NFL 2012 - Drive to Glory

[tighr]

Actually, as a point of information: offensive players are not only taught, they are encouraged, to hold in the endzone on a called intentional safety play. The longer they are able to hold, the longer the ball carrier has to scramble in the endzone. If the punter made any mistake, it was not holding out long enough. Although the risk of fumble is still there... if the punter fumbles, San Francisco has the opportunity to fall on it for a touchdown, in which case they would decline the holding penalty and take the touchdown.

What we saw last night is actually something of a white elephant play. The intentional safety is a rare play in football. Last time I saw one was a few years ago when Justin Blackmon from Oklahoma State ran 50 yards out the back of his own endzone at full speed on 4th down. Had he been caught and tackled, the other team would have gained possession there. Had he fumbled, they could have scored a touchdown. So the only option was to ensure the fastest guy on your team could make it out the back of the endzone without being caught.

 

[SmoothieX]

You generally only see an intentional safety when a team is backed up to their own 1 or 2, and giving up 2 points beats a blocked punt and the other team starting out with a first and goal.

 

[chrisspringob]

To me the worse non-call was why the refs never called a single penalty for holding on that punt-safety. Jim H had no problem with the play itself, saying "you're coached to do that", and it makes sense. But a penalty while still getting a safety, stops the clock sooner, enough time that the Niners might - and I emphasize "might" - have given them time for a run back and one kick to tie it up.

It wouldn't have stopped the clock earlier. It would be a play called after the ball stops. The 49ers would have the choice of replaying fourth down (after half the distance to the goal) or declining the penalty and taking the safety. So it wouldn't have made a difference.

You're right on this of course, but that does seem like a situation in which the rules are creating perverse incentives. Would the punishment for *any* penalty committed by the offense in such a situation (personal fouls and the like included) be a safety....which the offense wants anyway?

If so, then it seems like the sort of thing where they might want to do a rule change. Though I'm not actually sure what the optimal rule would be in this case, and it is a rare situation.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

To me the worse non-call was why the refs never called a single penalty for holding on that punt-safety. Jim H had no problem with the play itself, saying "you're coached to do that", and it makes sense. But a penalty while still getting a safety, stops the clock sooner, enough time that the Niners might - and I emphasize "might" - have given them time for a run back and one kick to tie it up.

It wouldn't have stopped the clock earlier. It would be a play called after the ball stops. The 49ers would have the choice of replaying fourth down (after half the distance to the goal) or declining the penalty and taking the safety. So it wouldn't have made a difference.

No, it would have been a safety for holding in the endzone. It would have made less than no difference.

I thought the holding was just outside of the endzone. Either way, it doesn't change anything.

 

[gblews]

Crabtree was doing the same thing, too - pulling and all. It happens

Exactly. He was pushing off his helmet. Good no call.

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out. NFL receivers push off almost as often as they make catches, yet we almost never see an offensive push off called. But if a corner interferes, that call is made way more often than not.

When a DB makes contact with a wideout more than 5 yards down the field, that call is made a lot -- even when the contact is less than sgnificant (as long as it is intentional).

When I saw the Ravens' corner with his hands on either side of Crabtree while in the end zone with the ball in the air, I thought we'd see a flag.

But I am torn. No one wants to see the refs decide a game of this magnitude, including me. So I can't say that I wanted a flag. Of course, the 9ers are not my team, either. 8^)

But IF a call had been made, it most appropriately should have been against the Ravens' corner who was guilty of two infractions, holding and P.I., on the play.

 

[tighr]

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out.

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

 

[ThankQ]

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out.

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

Which, in my opinion, would have been the best. One more chance at it, not four.

 

[gblews]

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out.

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

Which, in my opinion, would have been the best. One more chance at it, not four.

Yeah, I would have been okay with this as well.

 

[Timby]

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out.

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

No matter what, defensive holding is an automatic fresh set of downs.

 

[tighr]

But that is not the way infractions are called in the NFL. Just beacues both players are fouling, that does not mean the infractions cancel each other out.

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

No matter what, defensive holding is an automatic fresh set of downs.

I could be mistaken, but if defensive holding is called on the same live ball as offensive holding, the penalties offset and the down is replayed. This is regardless of the fact that DH is 5 yards and fresh downs.

 

[ThankQ]

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

No matter what, defensive holding is an automatic fresh set of downs.

I could be mistaken, but if defensive holding is called on the same live ball as offensive holding, the penalties offset and the down is replayed. This is regardless of the fact that DH is 5 yards and fresh downs.

Correct. Offsetting penalties, replay the down.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

And even if it were, offsetting penalties would result in replaying the down. Rather than 1st and goal from the 1, it would be 4th down again.

No matter what, defensive holding is an automatic fresh set of downs.

I could be mistaken, but if defensive holding is called on the same live ball as offensive holding, the penalties offset and the down is replayed. This is regardless of the fact that DH is 5 yards and fresh downs.

Yep. This is true even if the offsetting penalty occurs after the foul. For example, DeSean Jackson caught a 30 yard pass while drawing a redundant pass interference call. He then proceeded to throw the ball at a Giants coach and got hit with an unsportsmanlike causing the Eagles to replay the down and erasing the entire gain.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

Since the season's now over, let's stick a knife in this one, destroy the bloody suit, and pay off the families.