safety at end of game

[Mitchrapp]

There is so many holding calls during the season, to stop the play - its just dumb.

 

[tomdalton22]

It's such an exception that I don't think it will be changed. Maybe the holding penalties can add up and the yardage assessed, or some such thing, but the time on the clock thing, not likely.

The problem to me is it is a time when the team commiting the penalty benifits from the penalty. The only place you change the rule is when it is a holding penalty in the end zone.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The problem to me is it is a time when the team commiting the penalty benifits from the penalty. The only place you change the rule is when it is a holding penalty in the end zone.

No thanks. You want to change a rule for the 1 time a season a team tries to hold on purpose? I don't think so.

 

[zyxt9]

to some degree i could understand provided the rule change was something like "in last 2 minutes of game, the game clock will be reset to the time remaining when the holding took place". wouldn't make a huge impact, but takes into account the time factor at the end of a game and a play would have theoretically ended with more time on the clock had the penalty not happened.

still brilliant job by the coaches to let the guys know to hold the D as long as possible. came close to having the clock completely run out on that play. can you imagine the outcry for a rule change if that had been the case? D getting tackled by O to the point they run the clock to 0:00 would have Niner Nation's panties bunched up even tighter.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Its just dumb. Next will be stop the clock when the RB takes his time scoring a TD late in a game.

 

[zyxt9]

still not sure why refs didn't throw the flag for holding on that play with as blatant as it was. if they had, would Niners have had option to have penalty enforced on the kick? now that has potential of changing things if having to kick from the 10 instead of the 20 and receiving team uses the fair catch/free kick option. that would have been fun to watch. akers would not have likely made it from 60+ either way, but still would have been interesting seeing such drama unfold.

 

[Mitchrapp]

still not sure why refs didn't throw the flag for holding on that play with as blatant as it was. if they had, would Niners have had option to have penalty enforced on the kick? now that has potential of changing things if having to kick from the 10 instead of the 20 and receiving team uses the fair catch/free kick option. that would have been fun to watch. akers would not have likely made it from 60+ either way, but still would have been interesting seeing such drama unfold.

You don't stop a play because of holding. Learn the rules.

 

[zyxt9]

You don't stop a play because of holding. Learn the rules.

take a breath and re-read that post mitch. didn't say anything on that second post about stopping the clock, just wondered if the refs had thrown the flag whether or not Niners would have been able to have penalty enforced on the ensuing kick, resulting in ravens kicking off from 10 instead of 20 which has greater potential for fair catch/free kick rule to come into play. seems Niners should have at least had that element in play. still would not have likely mattered as the Ravens punter would likely still have kicked it to the Niners 40 at a minimum, so doubtful the fair catch/free kick enters into the equation, but still a fair catch followed by a Hail Mary might have had a better chance of success than Ginn running it back.

 

[tomdalton22]

take a breath and re-read that post mitch. didn't say anything on that second post about stopping the clock, just wondered if the refs had thrown the flag whether or not Niners would have been able to have penalty enforced on the ensuing kick, resulting in ravens kicking off from 10 instead of 20 which has greater potential for fair catch/free kick rule to come into play. seems Niners should have at least had that element in play. still would not have likely mattered as the Ravens punter would likely still have kicked it to the Niners 40 at a minimum, so doubtful the fair catch/free kick enters into the equation, but still a fair catch followed by a Hail Mary might have had a better chance of success than Ginn running it back.

The problem with the rule is if the hold is called it is a safety and they get the free kick from the 20 regardless. That is why the rule should be looked at and changed just like the challenge flag rule that screwed the Lions this year.

 

[schles192]

The problem with the rule is if the hold is called it is a safety and they get the free kick from the 20 regardless. That is why the rule should be looked at and changed just like the challenge flag rule that screwed the Lions this year.

Changed to what? There is no problem with the rule if sf has a problem they should have played better to eliminate the situation all together.

 

[tomdalton22]

Changed to what? There is no problem with the rule if sf has a problem they should have played better to eliminate the situation all together.

Any time it benifits the team that breaks the rule it should be tweaked. Just like the Lions in that game where that play couldn't be reviewed because Swartz threw the flag. Just think if the other coach would have thrown the flag knowing that if he does throw the it there will be a penalty on him but the TD would stand. This is very similar to that scenario....the team that is breaking the rule benifits.

 

[schles192]

Any time it benifits the team that breaks the rule it should be tweaked. Just like the Lions in that game where that play couldn't be reviewed because Swartz threw the flag. Just think if the other coach would have thrown the flag knowing that if he does throw the it there will be a penalty on him but the TD would stand. This is very similar to that scenario....the team that is breaking the rule benifits.

But no rules were broken, hence no flag. And what do you mean by benefit? SF got 2 points and the ball, sounds pretty good to me.

 

[tomdalton22]

But no rules were broken, hence no flag. And what do you mean by benefit? SF got 2 points and the ball, sounds pretty good to me.

every offensive lineman is holding therefore the defense can't get to the punter which allows more time to run off of the clock.

 

[Mitchrapp]

every offensive lineman is holding therefore the defense can't get to the punter which allows more time to run off of the clock.

Yeah so? That's smart not illegal. No rules were broken.

 

[Mitchrapp]

And btw, Schwartz broke a rule. Stupid rule but nonetheless a rule. The hold was not against the rule so its not the same. So lade dah dah, lade dah - da dah dah.

 

[tomdalton22]

And btw, Schwartz broke a rule. Stupid rule but nonetheless a rule. The hold was not against the rule so its not the same. So lade dah dah, lade dah - da dah dah.

There is no rule against holding now? I didn't realize that.

 

[Mitchrapp]

There is no rule against holding now? I didn't realize that.

You know what I mean. Holding on purpose as a rule isn't any different that a regular hold.

 

[byco42]

Tom Dalton is the guy who enters a conversation and gets right in your face with breath that is HAZMAT worthy. As a result, you just don't consider what he's saying.

 

[tomdalton22]

You know what I mean. Holding on purpose as a rule isn't any different that a regular hold.

right....but the penalty for holding is different for a hold when the QB is in the regular field of play vs. when he is in the end zone. What I am saying is the penalty for holding when the QB is in the end zone should be changed because it can give the team comitting the penalty an advantage (running extra time off of the clock).

 

[Mitchrapp]

right....but the penalty for holding is different for a hold when the QB is in the regular field of play vs. when he is in the end zone. What I am saying is the penalty for holding when the QB is in the end zone should be changed because it can give the team comitting the penalty an advantage (running extra time off of the clock).

Extra advantage? The team got a safety.