Offensive Holding Foul - Penalty Enforcement

[NVFOA_Ump]

3rd and 5 at the 50 yard line.  A is in shotgun formation with the QB about 7 yards off the line.  At the snap defensive back B27 is coming on a blitz and is "tackled" by A25 in the backfield at the A-40 and we have a flag down for offensive holding.  What is the basic spot and end result of each of these scenarios:

1.  QB is sacked at the A-35.
2.  QB gets a screen pass off to A81 on the wing and the pass falls incomplete.
3.  QB gets a screen pass off to A81 on the wing and the pass is caught by A81 as he goes to the ground at the A40.
4.  QB gets a screen pass off to A81 on the wing and the pass is caught by A81 and he advances the ball to the B-40.
5.  QB gets a backward pass off to A25 who is immediately tackled at the A32.

[bossman72]

Basic spot:
1) A35
2) Previous spot
3) Previous spot
4) Previous spot
5) Previous spot

Enforcement spot:
1) A35
2-5) A40

[BIG UMP]

Basic spot:
1) A35
2) Previous spot
3) Previous spot
4) Previous spot
5) Previous spot

Enforcement spot:
1) A35
2-5) A40

I was about to comment without reading carefully but now I agree.

[Ralph Damren]

While there has been minority movement to have such fouls by enforced from previous spot, there is still strong support for our All-But-One principle. It is perceived to be both fair and simple. While some may argue the penalty becomes too harsh, the popular opinion is that the foul may have sprung the ball carrier for a larger gain and should be enforced as such. Some argue that a holding foul, 10 yards behind the LOS, becomes a 20 yard penalty. It would seem then, if a 90 yard kick return for TD was called back by a R hold @ R's 30, it would be considered an "80 yard" penalty. The team that fouls pays a penalty - an easy concept - let's keep it that way.

 

[Magician]

While there has been minority movement to have such fouls by enforced from previous spot, there is still strong support for our All-But-One principle. It is perceived to be both fair and simple. While some may argue the penalty becomes too harsh, the popular opinion is that the foul may have sprung the ball carrier for a larger gain and should be enforced as such. Some argue that a holding foul, 10 yards behind the LOS, becomes a 20 yard penalty. It would seem then, if a 90 yard kick return for TD was called back by a R hold @ R's 30, it would be considered an "80 yard" penalty. The team that fouls pays a penalty - an easy concept - let's keep it that way.

 

It may be simpler, but it definitely isn't fair. Your kick return analogy is not applicable because it's going to be 1st and 10 after enforcement. Enforcing holds at the previous spot is already a huge penalty that almost always stalls the drive. Best case scenario is 1st and 20. Enforced from behind could result in 1st and 25 or 1st and 30. A previous spot enforcement on a scrimmage play is still a significant penalty that will likely stall the drive, but at least it gives them a fighting chance. Anything beyond that almost guarantees it.

[Morningrise]

It may be simpler, but it definitely isn't fair. Your kick return analogy is not applicable because it's going to be 1st and 10 after enforcement. Enforcing holds at the previous spot is already a huge penalty that almost always stalls the drive. Best case scenario is 1st and 20. Enforced from behind could result in 1st and 25 or 1st and 30. A previous spot enforcement on a scrimmage play is still a significant penalty that will likely stall the drive, but at least it gives them a fighting chance. Anything beyond that almost guarantees it.

As a bitter Massachusetts official, I also find "1st and 26" after a holding call to be preposterous - but: If the yardage penalty were reduced from 10 to 5, then marching it off from the spot of the foul wouldn't be so severe.

And it kinda makes more sense this way: Isn't a holding foul, 9 yards behind the NZ, that saves an 9-yard sack, a more grave offense than a foul 3 yards behind the NZ that saves a 3-yard sack? That's a pretty good justification for enforcing from the flag instead of the PS. So I don't, in theory, have a problem with the NFHS method. I just feel that THAT, plus TEN yards, is too severe. Especially at the HS level where players are less skilled and [citation needed] a 16-yard loss is harder for an offense to overcome.

[Magician]

As a bitter Massachusetts official, I also find "1st and 26" after a holding call to be preposterous - but: If the yardage penalty were reduced from 10 to 5, then marching it off from the spot of the foul wouldn't be so severe.

And it kinda makes more sense this way: Isn't a holding foul, 9 yards behind the NZ, that saves an 9-yard sack, a more grave offense than a foul 3 yards behind the NZ that saves a 3-yard sack? That's a pretty good justification for enforcing from the flag instead of the PS. So I don't, in theory, have a problem with the NFHS method. I just feel that THAT, plus TEN yards, is too severe. Especially at the HS level where players are less skilled and [citation needed] a 16-yard loss is harder for an offense to overcome.

1st and 20 is pretty severe already and likely won't result in a conversion. We don't need 1st and 25 or 1st and 30 on top of that. It's not necessarily about the yardage lost on the enforcement, it's how far they have to go to get to the next first down.

[Ralph Damren]

In 1997 we tweaked 5-3-1 to allow a DB foul by B after a 4th down turnover to be enforced before the stakes were set. This prevented the 1/25 that had occurred before. Part of the rationale was the offense was being penalized for what the defense did. The discussion later evolved to enforcing A fouls behind the LOS at previous spot. The general feeling was that A's foul behind the LOS may have prevented a sack or enabled an advance. I'm a strong proponent of PS enforcement on B fouls but oppose those by A . Someday a proposal on this may pass, but probably not until some of us ole' duffers have gone to football heaven. The All-But-One principle is still strongly supported.

[ilyazhito]

The NCAA rules also follow the 3-and-1 principle, as they call what NFHS calls "All But One". The situations are the same (A foul ahead of basic spot, B foul ahead of basic spot,  B foul behind basic spot, and A foul behind basic spot) and enforcement principles are similar (screw the offense is the expression used for the "one" part of 3-and-1, the A foul behind the basic spot). The reason for the exception on holding fouls is that the offense is put into double jeopardy by enforcing the foul as a spot foul AND 10 yards. NCAA decided to make this play just a 10-yard penalty, probably to negate any gains, while not compounding any losses by the offense due to a defense's good plays. This would give coaches an interesting decision if the defense makes a tackle for loss: accept the holding penalty, and give the offense one more down, or decline the penalty and keep the result of the play.

The automatic 1st down fouls also follow 3-and-1, except for defensive pass interference and kick catching interference. These 2 fouls are treated specially, because KCI awards possession to a player unfairly denied a chance to catch the ball, and DPI is sometimes used in a deliberate manner by defensive backs who are beaten, either to waste time and prevent a score, or to try to regain proper position. The chances of deliberate DPI increase the closer that teams get to the end zone, hence a 3-tiered penalty: spot enforcement for passes shorter than 15 yards, 15 yard enforcement for longer passes, to not overly advantage the offense, and the ball at the 2-yard line, for fouls committed from the 2-yard line to the end zone when the ball is snapped between the B17 and B2. This is done to give the offense a better chance at scoring, by placing them in striking distance of the goal line and to prevent the defense from exploiting the half-the-distance rule.

Even though NCAA rules are more complex, due to the number of exceptions, I believe that the principles behind the rules are more nuanced, and can therefore allow for more equitable outcomes than the NFHS rules (NCAA holding rules do not punish a team twice (from the spot of the foul and 10 yards), rather they only assess the loss of 10 yards)), the automatic first down on DPI prevents defenses from gaming the rules to deny obvious scoring opportunities and waste time, and the automatic 1st down on personal fouls and unsportsmanlike fouls by B also acts as a deterrent to illegal acts).

I agree with Morningrise and Magician about NCAA vs NFHS holding rules. I agree with the answers for 1-4, but why 5? Is it because the foul occurred during the 1st run that ended with the loose ball from the backwards pass to A25?

[Ralph Damren]

FWIW (for what it's worth), holding used to be 15 yards until 1985 (9-2) when it went to 10 like BIB later did . The rationale was that neither was a dangerous act, only an unfair one. Another concern with a rule proposal is if it provides an unfair balance to either the offense or defense. PS on A fouls certainly would and also be exceptions. We would then need exceptions to this exception ,as I'm sure all would agree that IG and A foul in A's EZ should not be PS.

Adding AFD to all B PFs have came up several times, with opponents responding it would favor the offense. Many felt that scores are high enough now with changes that aid them. The general stance of B/R PFs are the AFD ones involve those on a defenseless player : passer ,kicker , holder , snapper. High scoring, offense minded games are fan favorites of the NFL & NCAA. They help sell tickets, provide TV revenue and garner alumni support. These goals aren't considered in NFHS.