Ravens intentional holding on punt

[Kramerica Industries]

That seems like a judgement decision, because there would be no certainty that the Niners would recover that fumble.

[OnWis97]

One last thing about this play...seems the NFL should consider the opposite of the 10-second runoff for such a situation, i.e. if a team commits a foul with the intent of running off time, 10 seconds (or whatever) amount of time should be added back to the clock.

There's another interesting question buried in that play. Suppose the punter had dropped the snap and the Niners trying to recover it were held in the manner they were. Could it develop in such a way that the referee could invoke the "unfair act" part of the rules that covers stuff like guys making tackles from the sidelines? If so, in the Super Bowl situation SF would have been awarded a touchdown - and the Lombardi. Pretty intriguing possibility.

I like where you are going on the first point. There is probably a way the league could work that kind of a rule in. It's best if there is never incentive to commit a penalty. And in this case there is; there is no downside to holding.

I am not as comfortable with your second idea. As Kramerica pointed out, it kind of assumes the defense would recover. Second, I think it gets to the point of over-rewarding the "desparate" team. I don't want to see the rules help the Niners too much in this scenario. At that point, the Ravens were the deserved winners and I don't think anyone would be comfortable with seeing the Niners win the game on that play (though if that were the rule, then people could blame the Ravens linemen). I understand awarding a safety for holding in the end zone, but I struggle with awarding a touchdown to a defensive team that never gains possession.

[BlueSky]

Fair enough...I agree that the second scenario is far more unlikely because presumably the players holding would be scrambling for the ball if they weren't holding. But hypothetically a situation could occur where that rule could come into the equation.

Taking the safety was a smart play and under the current rules, so was intentional holding. They really should modify the rules to eliminate any benefit from intentional penalties.

[udubs03]

One last thing about this play...seems the NFL should consider the opposite of the 10-second runoff for such a situation, i.e. if a team commits a foul with the intent of running off time, 10 seconds (or whatever) amount of time should be added back to the clock.

There's another interesting question buried in that play. Suppose the punter had dropped the snap and the Niners trying to recover it were held in the manner they were. Could it develop in such a way that the referee could invoke the "unfair act" part of the rules that covers stuff like guys making tackles from the sidelines? If so, in the Super Bowl situation SF would have been awarded a touchdown - and the Lombardi. Pretty intriguing possibility.

To your second point, once a fumble occurs, can't you pretty much hold as much as you want? Kind of like a tipped ball negating pass interference.

Fair enough...I agree that the second scenario is far more unlikely because presumably the players holding would be scrambling for the ball if they weren't holding. But hypothetically a situation could occur where that rule could come into the equation.

Taking the safety was a smart play and under the current rules, so was intentional holding. They really should modify the rules to eliminate any benefit from intentional penalties.

The scenarios in which there is a benefit to taking a penalty are few and far between. The NFL rulebook is big and convoluted enough...I don't think we need to add to it.

[Billy B]

Fair enough...I agree that the second scenario is far more unlikely because presumably the players holding would be scrambling for the ball if they weren't holding. But hypothetically a situation could occur where that rule could come into the equation.

Taking the safety was a smart play and under the current rules, so was intentional holding. They really should modify the rules to eliminate any benefit from intentional penalties.

I think it's fine the way it is. There's already a clear penalty set out for what should happen if the offensive team holds. Everybody knows that sometimes it might be better to hold, and can do a cost/benefit to determine whether it's worth it or not. I know the one time I got called for a penalty in football was a holding play that I knew exactly what I was doing and decided basically tackling the defender was better than letting him bust up the sweep play. I guess you just have to live with the fact that sometimes getting called for a penalty can help your team out in a way. And this wasn't the first time deliberately breaking the rules has helped a team on a big stage: