OT: Half the distance penalties

[eastbaycat99]

I am a cranky old man, and since it is Halloween and I no longer have a yard to yell at kids to get off of since I moved to a condo, I thought I would dispel some crankiness by posting on a topic I have been boring my Cal season ticket mates for years with every time the circumstance arises:

When a team is backed up against the goal line and a penalty is assessed against them, the penalty often hardly penalizes due to the half the distance rule. For example, if the offense is on its own 2 on first down and has a motion penalty, the yard assessed is the penny of penalties, hardly worth walking off. If the penalty is something like a chop block, the disparity between what happens in the half the distance and regular scenario is even greater.

I have never understood why the rules don't call for compensating options when less than the full penalty is assessed. One option would be, when the penalty is on the offense like the motion penalty mentioned above, that the non-assessed yardage would be added to the line to make. In the case just mentioned, the ball would move to the one and the line to make would move 4 yards forward from the 12 to the 16, making the distance to make the same as if the full penalty was assessed.

An alternate would be, again if it was a penalty on offense, an alternative of loss of down (on 1st through 3rd downs). In the motion penalty example, the ball would remain at the original line, but the down would advance from first to second.

On the defensive side, the offense could be given the option of an extra down in lieu of yardage.

Does anyone else have the same sense that the half the distance rule dilutes the cost of the penalty? Are there other rule changes than the ones I mentioned that would bring more balance?

 

[SmellyCat]

I'm never sure when it's supposed to be assessed. I swear that if you're at the 25 and get a 15-yard penalty, it's sometimes 15 yards and sometimes half the distance. I could be wrong. Is it supposed to be half the distance or the full amount, whichever is less? That would make more sense.

In one of the examples above, it might also make sense to do chop block if you're backed up to the one. The only downside is you lose a few inches (assuming the penalty is not in the end one), and the upside is the ref might not see/call it. I mean, it's risky but if the game is on the line, you could try to get "creative."

 

[rwhitney014]

I am a cranky old man, and since it is Halloween and I no longer have a yard to yell at kids to get off of since I moved to a condo, I thought I would dispel some crankiness by posting on a topic I have been boring my Cal season ticket mates for years with every time the circumstance arises:

When a team is backed up against the goal line and a penalty is assessed against them, the penalty often hardly penalizes due to the half the distance rule. For example, if the offense is on its own 2 on first down and has a motion penalty, the yard assessed is the penny of penalties, hardly worth walking off. If the penalty is something like a chop block, the disparity between what happens in the half the distance and regular scenario is even greater.

I have never understood why the rules don't call for compensating options when less than the full penalty is assessed. One option would be, when the penalty is on the offense like the motion penalty mentioned above, that the non-assessed yardage would be added to the line to make. In the case just mentioned, the ball would move to the one and the line to make would move 4 yards forward from the 12 to the 16, making the distance to make the same as if the full penalty was assessed.

An alternate would be, again if it was a penalty on offense, an alternative of loss of down (on 1st through 3rd downs). In the motion penalty example, the ball would remain at the original line, but the down would advance from first to second.

On the defensive side, the offense could be given the option of an extra down in lieu of yardage.

Does anyone else have the same sense that the half the distance rule dilutes the cost of the penalty? Are there other rule changes than the ones I mentioned that would bring more balance?

A safety is quite valuable because it's points and the ball. Moving even incrementally closer to your own end zone increases the likelihood of a safety. All the more if the offense has a proclivity for penalties, particularly live ball penalties like holding or intentional grounding, which result in safeties when they occur in the end zone.

 

[WhiskersMagee]

Not sure how to fix the issue once a team is backed up against the goal line, but if a team has the ball anywhere between their own 6-9 yard line, your run of the mill 5 yard penalty moves the ball back further than a personal foul or any penalty that would typically be 10 or 15 yard due to the “half the distance” rule. That situation could be fixed by changing it to the greater of 5 (or 10) yards or half the distance...or by simply moving the ball back to the one.

 

[Styre]

I'm never sure when it's supposed to be assessed. I swear that if you're at the 25 and get a 15-yard penalty, it's sometimes 15 yards and sometimes half the distance. I could be wrong. Is it supposed to be half the distance or the full amount, whichever is less? That would make more sense.

In general, that is correct. If you're at the opponent's 20, and you draw a 5 yard penalty, the ball will be advanced to the opponent's 15. If you draw a 15 yard penalty, the ball will be advanced half the distance to the opponent's 10.

(An exception is defensive pass interference, which is a spot foul inside 15 yards and a 15 yard penalty beyond that with no half-the-distance adjustment. If you're at the 25 and draw a defensive pass interference penalty, the ball will be advanced either to the spot of the foul or the 10, whichever is closer to the line of scrimmage.)

 

[Styre]

Not sure how to fix the issue once a team is backed up against the goal line, but if a team has the ball anywhere between their own 6-9 yard line, your run of the mill 5 yard penalty moves the ball back further than a personal foul or any penalty that would typically be 10 or 15 yard due to the “half the distance” rule.

In that situation the 5 yard penalty moves the ball back the same distance as the 10 or 15 yard penalty, not more.

 

[WhiskersMagee]

In that situation the 5 yard penalty moves the ball back the same distance as the 10 or 15 yard penalty, not more.

Wait, what am I missing? If you have the ball at your own 7, a 5 yard penalty moves it back to the 2 yard line. A “half the distance” moves it to the 3.5, correct?

 

[PURPLECAT88]

Wait, what am I missing? If you have the ball at your own 7, a 5 yard penalty moves it back to the 2 yard line. A “half the distance” moves it to the 3.5, correct?

If you have the ball on your own 7, what would normally be a 5-yard penalty penalizes you only half the distance.

 

[WhiskersMagee]

If you have the ball on your own 7, what would normally be a 5-yard penalty penalizes you only half the distance.

Never noticed those penalties were enforced in that manner...I need to lay off the catnip before the games.

 

[NUCat320]

OP - add it to the line to gain is a great solution.

What’s shocking to me is when holding in the end zone is penalized as a safety. That’s too high a cost! (A safety is “just right” in the case of intentional grounding.)

But, in general, you’re right that the penalized team gets off light in most scenarios.

Baby Ruth is the best of the fun size candy bars.

 

[rwhitney014]

OP - add it to the line to gain is a great solution.

What’s shocking to me is when holding in the end zone is penalized as a safety. That’s too high a cost! (A safety is “just right” in the case of intentional grounding.)

But, in general, you’re right that the penalized team gets off light in most scenarios.

Baby Ruth is the best of the fun size candy bars.

It prevents intentional holding to avoid a sack in the end zone, which would otherwise be a safety. We learned at MSU that illegal touching from the end zone should also be applied in this same way...but it's not yet, and that was an obnoxious loophole that would open up if holding in the end zone were enforced the way illegal touching is.

 

[hdhntr1]

A safety is quite valuable because it's points and the ball. Moving even incrementally closer to your own end zone increases the likelihood of a safety. All the more if the offense has a proclivity for penalties, particularly live ball penalties like holding or intentional grounding, which result in safeties when they occur in the end zone.

But if the penalty ends up less than a yd and they get the down back... If they gained nothing, better off to just take the down whereas if they had a long gainer, it would bring the play back

 

[Alan Smithee]

OP - add it to the line to gain is a great solution.

What’s shocking to me is when holding in the end zone is penalized as a safety. That’s too high a cost! (A safety is “just right” in the case of intentional grounding.)

But, in general, you’re right that the penalized team gets off light in most scenarios.

Baby Ruth is the best of the fun size candy bars.

But the holding in the end zone penalty makes for great stories. I believe I have this right: Not too many years ago Andy Cverko related this at a tailgate in the West lot. As a member of the Dallas Cowboys he had the dubious distinction of converting a touchdown into a safety. Backed up deep in their own territory, the Cowboys had a huge play that went for six. To be exact, a 99-yard TD pass. Oops, bring that back: Andy got caught for holding in the end zone. By the time I heard the story, he could laugh about it quite easily.