Whats the call?

[NJOfficial]

A's ball, 2nd and 13 from A's 5.  A11 retreats into his own end zone to attempt a pass, but is downed for an apparent safety.  During the down, linebacker B77 is called for defensive holding on receiver A88 during the play. During the down, time expires for the first half.

[Patrick E.]

A's ball, 2nd and 8 from A's 10. Untimed down.

[Atlanta Blue]

A's ball, 2nd and 3 from the A15.  Untimed down.

Defensive holding (or Illegal use of hands) is a 10 yard foul.

[HLinNC]

Run ended in the EZ AB , assess the 10 yards from the goal line.  OP stated "in an attempt to pass" which was really unneccesary info.

[Ralph Damren]

Had he passed (or fumbled) the basic spot would become the previous spot . A losing battle I fought to change last Jan.

[Atlanta Blue]

Run ended in the EZ AB , assess the 10 yards from the goal line.  OP stated "in an attempt to pass" which was really unneccesary info.

Correct.  For some reason, I thought he threw the ball, which makes it previous spot enforcement.  But I see that he didn't.

My bad!

But I'm with Ralph - this should be changed.  Suppose the defensive holding was the reason the QB couldn't throw the pass?  The defense can benefit by fouling!

[CalhounLJ]

Exactly. Had problems with a coach last year over this very rule. I thought he had a valid argument, but not according to the present rule. Qb rolled out to pass, db tackled receiver in flat so he had nobody to throw to. Was sacked about 15yds behind the line. Flag from end of run. Mad Coach. . . Lost 5 yds in defensive foul

[HLinNC]

But he got the down over.  Everybody seems to forget that aspect.

[CalhounLJ]

That was one of our selling points as well, but when the dust settled it was still 2nd and 15 instead of 2nd and 10 like it was before the down. It's like A got penalized 5 yds for B's foul.

[bama_stripes]

That was one of our selling points as well, but when the dust settled it was still 2nd and 15 instead of 2nd and 10 like it was before the down. It's like A got penalized 5 yds for B's foul.

Sounds to me like A got a 10-yard benefit from not blocking well enough!   

[CalhounLJ]

True but if a had not been tackled he may have had a touchdown or gained 20 yds or jumped over a tall building, etc.  I understand the benefits of the flag and 2nd/15 is better than 3rd and whatever, but still- 2nd down from 5 yds beyond previous spot sure sounds better. Seems right.

And the problem wasn't a's bad block, it was a's inability to complete the pass because b tackled the receiver.

[bama_stripes]

You're assuming facts not in evidence-- i.e., that A would have definitely completed the pass had the potential receiver not been held/tackled.  We all know that's not true.

I'm in favor of a rules change, but what we got is what we got.

[CalhounLJ]

Well I really didn't intend to get in a great bug argument over it. I realize it was what we was. We called it the way the book said call it, yada yada yada.  I'm just saying I think it would be better to change the rule.

The reason I'm assuming facts not in evidence is because the outcome is unknown because of the foul. If he had grabbed the facemask 25 yds behind the line then I would say that's a clear benefit for A, because he put himself in that situation.  But tackling an eligible receiver seems different to me.  May be just me though. 

[Ralph Damren]

There was a floor vote to enforce B fouls of this nature from the previous spot. I voted for it,  many more didn't .

IMHO, some of the reasons for failure were :

   (1) "To enforce fouls by A behind LOS from previous spot" had just been defeated, to some this may have appeared an extention of that.

   (2) To some, B's foul on a QB sack shouldn't be treated the same as when the QB got the pass off.

   (3) To some, it was felt this would be an exception to our "all-but-one" principle that most of us (me included) feels is usually fair and easy to understand.

   (4) To some, it is an exception when they would consider an exception.

IMHO, The NCAA code has over four times as many exceptions on penalty enforcement than we do. To cover fairly every possible situation would complicate our code. When things like this occur, my pat answer to the coaches is : "Coach, BY RULE....."  Better to have them mad at the rule than you . I did have a coach respond once : "....Well, CHANGE THE DAMN THING THEN "

[CalhounLJ]

Thanks Ralph. I love the insight you provide from the rules committee. 

[VALJ]

Thanks Ralph. I love the insight you provide from the rules committee.

+1