Intentional Fouls (1 Viewer)

LUX

Ride til I die!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,902
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Forgot where I read it, but thought it was interesting.

Teams get the benefit of the doubt for the first intentional foul. There is a rule that if a team does it again, the time would be added back on the clock.

Basically, the intentional holding of all WRs would only work once in a game. So since San Fran held our WRs in the first half, they couldn't do it again in the 4th quarter to run time off the clock.

I know some players who get beat on a route intentionally hold for a 5 yard penalty and first down, but if it's done several times a game, why isn't clock time added back like the rule book states?

I'm sure there are others that you could get away with without being considered intentional even though it was, but this is definitely interesting.
 

St.Fury

Staff member
Administrator
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
23,107
Reaction score
25,913
Age
39
Location
Houma, La.
Offline
If they did that, games would last forever.
 
OP
LUX

LUX

Ride til I die!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,902
Location
Louisiana
Offline
If they did that, games would last forever.
Maybe, maybe not. It could possibly reduce the amount of penalties since you are giving the other team another benefit of the penalty by giving them more time to work with.
 

PayOrPlay

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
6,153
Reaction score
4,844
Location
Los Angeles
Offline
OP
LUX

LUX

Ride til I die!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,902
Location
Louisiana
Offline
I've read through those. Everyone talks about a rule change, but it's been a rule well before San Fran did the intentional hold against us. My point is that every receiver was intentional held to run off the clock. The rule says you get a gimme for the first one, but if every player was held, we should have got more time back regardless of the gimme.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,619
Reaction score
44,153
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
If we ever found ourselves out of a Thursday Night game and had the ball with say, a minute left. We could take unlimited delay of game penalties so the game wouldn't end until hours later. Would love it if we did that in protest of Thursday games one day.
 

PayOrPlay

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
6,153
Reaction score
4,844
Location
Los Angeles
Offline
I've read through those. Everyone talks about a rule change, but it's been a rule well before San Fran did the intentional hold against us. My point is that every receiver was intentional held to run off the clock. The rule says you get a gimme for the first one, but if every player was held, we should have got more time back regardless of the gimme.
:idunno: I wouldn't envy the referee who had to decide, in the middle of a game, exactly how that rule is intended to apply to multiple rule violations all committed on one play. I'd guess that the special remedies for a "palpably unfair act" wouldn't become possible until after a warning had actually been issued. But I suppose it could be a case for the football lawyers to argue, right there on the sidelines.

By the way, the resources I could find all seem to agree that a special remedy for a "palpably unfair act" (as distinct from a standard penalty such as 15 yards and/or disqualification for unsportsmanlike conduct) has never actually been assessed during an NFL game. In 2013 Dean Blandino was quoted as saying "I can't remember the last time that was called."

NFL's 'push rule' not as obscure a violation as you might think | NFL.com

Quirky Research: Blogging the NFL Rule Book: Palpably Unfair Act
 

bobad

Son of Adam
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
25,127
Reaction score
17,945
Location
Saints Country
Offline
Since it's obvious it's intentional, a coordinated multiple personal foul should be penalized like the 2nd or 3rd intentional foul.
 
OP
LUX

LUX

Ride til I die!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,902
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Since it's obvious it's intentional, a coordinated multiple personal foul should be penalized like the 2nd or 3rd intentional foul.
That's how I view the foul. If it's more than one performing the foul to get an advantage, then it should be treated the same as intentional without having to give a warning.

I doubt it will happen this way because the refs are garbage most of the time to dictate game outcomes.
 

GW93

Original
Joined
Nov 15, 2002
Messages
10,199
Reaction score
7,382
Location
Behind you!
Offline
I know some players who get beat on a route intentionally hold for a 5 yard penalty and first down, but if it's done several times a game, why isn't clock time added back like the rule book states?
We'd STILL be playing our 2015 schedule RIGHT NOW if the refs had put time back on the clock for Brandon Browners's repeated holds. :covri:
 

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
29,427
Reaction score
28,533
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
Since it's obvious it's intentional, a coordinated multiple personal foul should be penalized like the 2nd or 3rd intentional foul.
Or, couldn't they throw an additional unsportsmanlike flag and handle it?

Seems they ought to have some recourse.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom