior to the play - in that case, starting the clock on kick or receive is a solution. The goal of any rule change in this area has to be to prevent the use of a foul to facilitate running out the clock.

 

[imac_21]

Specifically, on the Ravens safety there was a timeout prior to the play - in that case, starting the clock on kick or receive is a solution. The goal of any rule change in this area has to be to prevent the use of a foul to facilitate running out the clock.

I understand, but what if the Ravens, on that particular play, didn't commit a penalty? Does Koch (and the Ravens as a team) forfeit the right to run around in the endzone and give up the safety while burning some time?

The hold probably cost us no more than 3 seconds The free kick would have occurred with 7 seconds instead of 4 if there was no hold (Unless Dixon managed to force a fumble that we recovered for the win).

Under your scenario, he runs around but the clock doesn't start unless he kicks the ball. In that case, the free kick occurs with 12 seconds to go, Ginn fair catches it and we have the opportunity to run a couple plays to the sideline to get in hail mary or FG range.

Either that or they are forced to risk punting and having it blocked.

Their final choice, as I mentioned above, would be to put the offense on the field (probably Taylor rather than Flacco) and have the QB run around in the endzone to take the safety. The clock would have to start at the snap of the ball if they line up to go for it, regardless of the actual intent of the play.

Waiting for the kick to start the clock only works if a penalty is committed. If there is no penalty it punishes the team that won the first 59:50 (or so) of the game.

 

[Bemular]

I understand, but what if the Ravens, on that particular play, didn't commit a penalty? Does Koch (and the Ravens as a team) forfeit the right to run around in the endzone and give up the safety while burning some time?

The hold probably cost us no more than 3 seconds The free kick would have occurred with 7 seconds instead of 4 if there was no hold (Unless Dixon managed to force a fumble that we recovered for the win).

Under your scenario, he runs around but the clock doesn't start unless he kicks the ball. In that case, the free kick occurs with 12 seconds to go, Ginn fair catches it and we have the opportunity to run a couple plays to the sideline to get in hail mary or FG range.

Either that or they are forced to risk punting and having it blocked.

Their final choice, as I mentioned above, would be to put the offense on the field (probably Taylor rather than Flacco) and have the QB run around in the endzone to take the safety. The clock would have to start at the snap of the ball if they line up to go for it, regardless of the actual intent of the play.

Waiting for the kick to start the clock only works if a penalty is committed. If there is no penalty it punishes the team that won the first 59:50 (or so) of the game.

(I think) this explanation should answer all of your scenarios.

Regardless of the play, if there is no foul and no loophole in the rules that creates an incentive to commit a foul (or the incentive to NOT commit a foul) in order to gain an unfair advantage, then there is no reason to change the rule.

By contrast, if there is a loophole in the rules that allows a team to commit a foul in order to gain an unfair advantage then the rule has to be changed.

 

[imac_21]

(I think) this explanation should answer all of your scenarios.

Regardless of the play, if there is no foul and no loophole in the rules that creates an incentive to commit a foul (or the incentive to NOT commit a foul) in order to gain an unfair advantage, then there is no reason to change the rule.

By contrast, if there is a loophole in the rules that allows a team to commit a foul in order to gain an unfair advantage then the rule has to be changed.

I'm not arguing that the rule doesn't need to be changed. But your proposal plugs one hole and opens another. If no penalty occurred on the play, but the clock wouldn't start until the ball is kicked, there is no way for the punting team to run the clock out.

Under your rule, what happens if you're lining up to punt from the 50 with 4 seconds left and you tell your punter to take the snap and run backwards? The clock never starts, wherever he gets caught, the opposition takes over.

 

[Bemular]

I'm not arguing that the rule doesn't need to be changed. But your proposal plugs one hole and opens another. If no penalty occurred on the play, but the clock wouldn't start until the ball is kicked, there is no way for the punting team to run the clock out.

Under your rule, what happens if you're lining up to punt from the 50 with 4 seconds left and you tell your punter to take the snap and run backwards? The clock never starts, wherever he gets caught, the opposition takes over.

Got it - Then we need to manage the foul instead of the clock; no foul worries, but if there is a foul then the penalty needs to include, along with a field position penalty, a time provision as well. I believe that covers the bases, but it also puts the refs subjectivity back in the play.

 

[imac_21]

Got it - Then we need to manage the foul instead of the clock; no foul worries, but if there is a foul then the penalty needs to include, along with a field position penalty, a time provision as well. I believe that covers the bases, but it also puts the refs subjectivity back in the play.

Agreed. The clock is a much greater concern than the hold in this situation.

Maybe allow the defense the option of taking the penalty in the form of yards/loss of down, or a time penalty (5 seconds added to the clock from the previous snap?)

 

[Bemular]

Agreed. The clock is a much greater concern than the hold in this situation.

Maybe allow the defense the option of taking the penalty in the form of yards/loss of down, or a time penalty (5 seconds added to the clock from the previous snap?)

I think now we're close to a solution. I like the 'adding the time back on the clock' element of this idea.

 

[wartyOne]

Who cares? The rules are subjectively applied by the "officials" anyway. Even if there was a rule change that would potentially eliminate this situation, it's up to the "officials" to throw the flag.

 

[Jikkle]

Who cares? The rules are subjectively applied by the "officials" anyway. Even if there was a rule change that would potentially eliminate this situation, it's up to the "officials" to throw the flag.

Well part of the reason that nobody is making a huge fuss over the no call it it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play which is why their needs to be another rule to prevent that from happening. If the no call would've impacted the game everyone would've been destroying the officials for not calling it.

The solution to me and I'm pretty sure it's been brought up is under 30 seconds if there is an offensive penalty aside from intentional grounding on a Safety the clock is reset to the time when the ball was snapped on the proceeding kickoff.

This completely discourages holding because it hurts you more than it helps but keeps the ability of the offensive to kill the clock and take a safety if they play it cleanly.

 

[Bemular]

Well part of the reason that nobody is making a huge fuss over the no call it it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play which is why their needs to be another rule to prevent that from happening. If the no call would've impacted the game everyone would've been destroying the officials for not calling it.

The solution to me and I'm pretty sure it's been brought up is under 30 seconds if there is an offensive penalty aside from intentional grounding on a Safety the clock is reset to the time when the ball was snapped on the proceeding kickoff.

This completely discourages holding because it hurts you more than it helps but keeps the ability of the offensive to kill the clock and take a safety if they play it cleanly.

I think Warty's point is regarding that part right there Jikkle - He's saying it won't matter even if they don't play it cleanly - the refs won't call it anyway. And, after 2/3 who can argue with him?

 

[MHSL82]

Well part of the reason that nobody is making a huge fuss over the no call it it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play which is why their needs to be another rule to prevent that from happening. If the no call would've impacted the game everyone would've been destroying the officials for not calling it.

The solution to me and I'm pretty sure it's been brought up is under 30 seconds if there is an offensive penalty aside from intentional grounding on a Safety the clock is reset to the time when the ball was snapped on the proceeding kickoff.

This completely discourages holding because it hurts you more than it helps but keeps the ability of the offensive to kill the clock and take a safety if they play it cleanly.

Yeah, my hope from the beginning was the time return. I said a few times that I wish they could just return the clock to presnap time, not time of the foul. But I also noted my bias because I dislike those who use the system when it would seem unfair if it were on the other foot. Some people think, well, use the system, it's strategy.

As we discussed other things, too, I had assumed that adding clock was either already accepted as a solution and we were discussing alternatives or was out of the question. I thought maybe people who have watched football for decades might have some fundamental reasons against adding time to the clock, so when the alternatives were discussed, I assumed that was out for some people and accepted by others.

 

[Bemular]

Yeah, my hope from the beginning was the time return. I said a few times that I wish they could just return the clock to presnap time, not time of the foul. But I also noted my bias because I dislike those who use the system when it would seem unfair if it were on the other foot. Some people think, well, use the system, it's strategy.

As we discussed other things, too, I had assumed that adding clock was either already accepted as a solution and we were discussing alternatives or was out of the question. I thought maybe people who have watched football for decades might have some fundamental reasons against adding time to the clock, so when the alternatives were discussed, I assumed that was out for some people and accepted by others.

Might it be that nobody read your post? You do get die-ah-rhea of the mouth quite often - just sayin. lol!!

 

[MHSL82]

Might it be that nobody read your post? You do get die-ah-rhea of the mouth quite often - just sayin. lol!!

Yep.

 

[MHSL82]

Yep.

Oh, shit! It's coming again.