NFL rule that doesn't make sense (1 Viewer)

[dhockster]

Buffalo has 2nd and 12. They complete a pass to Clay who goes for 25 yards. However, there is holding by a receiver downfield right where Clay was tackled. if there was no other penalties, wouldn't they assess the penalty from where the holding occurred and it would be a first down for the Bills (a net gain of 15 yards)? There actually was another penalty, roughing the passer against the Saints. Because of this, the ref ruled that the penalties were offsetting and they replayed the down, 2nd and 12.

Could the Bills have declined the roughing the passer penalty, and gotten a first down? The end result seemed to reward the Saints for roughing the passer.

 

[dhockster]

So can a team decline a penalty on the other team when there are offsetting penalties? In this case, it would have benefitted the Bills to decline the roughing the passer penalty. Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Chaka]

Tuck.

 

[zftcg]

Anyone else assume when they clicked on the link that it was going to be about the offense fumbling the ball out of the end zone and the other team getting a touchback?

 

[Snoopy]

A team can not decline an offsetting penalty.

 

[Snoopy]

Tuck.

The NFL got rid of that rule a couple years ago.

 

[Chaka]

The NFL got rid of that rule a couple years ago.

Still a bad rule.

 

[dhockster]

A team can not decline an offsetting penalty.

Do you know why, if it would benefit the team declining it? I am sure the rules don't stipulate why but just thought I would ask.

 

[Catbird]

Maybe to avoid a stalemate where maybe both teams say, 'We will decline if our opponent doesn't'? Maybe there are just to many considerations for a coach in the heat of a game or no way to decide who has to declare first? Maybe just to save game time? I think its a better rule.

ETA: I'll withdraw my rules misinterpretation.    Thanks Snoop!

 

[Snoopy]

I think that offensive holding is also 10 yards from the line of scrimmage, not the point of infraction. You don't get the yardage minus the penalty?

Only if it is behind the line of scrimmage (except for being in your end zone which results in a safety).  It is a spot foul ahead of the line of scrimmage.

 

[elshagon]

I think it's a good question.  one team may have something like first and 3 after the holding penalty downfield by declining the other teams penalty.  I guess it's a question on what penalties are ofsetting. Maybe the NFL just decided to simplify the rule and speed up the game.

 

[msudaisy26]

I think it's a good question.  one team may have something like first and 3 after the holding penalty downfield by declining the other teams penalty.  I guess it's a question on what penalties are ofsetting. Maybe the NFL just decided to simplify the rule and speed up the game.

That would imply the NFL did something right, on purpose, the first time. I refuse to believe that. 

 

[kutta]

Interesting question, but it does look like the rulebook has special rules for offsetting penalities, and it does not allow a team to decline one of them:

Section 1 General Rules Article 1: Refusal of Penalties. Unless expressly prohibited, the penalty for any foul may be declined by the offended team, and play proceeds as though no foul had been committed. The yardage distance for any penalty may be declined, even though the penalty is accepted. 

Exception: (a) If there is a Double Foul, enforcement is pursuant to Section 5 below.

Section 5 Fouls by Both Teams (Double Fouls) Article 1: Double Foul Without Change of Possession. If there is a Double Foul (3-12-2-c) during a down in which there is not a change of possession, the penalties are offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Interesting question, but it does look like the rulebook has special rules for offsetting penalities, and it does not allow a team to decline one of them:

Section 1 General Rules Article 1: Refusal of Penalties. Unless expressly prohibited, the penalty for any foul may be declined by the offended team, and play proceeds as though no foul had been committed. The yardage distance for any penalty may be declined, even though the penalty is accepted. 

Exception: (a) If there is a Double Foul, enforcement is pursuant to Section 5 below.

Section 5 Fouls by Both Teams (Double Fouls) Article 1: Double Foul Without Change of Possession. If there is a Double Foul (3-12-2-c) during a down in which there is not a change of possession, the penalties are offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

Yeah I think that is very open to interpretation, as it doesn't say anything about one team trying to decline the penalty in section 5.  I actually read through that section of the rulebook a few minutes ago and had the opposite interpretation.

That sentence you quoted in section 5 in the context of the rulebook is just a general start to the rule of what happens when there are double fouls.  A header, basically.  Then underneath it lists a bunch of exceptions, in none of which is one team trying to decline one of the penalties mentioned.

 

[Stompin' Tom Connors]

The NFL got rid of that rule a couple years ago.

They just waited until it screwed the Raiders out of an AFC Championship game berth, where I firmly believe they would have dispatched both the Steelers and then the Rams in SB XXXVI as easily as the Patriots did.

Yes, we're still bitter about that.

 

[kutta]

Yeah I think that is very open to interpretation, as it doesn't say anything about one team trying to decline the penalty in section 5.  I actually read through that section of the rulebook a few minutes ago and had the opposite interpretation.

That sentence you quoted in section 5 in the context of the rulebook is just a general start to the rule of what happens when there are double fouls.  A header, basically.  Then underneath it lists a bunch of exceptions, in none of which is one team trying to decline one of the penalties mentioned.

But declining a penalty is in section 1. The exception to declining refers you to section 5.

 

[dhockster]

Interesting question, but it does look like the rulebook has special rules for offsetting penalities, and it does not allow a team to decline one of them:

Section 1 General Rules Article 1: Refusal of Penalties. Unless expressly prohibited, the penalty for any foul may be declined by the offended team, and play proceeds as though no foul had been committed. The yardage distance for any penalty may be declined, even though the penalty is accepted. 

Exception: (a) If there is a Double Foul, enforcement is pursuant to Section 5 below.

Section 5 Fouls by Both Teams (Double Fouls) Article 1: Double Foul Without Change of Possession. If there is a Double Foul (3-12-2-c) during a down in which there is not a change of possession, the penalties are offset, and the down is replayed at the previous spot. 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/17_2013_Penalty_Enforcement.pdf

Thanks Kutta. 

I think the league probably did it this way to prevent teams from intentionally trying to lose (declining a penalty against the other team usually benefits the other team). In this case, it would actually benefit the declining team

It was weird watching it and thinking "oh, holding on the Bills downfield, well at least they will still get the first down" and then the other penalty which should have benefited the Bills even more ended up negating the gain they made on the play.

I think they need to add another exception to that rule.

 

[Mookie]

Tripping is a personal foul.  Seriously?

 

[WhatRox]

Half the distance to the goal.

Why is a 15 yard penalty more advantageous to the offense if it happens on the 16 yard line than the 14 yard line?

 

[kutta]

Half the distance to the goal.

Why is a 15 yard penalty more advantageous to the offense if it happens on the 16 yard line than the 14 yard line?

If it’s at the 16, they get it at the 8. If it’s at the 14 they get it at the 7. The 7 is better, right?

 

[flapgreen]

Fumbling the ball out of bounce into your opponent's endzone and losing possession of the ball of is the most ridiculous freaking rule ever. This league blows. 

 

[Ghost Rider]

I am not a fan of a review resulting in a change regarding something that was not asked to be reviewed. 

For example, the Cunningham fumble in the Packers/Bears game.  The Bears asked for a review to see if he scored before stepping out of bounds.  That is all that should be reviewed, rather than the refs finding something else to change about the play.  The Packers should have asked for that to be reviewed for it to be changed. 

 

[DallasDMac]

I am not a fan of a review resulting in a change regarding something that was not asked to be reviewed. 

For example, the Cunningham fumble in the Packers/Bears game.  The Bears asked for a review to see if he scored before stepping out of bounds.  That is all that should be reviewed, rather than the refs finding something else to change about the play.  The Packers should have asked for that to be reviewed for it to be changed. 

I actually thought the was the rule before I saw that.

 

[Brunell4MVP]

Half the distance to the goal.

Why is a 15 yard penalty more advantageous to the offense if it happens on the 16 yard line than the 14 yard line?

Not true.  By NFL rules, a penalty can never put you closer to the goalline than you were to the LOS.   The exception being defensive pass interference and it seems like something to do with PATs.

Several rules need to change IMO:

1) the offense fumbling the ball out of the other teams endzone.  Seems to me it should come back to like the 5 yard line or where the ball was fumbled, whichever is farther away.  You shouldn't drive 90 yards, fumble it 1 inch OB in the end zone, then lose the ball.  Same for a fumble recovered by the offense in the endzone.  they keep the ball, but it goes back to the 5 or spot of fumble.

2)  pass interference should be 15 yards like in college.  It's having too much of an influence in field position when many times the ball was uncatchable.  And the refs make some awful calls on PI, both ways.

3)  holding should only be called when it influences the play.  I hate holding calls on the offense when the run was left, but the hold was by a TE lined up right.  Throw the flag, but pick it up if it was determined not to effect the play.

4)  QBs should be fair game when they run.  They are using fakes to act like they are going out of bounds or going to slide, then the defender lets up, and the QB gets like 5 extra yards.  Once they cross the LOS, they are a RB.  Man up QBs.

 

[flapgreen]

I am not a fan of a review resulting in a change regarding something that was not asked to be reviewed. 

For example, the Cunningham fumble in the Packers/Bears game.  The Bears asked for a review to see if he scored before stepping out of bounds.  That is all that should be reviewed, rather than the refs finding something else to change about the play.  The Packers should have asked for that to be reviewed for it to be changed. 

I've never heard of that ever happening.  Not a single time. You spend one of your own challenges and the refs find something else and take the ball away from you. This whole league is pathetic 

 

[flapgreen]

I actually thought the was the rule before I saw that.

Same 

 

[Ghost Rider]

I actually thought the was the rule before I saw that.

Me too. 

I've never heard of that ever happening.  Not a single time. You spend one of your own challenges and the refs find something else and take the ball away from you. This whole league is pathetic 

What's next, a defense throws the flag to challenge the offense making it on a 4th and short run, and hey, "The runner was stopped short, but we see on the replay that a defensive lineman lined up in the neutral zone, so 1st down!"   What a joke. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Not true.  By NFL rules, a penalty can never put you closer to the goalline than you were to the LOS.   The exception being defensive pass interference and it seems like something to do with PATs.

Several rules need to change IMO:

1) the offense fumbling the ball out of the other teams endzone.  Seems to me it should come back to like the 5 yard line or where the ball was fumbled, whichever is farther away.  You shouldn't drive 90 yards, fumble it 1 inch OB in the end zone, then lose the ball.  Same for a fumble recovered by the offense in the endzone.  they keep the ball, but it goes back to the 5 or spot of fumble.

2)  pass interference should be 15 yards like in college.  It's having too much of an influence in field position when many times the ball was uncatchable.  And the refs make some awful calls on PI, both ways.

3)  holding should only be called when it influences the play.  I hate holding calls on the offense when the run was left, but the hold was by a TE lined up right.  Throw the flag, but pick it up if it was determined not to effect the play.

4)  QBs should be fair game when they run.  They are using fakes to act like they are going out of bounds or going to slide, then the defender lets up, and the QB gets like 5 extra yards.  Once they cross the LOS, they are a RB.  Man up QBs.

I whole-heartedly agree with #4.  Don't agree with either of the first 3 personally.

#1 I can give or take.  Generally OK with it though.  Time to teach players to not reach out like a fool with the ball in a precarious spot to try and score the TD when the alternative is 1st and goal from the 1 inch line if you just get tackled.  It's selfish, they just want the stats, not to score for their team.

#2 is damned if you do, damned if you don't.  We see it all the time in college when a guy is beaten deep so he just tackles the other guy and gives up 15 yards instead of 60.

#3 is a really bad can of worms.  "If it was determined not to effect the play"?  As those PI judgment calls you hate have shown us, the last thing we need are more rules that are total judgement calls.  What's next, "yeah it was 12 men on the field but the 12th guy wasn't involved in the play".  A penalty is a penalty regardless of where it happens.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I actually thought the was the rule before I saw that.

Same 

The announcers mention it all the time when plays go under review, so it should be well known by now.

I think the rule makes sense as it is.  The whole point in replay is to get the play called correctly.  The only reason there are limitations on the number of them  and the whole challenge system is to keep the game moving.  Given that the point is to get the play right it makes sense to allow any discrepancies in the play be corrected.

Besides, if you have to pick only one thing what happens if you think the guy was short and he fumbled?  "Whoops, looks like he did in fact fumble and we now know that it should be your ball, but unfortunately you chose to check the 1st down line so even though we know what the outcome of the play really should be, which is the whole intent behind replay, we are going to give the ball to the wrong team anyway".

 

[zftcg]

Speaking of penalty yardage, here's a suggested rule change I heard recently that makes sense: Let's say the offense is backed up all the way on their two. False start, half the distance, ball's on the 1. Then they run and get called for holding (not in the end zone). Ball's on the 1/2. Then the WR takes a cheap shot at the opposing DB. Ball moved back less than a foot. So even though the offense had three consecutive penalties called against them, it's only 1st and 12.

Instead, why not add the penalty yardage on to what's needed for a first down? So now, after the first penalty, you have 1st and 15 from the two. Then 1st and 25. Then 1st and 40.

Interestingly, the reverse of this happened a couple years ago in the Super Bowl. Aqib Talib admitted he deliberately facemasked Philly Brown to prevent him from scoring, knowing that the worst that would happen is the Panthers would get 1st and goal from the 1 1/2 instead of the 3. I'm not sure what rule change you could implement to stop plays like that, though. There was that famous play from the 40s where a guy ran off the bench to tackle an opposing player who was on his way to scoring. The refs ruled that he was going to score and awarded the TD. So I guess they could have made a similar ruling for the Panthers.

 

[Jayrod]

Not true.  By NFL rules, a penalty can never put you closer to the goalline than you were to the LOS.   The exception being defensive pass interference and it seems like something to do with PATs.

Several rules need to change IMO:

1) the offense fumbling the ball out of the other teams endzone.  Seems to me it should come back to like the 5 yard line or where the ball was fumbled, whichever is farther away.  You shouldn't drive 90 yards, fumble it 1 inch OB in the end zone, then lose the ball.  Same for a fumble recovered by the offense in the endzone.  they keep the ball, but it goes back to the 5 or spot of fumble.

2)  pass interference should be 15 yards like in college.  It's having too much of an influence in field position when many times the ball was uncatchable.  And the refs make some awful calls on PI, both ways.

3)  holding should only be called when it influences the play.  I hate holding calls on the offense when the run was left, but the hold was by a TE lined up right.  Throw the flag, but pick it up if it was determined not to effect the play.

4)  QBs should be fair game when they run.  They are using fakes to act like they are going out of bounds or going to slide, then the defender lets up, and the QB gets like 5 extra yards.  Once they cross the LOS, they are a RB.  Man up QBs.

The exact wording is that a single penalty can never put you closer than 1/2 the distance to the goal line (which is dependent upon the enforcement spot), with the excepting being pass interference.

I agree on 1 & 2.  And as for #3, that is the exact philosophy that is taught to officials.  They are actually taught to not throw the flag until the result of the play is known to avoid even having to have a discussion and pick it up.  However, the timing of the hold (as in very early in the play) makes a difference as it is difficult to tell how far these freak athletes can move when they aren't held.  I think the plays you are thinking of are probably where the official is giving the defender the benefit of the doubt that they could have possibly gotten to the ball carrier had they not been held, so they call the foul even though the play went the other way.

#4 is just a conscious business decision to protect the most valuable asset on most teams.  It isn't fair to defenders, but QB's are given special protections at every level now.

 

[sho nuff]

Fumbling the ball out of bounce into your opponent's endzone and losing possession of the ball of is the most ridiculous freaking rule ever. This league blows. 

I agree...though I enjoyed that rule this past Sunday.

 

[sho nuff]

I've never heard of that ever happening.  Not a single time. You spend one of your own challenges and the refs find something else and take the ball away from you. This whole league is pathetic 

It’s happemed multiple times where things are reviewed and they find something else instead (likes WR stepping out of bounds first and making the “illegal catch” when they were reviewing a spot instead)

Hey...the Bears didn’t lose a timeout since they technically won the challenge  

 

[Gally]

Me too. 

What's next, a defense throws the flag to challenge the offense making it on a 4th and short run, and hey, "The runner was stopped short, but we see on the replay that a defensive lineman lined up in the neutral zone, so 1st down!"   What a joke. 

Judgement penalties are not reviewable so this would never happen.

I also don't understand why there are limited number of replay challenges by the coaches.  They are penalized by losing a time out if they are wrong so as long as they have timeouts they should be allowed to challenge.  Why limit them to two challenges if they are getting them correct.  The point is to get the call right so as long as a team has a timeout to lose if they are wrong they should be able to challenge as many times as they want.  I have never understood that reasoning.

 

[sho nuff]

Figured this is as good of a place as any.  More of a rule that maybe should be in place?

Modified college targeting rule?

Player commits penalty for an illegal hit and knocks a player out for a few plays or longer. (helmet to helmet hit or block or whatever...clearly helmet to helmet...not some circumstance where a player dipping into it cause the other player to hit the helmet).

Offending player must sit out as long as the other player is injured in that game only (in cases of concussion protocol ...if the hurt player is cleared that game, So is the penalized player...if the hurt player is iut for the game, so is the penalized player).

Subject to review to ensure it was deliberate helmet to helmet.

Example...during the Packers/Panthers game Thomas Davis is penalized for a blindside block that is helmet to helmet on Davante Adams after a Rodgers int.  Adams ends up out for the game.  Would it be a fair penalty for Davis to also have to remain out during that game?

 

[Mookie]

Figured this is as good of a place as any.  More of a rule that maybe should be in place?

Modified college targeting rule?

Player commits penalty for an illegal hit and knocks a player out for a few plays or longer. (helmet to helmet hit or block or whatever...clearly helmet to helmet...not some circumstance where a player dipping into it cause the other player to hit the helmet).

Offending player must sit out as long as the other player is injured in that game only (in cases of concussion protocol ...if the hurt player is cleared that game, So is the penalized player...if the hurt player is iut for the game, so is the penalized player).

Subject to review to ensure it was deliberate helmet to helmet.

Example...during the Packers/Panthers game Thomas Davis is penalized for a blindside block that is helmet to helmet on Davante Adams after a Rodgers int.  Adams ends up out for the game.  Would it be a fair penalty for Davis to also have to remain out during that game?

Davis should've been ejected, plain and simple - make it reviewable and have replay officials make the call for deliberate head shots, especially away from of after the play. 

Making him sit out as long as the other player would be difficult to enforce, and could result in shenanigans (Pats, Steelers come to mind) where you hold a guy out "to be safe" when it gives you an advantage on the field (ie targeting guy is more valuable than targeted guy). 

 

[sho nuff]

Davis should've been ejected, plain and simple - make it reviewable and have replay officials make the call for deliberate head shots, especially away from of after the play. 

Making him sit out as long as the other player would be difficult to enforce, and could result in shenanigans (Pats, Steelers come to mind) where you hold a guy out "to be safe" when it gives you an advantage on the field (ie targeting guy is more valuable than targeted guy). 

Yeah...there are definite problems with my proposal.  Especially with shenanigans.  Or if you have a minor player hit by a more major player (say it’s Geronimo Allison instead of Adams).  

 

[jeaton6]

Here's one that has bugged me forever. You have a play clock, if you do not get it off in time it is loss of down.  Not delay of game penalty. Delay of game should be for plays where team intentionally tries to slow down the game (i.e. keeps ball away from refs making spotting the ball more time consuming, etc.)

Forces teams to pay more for their lack of planning, poor communication, etc. This gets rid of the lame attempts to draw teams off sides on FGs when the only thing they have to lose is 5 yards when they are inside the 10. Same thing on punts when they lose only 5 yards and could be advantaged going back 5 yards. Speeds up the game as well.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Davis should've been ejected, plain and simple - make it reviewable and have replay officials make the call for deliberate head shots, especially away from of after the play. 

Making him sit out as long as the other player would be difficult to enforce, and could result in shenanigans (Pats, Steelers come to mind) where you hold a guy out "to be safe" when it gives you an advantage on the field (ie targeting guy is more valuable than targeted guy). 

I don't mind doing reviews on illegal hits or introducing a modification of the NCAA targeting rule.

But for God's sake, don't stop play to conduct the review. Have you sat through a college football game recently? It makes MLB look like a paragon of speed and efficiency, not least because there are about fifteen video reviews a half.

Have the game proceed while the review is conducted, and if the player is determined to have deliberately targeted, he's ejected at the conclusion of the current drive or next natural play stoppage (e.g. end of the quarter). And make the penalty a minimum of two (full or partial) halves of play - so if the targeting happens in the first half, the player can be eligible to return for the start of the next game, but if in the second half he is required to miss at least the first half of the next game.

IMO, there's nothing all that weird about sitting a player for just a half of action, and it would help mitigate some of the obvious inconsistencies in the way the punishments are being handed out these days.

 

[ICON211]

Here is one that makes no sense to me.  If a team gets a first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move the ball back 15 yards and it's 1st and 10.  If the team gets 9 yards on first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move it back 15 and its 2nd and 24.

 

[jeaton6]

Here is one that makes no sense to me.  If a team gets a first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move the ball back 15 yards and it's 1st and 10.  If the team gets 9 yards on first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move it back 15 and its 2nd and 24.

2nd and 16 and it's because the personal foul is after the play. The play results in a first down. Then 15 yard dead ball foul. 2nd and 16 because it's 2nd and 1 then 15 yards makes it 2nd and 16. If you think it should be 1st and 25 the problem is most teams would probably prefer 2nd and 16 to 1st and 25 so don't think the team getting a first down should be disadvantaged in that way. I'm sure there are specific sections of the rule book people can quote (I can't)

eta: maybe it is 1st and 25 but I think 1st and 10 would make more sense given the 2nd and 16 vs 1st and 25.

 

[Anarchy99]

Here is one that makes no sense to me.  If a team gets a first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move the ball back 15 yards and it's 1st and 10.  If the team gets 9 yards on first down and there is a personal foul after the play they move it back 15 and its 2nd and 24.

In your example, they would give the team a first down, back them up 15 yards, and it would be 1st and 25. 

 

[ICON211]

2nd and 16 and it's because the personal foul is after the play. The play results in a first down. Then 15 yard dead ball foul. 2nd and 16 because it's 2nd and 1 then 15 yards makes it 2nd and 16. If you think it should be 1st and 25 the problem is most teams would probably prefer 2nd and 16 to 1st and 25 so don't think the team getting a first down should be disadvantaged in that way. I'm sure there are specific sections of the rule book people can quote (I can't)

eta: maybe it is 1st and 25 but I think 1st and 10 would make more sense given the 2nd and 16 vs 1st and 25.

Yes, I meant 2nd and 16.

 

[ICON211]

In your example, they would give the team a first down, back them up 15 yards, and it would be 1st and 25. 

That's not the way it works.  It's 1st and 10 and that's why it doesn't make sense.

 

[Anarchy99]

That's not the way it works.  It's 1st and 10 and that's why it doesn't make sense.

I have seen the same exact situation you described set up as 1st and 25.

 

[Gally]

I have seen the same exact situation you described set up as 1st and 25.

It probably depends if the personal foul was a dead ball foul or continuing action foul.  That may be where the confusion is coming from.

 

[ICON211]

It probably depends if the personal foul was a dead ball foul or continuing action foul.  That may be where the confusion is coming from.

Maybe.  Let's say there is a face mask call on an offensive lineman on 1st and 10 during the play.  In that situation the yardage gained on the play would not count and it would be 1st and 25.  However, if the offense gets enough yardage for a first down then there is a personal foul after the play the yardage gained counts and they move the ball back 15 yards and it's 1st and 10.  That has always seemed odd to me that it's 1st and 10 and not 1st and 25 in the second scenario.