Rule that needs to be changed (1 Viewer)

[Abraham]

Most NFL penalties do not vary in application. The penalty, once called, produces a result that everyone on the field and the sidelines understands. There is nothing subjective about one type of holding vs. another. And it's good that way. So why some penalties lose their teeth via a "half the distance to the goal" enforcement is beyond me. Last night's game - despite the safety that ended up happening - struck me as yet another annoying enforcement of this rule. THe Cards special teams fielded a punt as well as possible and on the other side of the field, a personal foul penalty against Pitt ended up costing the Steelers about half a yard.

If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"

It makes the penalties matter. While it will of course never happen given the reluctance of the NFL to do much regarding penalty enforcement (which is fine since all owners and coaches seem to agree well enough with the status quo), is there any practical reason why this is a bad idea?

 

[CrossEyed]

Most NFL penalties do not vary in application. The penalty, once called, produces a result that everyone on the field and the sidelines understands. There is nothing subjective about one type of holding vs. another. And it's good that way. So why some penalties lose their teeth via a "half the distance to the goal" enforcement is beyond me. Last night's game - despite the safety that ended up happening - struck me as yet another annoying enforcement of this rule. THe Cards special teams fielded a punt as well as possible and on the other side of the field, a personal foul penalty against Pitt ended up costing the Steelers about half a yard. If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"It makes the penalties matter. While it will of course never happen given the reluctance of the NFL to do much regarding penalty enforcement (which is fine since all owners and coaches seem to agree well enough with the status quo), is there any practical reason why this is a bad idea?

Might get a little confusing if there are penalties on multiple consecutive plays with the offense pinned in their own end. Lot of moving of the sticks back and forth. And if there is a defensive penalty after the offensive penalty do you move the ball or move the sticks back to where they were?

 

[Abraham]

ALl they'd have to keep track of is where the first down marker is, same as if the offense gets backed up on a penalty.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I think a team should be awarded a TD if a penalty of 10 yds or more occurs if the LOS is from the 10-1 yd line, or a TD if a penalty of 5 yds occurs if the LOS is from the 5-1 yd line.

 

[puckalicious]

Most NFL penalties do not vary in application. The penalty, once called, produces a result that everyone on the field and the sidelines understands. There is nothing subjective about one type of holding vs. another. And it's good that way. So why some penalties lose their teeth via a "half the distance to the goal" enforcement is beyond me. Last night's game - despite the safety that ended up happening - struck me as yet another annoying enforcement of this rule. THe Cards special teams fielded a punt as well as possible and on the other side of the field, a personal foul penalty against Pitt ended up costing the Steelers about half a yard. If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"It makes the penalties matter. While it will of course never happen given the reluctance of the NFL to do much regarding penalty enforcement (which is fine since all owners and coaches seem to agree well enough with the status quo), is there any practical reason why this is a bad idea?

Might get a little confusing if there are penalties on multiple consecutive plays with the offense pinned in their own end. Lot of moving of the sticks back and forth. And if there is a defensive penalty after the offensive penalty do you move the ball or move the sticks back to where they were?

Moving the sticks back and forth would confuse things a bit too much. It would make more sense to add in the loss of down if you ask me.

 

[puckalicious]

I think a team should be awarded a TD if a penalty of 10 yds or more occurs if the LOS is from the 10-1 yd line, or a TD if a penalty of 5 yds occurs if the LOS is from the 5-1 yd line.

Defensive fouls result in an automatic first down usually, this is a pretty good benefit to the offense already. So you think if the D is called for neutral zone infraction (5 yds) within the 5 yd line the other team should just get a TD? Seems a bit much.

 

[treat88]

Agreed. In essence, Pitt was not penalized for the Harrison infraction.

But how do you balance the diminished implications of a penalty as either the defense or the offense draw closer to the endzone.

If you are going to move the stick when the O is penalized deep in their territory how do you compensate for the same situation when the D is backed up?

Awarding a TD is ridiculous.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"

Really, the application of yards to go after personal fouls is already all screwy in the NFL anyway, given that it doesn't apply to the yards to go on a play that resulted in a first down, but does in all others.If you get a personal foul following an incomplete pass on 1st and 10, you get 2nd and 25. If you get a personal foul following a play that resulted in a first down, you get 1st and 10. It's ridiculous.

 

[Ghost Rider]

My beef with this rule is, say a team has 1st and 10 from their own 2. The offense false starts. Half the distance to the goal makes it 1st and 11 from the 1. Now say the defense jumps offsides. It is now 1st and 6 from the 6. That is bull crap. Offsetting penalties resulted in a 4-yard gain for the offense. There has to be a way around something like that.

 

[puckalicious]

My beef with this rule is, say a team has 1st and 10 from their own 2. The offense false starts. Half the distance to the goal makes it 1st and 11 from the 1. Now say the defense jumps offsides. It is now 1st and 6 from the 6. That is bull crap. Offsetting penalties resulted in a 4-yard gain for the offense. There has to be a way around something like that.

Technically offsetting penalties happen on the same play and are nullified. But I get your point.To the OP, I see the merit in tacking on the yards to the first down marker rather than half distance back, but it gets too muddled when the D commits a penalty afterward. Moving the first down marker back and forth rather than the ball just doesn't seem logical. I'd much rather institute a loss of down for the offense for 10-15yd penalties, and leave it alone for 5yd penalties.

 

[lyon812]

Interesting topic. I've often wondered about this myself, though my idea was to award a safety if the yards lost via penalty would place the offending team in their end zone.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

Most NFL penalties do not vary in application. The penalty, once called, produces a result that everyone on the field and the sidelines understands. There is nothing subjective about one type of holding vs. another. And it's good that way. So why some penalties lose their teeth via a "half the distance to the goal" enforcement is beyond me. Last night's game - despite the safety that ended up happening - struck me as yet another annoying enforcement of this rule. THe Cards special teams fielded a punt as well as possible and on the other side of the field, a personal foul penalty against Pitt ended up costing the Steelers about half a yard. If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"It makes the penalties matter. While it will of course never happen given the reluctance of the NFL to do much regarding penalty enforcement (which is fine since all owners and coaches seem to agree well enough with the status quo), is there any practical reason why this is a bad idea?

Might get a little confusing if there are penalties on multiple consecutive plays with the offense pinned in their own end. Lot of moving of the sticks back and forth. And if there is a defensive penalty after the offensive penalty do you move the ball or move the sticks back to where they were?

Moving the sticks back and forth would confuse things a bit too much. It would make more sense to add in the loss of down if you ask me.

concur.

 

[rascal]

First and 25 IMO instead of moving the ball 6 inches only for the center to move it back.

 

[jasvic]

Why would the sticks have to move back and forth? Let's use last night and say Pitt is at the 1, and the personal foul make it 1st and 25...so instead of the 11, they need to reach the 26 yard line for a first down.

And let's say AZ jumps offsides, now it's 1st and 20 at the 6, still need to get to the 26 for a first down.

I think this is a great idea, as I've also felt half the distance often made major penalties seem trivial and pointless, like last night's example.

Although now that I think more about it, I guess you mean the sticks would move if the offense commits another penalty, say a false start while at the 1...then the first down marker is at the 31. Meh, I still like the idea better than what they do now.

 

[encaitar]

It's kinda hard for them to change it. I hate the idea that some penalties aren't punished as harshly as others based on field position, but there's not a whole lot the NFL can do about it. I would never advocate giving free points(aside from the holding in the endzone call) so that has to be thrown out the window. I just think you have to take it for what it is. Although, I think that there should never be a half the distance to the goal thing. If a team is on the 10 and they receive a 10 yard penalty, the ball should be placed at the 1 foot line(defensive or offensive side of the field, doesn't matter).

 

[identikit]

I think a team should be awarded a TD if a penalty of 10 yds or more occurs if the LOS is from the 10-1 yd line, or a TD if a penalty of 5 yds occurs if the LOS is from the 5-1 yd line.

Awarding TDs like this is just crazy talk...The change advocated byt the OP makes sense to me.

 

[Browns Rule!]

Most NFL penalties do not vary in application. The penalty, once called, produces a result that everyone on the field and the sidelines understands. There is nothing subjective about one type of holding vs. another. And it's good that way. So why some penalties lose their teeth via a "half the distance to the goal" enforcement is beyond me. Last night's game - despite the safety that ended up happening - struck me as yet another annoying enforcement of this rule. THe Cards special teams fielded a punt as well as possible and on the other side of the field, a personal foul penalty against Pitt ended up costing the Steelers about half a yard. If the offense is backed up to the goalline, why not take the penalty yardage and tack it on to the yardage needed for first down? So instead of "Personal foul on Pittsburgh...half the distance to the goal...Steelers ball, first and 10..." it would be "Personal foul on Pittsburgh, Steelers ball, first and 25"It makes the penalties matter. While it will of course never happen given the reluctance of the NFL to do much regarding penalty enforcement (which is fine since all owners and coaches seem to agree well enough with the status quo), is there any practical reason why this is a bad idea?

I really like the idea, very interesting.

 

[SuperJohn96]

Hey, if you've got 1st and 10 on your own 1 yard line and get a 15 yard penalty on 1st down, you lose 1/2 a yard. If your opponent gets a 15 yard penalty on the next down, you have 1st and 10 on your own 15 1/2 yard line.

That's wrong IMO.

Hell, what if you are on your 14 yard line and you get a 15 yard penalty?

That's only marked off 7 yards back.

Why don't they mark it the maximum allowed, 13 back down to the 1 yard line?

It seems like the most dangerous area for a team to start from is inside their 15 yard line, yet all the penalties they incur in that area lose their teeth as far as yardage is concerned.

Hate to admit this, but the OP is right on the money.

 

[bshipper]

This idea makes too much sense for it to be implemented, but I like it. However, I think the defense needs to be able to have the choice. For example, if it is 2nd and 4 from the 8 yd line, and there is a false start, the defense should get to choose between 2nd and 9 from the 8 or 2nd and 8 from the 4. This of course would add complexity to how it is enforced.

 

[rick6668]

Hey, if you've got 1st and 10 on your own 1 yard line and get a 15 yard penalty on 1st down, you lose 1/2 a yard. If your opponent gets a 15 yard penalty on the next down, you have 1st and 10 on your own 15 1/2 yard line.That's wrong IMO.Hell, what if you are on your 14 yard line and you get a 15 yard penalty?That's only marked off 7 yards back.Why don't they mark it the maximum allowed, 13 back down to the 1 yard line?It seems like the most dangerous area for a team to start from is inside their 15 yard line, yet all the penalties they incur in that area lose their teeth as far as yardage is concerned.Hate to admit this, but the OP is right on the money.

I like this option as well, get a 15 yard penalty while on the 10, move the ball to the 1. I'd also like to see, get a penalty at or inside the 1, Safety.

 

[5steeler5]

instead of awarding points for a penalty that would technically place the ball in the endzone why not mark the endzones w/ yard markers and place the ball at the appropriate spot?....so if it is first and 10 at the 5 and the offense has a holding penalty the ball is now placed at the -5 yard line....you now have 1 play to get it out of the endzone....gives the D an advantage, fully penalizes the O, but no free points are given and "half the distance" is eliminated.... this is obviously more facetious than anything...but would be funny to see the play starting in the middle of the endzone

 

[puckalicious]

Hey, if you've got 1st and 10 on your own 1 yard line and get a 15 yard penalty on 1st down, you lose 1/2 a yard. If your opponent gets a 15 yard penalty on the next down, you have 1st and 10 on your own 15 1/2 yard line.That's wrong IMO.Hell, what if you are on your 14 yard line and you get a 15 yard penalty?That's only marked off 7 yards back.Why don't they mark it the maximum allowed, 13 back down to the 1 yard line?It seems like the most dangerous area for a team to start from is inside their 15 yard line, yet all the penalties they incur in that area lose their teeth as far as yardage is concerned.Hate to admit this, but the OP is right on the money.

Going back to the 1 instead of 1/2 the distance is the best IMO. The offense is already operating at a disadvantage backed up to their goal line.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Hey, if you've got 1st and 10 on your own 1 yard line and get a 15 yard penalty on 1st down, you lose 1/2 a yard. If your opponent gets a 15 yard penalty on the next down, you have 1st and 10 on your own 15 1/2 yard line.That's wrong IMO.Hell, what if you are on your 14 yard line and you get a 15 yard penalty?That's only marked off 7 yards back.Why don't they mark it the maximum allowed, 13 back down to the 1 yard line?It seems like the most dangerous area for a team to start from is inside their 15 yard line, yet all the penalties they incur in that area lose their teeth as far as yardage is concerned.Hate to admit this, but the OP is right on the money.

Going back to the 1 instead of 1/2 the distance is the best IMO. The offense is already operating at a disadvantage backed up to their goal line.

I agree, move the ball to the one would increase TDs and sack opps on the otherside. Especially w/ Personally Fouls... would love to see a team get kicked in the ballz because someone got sucked punched.

 

[Tong Po]

I always had a problem with 2 specific rules in the NFL...

1) Pass interference in the end zone = 1st and Goal from the 1.

Too many questionable pass interference calls have resulted in offenses getting a free shot from the one. I don't have a problem giving the offense an automatic first down, but make it a 10 or 15 yard penalty from scrimmage and an automatic 1st. Similar to the way a defensive holding penalty going for 5 yards and a 1st. That rule is just too much of a game changer.

2) Fumbling through the endzone = 1st down from the 20 for the opposing team.

This rule I never understood. A guy makes a great play and lunges for the goal line, the ball slips out oh his hand and rolls through the back of the endzone. Why is this a turnover? If you fumble the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field you retain possession. I always felt like if you fumble the ball out of the endzone, the offense should retain the ball and just go back to the 20. Still a pretty significant punishment.

 

[Jayded]

In similar vein to what someone earlier posted, the result of "offsetting" type penalties in back to back plays might not draw the desired result. I'm not sure which way I'd lean, but do you think the following scenario would be fair?

1. Offensive player is dropped at the 5 yard line on the kickoff return.

2. On the first play from scrimmage, the offense receives a 5 yard penalty. This moves the first down marker from the 15 to the 20 if we institute the OP's rule.

3. On the second play from scrimmage (1st and 15) the defense receives a 5 yard penalty. This moves the ball up to the 10 yard line.

The net result of those back to back infractions is a positive gain of 5 yards of field position for the offense. Granted the halving of penalty yardage within the 5 or 15 initially benefits the offense in the current system, does this not also potentially set up a potential gain of field position rather than comparative yardage when you factor in the defensive penalty aspect?

 

[Ghost Rider]

This reminds me of another thing I don't like: If the offense commits a personal foul after the play and after gaining a first down, it is still 1st and 10. That is stupid. It should be 1st and 25. If it would have been 2nd and 19, had the first down not been gained, why are they rewarded with a 1st and 10? Granted, they lost 15 yards of field position, but that is not enough punishment, and it doesn't make sense when you consider that 15 yards ARE added to the distance needed for a first down if the play didn't result in a first down.

 

[belljr]

I always had a problem with 2 specific rules in the NFL...

1) Pass interference in the end zone = 1st and Goal from the 1.

Too many questionable pass interference calls have resulted in offenses getting a free shot from the one. I don't have a problem giving the offense an automatic first down, but make it a 10 or 15 yard penalty from scrimmage and an automatic 1st. Similar to the way a defensive holding penalty going for 5 yards and a 1st. That rule is just too much of a game changer.

2) Fumbling through the endzone = 1st down from the 20 for the opposing team.

This rule I never understood. A guy makes a great play and lunges for the goal line, the ball slips out oh his hand and rolls through the back of the endzone. Why is this a turnover? If you fumble the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field you retain possession. I always felt like if you fumble the ball out of the endzone, the offense should retain the ball and just go back to the 20. Still a pretty significant punishment.

This is to eliminate "fake fumbles".... that's why the rule was implemented much like the holy roller rule.

 

[Tong Po]

I always had a problem with 2 specific rules in the NFL...

1) Pass interference in the end zone = 1st and Goal from the 1.

Too many questionable pass interference calls have resulted in offenses getting a free shot from the one. I don't have a problem giving the offense an automatic first down, but make it a 10 or 15 yard penalty from scrimmage and an automatic 1st. Similar to the way a defensive holding penalty going for 5 yards and a 1st. That rule is just too much of a game changer.

2) Fumbling through the endzone = 1st down from the 20 for the opposing team.

This rule I never understood. A guy makes a great play and lunges for the goal line, the ball slips out oh his hand and rolls through the back of the endzone. Why is this a turnover? If you fumble the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field you retain possession. I always felt like if you fumble the ball out of the endzone, the offense should retain the ball and just go back to the 20. Still a pretty significant punishment.

This is to eliminate "fake fumbles".... that's why the rule was implemented much like the holy roller rule.

Was fake fumbling ever such a problem in the NFL that they had to institute such a harsh penalty for fumbling out of the endzone? It's not like you can predict which way a football is gonna bounce. You're taking a pretty big turnover risk attempting a move like that anyway.

 

[belljr]

I always had a problem with 2 specific rules in the NFL...

1) Pass interference in the end zone = 1st and Goal from the 1.

Too many questionable pass interference calls have resulted in offenses getting a free shot from the one. I don't have a problem giving the offense an automatic first down, but make it a 10 or 15 yard penalty from scrimmage and an automatic 1st. Similar to the way a defensive holding penalty going for 5 yards and a 1st. That rule is just too much of a game changer.

2) Fumbling through the endzone = 1st down from the 20 for the opposing team.

This rule I never understood. A guy makes a great play and lunges for the goal line, the ball slips out oh his hand and rolls through the back of the endzone. Why is this a turnover? If you fumble the ball out of bounds anywhere else on the field you retain possession. I always felt like if you fumble the ball out of the endzone, the offense should retain the ball and just go back to the 20. Still a pretty significant punishment.

This is to eliminate "fake fumbles".... that's why the rule was implemented much like the holy roller rule.

Was fake fumbling ever such a problem in the NFL that they had to institute such a harsh penalty for fumbling out of the endzone? It's not like you can predict which way a football is gonna bounce. You're taking a pretty big turnover risk attempting a move like that anyway.

I agree but it may happen more than we think. I understand it's purpose but it may not be needed.