- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The sometimes absurdity of offsetting penalties in football
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:24 am
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:24 am
Last night Michael Thomas catches what I think was a 25-30 yard pass and stiff armed the defender in the facemask afterward as he was being forced out of bounds. There were some arguments that it was a shitty call, but that's not what this is about. He got the flag and was going to get the penalty, but would have gotten net positive yards with the penalty nevertheless. As I understand it, it would have been first and 10, 15 yards back from the spot of the foul - and let's say for the sake of this discussion, resulting in a net 10 yard gain.
In response to Thomas' penalty however, the defender, as Thomas is going down, grabs Thomas by the facemask and gets his own "offsetting" flag.
The ruling - play is nullified (hence no positive yards for the Saints). Replay the down.
In other words, the Saints are ultimately penalized MORE for the subsequent opposing team's infraction than they would have been if ONLY they had been deemed to have committed a penalty.
Why don't other teams figure out this absurdity, and just practice committing subsequent "offsetting" penalties any time they see an obvious offensive flag on a play that would still result in a net yardage gain? I mean, I guess it would be hard to figure on a 'boom boom' type play, but it creates such an obvious absurdity.
In response to Thomas' penalty however, the defender, as Thomas is going down, grabs Thomas by the facemask and gets his own "offsetting" flag.
The ruling - play is nullified (hence no positive yards for the Saints). Replay the down.
In other words, the Saints are ultimately penalized MORE for the subsequent opposing team's infraction than they would have been if ONLY they had been deemed to have committed a penalty.
Why don't other teams figure out this absurdity, and just practice committing subsequent "offsetting" penalties any time they see an obvious offensive flag on a play that would still result in a net yardage gain? I mean, I guess it would be hard to figure on a 'boom boom' type play, but it creates such an obvious absurdity.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 11:26 am
5
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:28 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
In other words, the Saints are ultimately penalized MORE for the subsequent opposing team's infraction than they would have been if ONLY they had been deemed to have committed a penalty.
If true, then the Saints should have declined the penalty
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:29 am to Y.A. Tittle
I approve of this post.
Often times you'll have a holding call on the offense, which leads to a big gain, then a facemask on the defense, and instead of the holding call (which led to the facemask) holding up, the offense gets to replay the down.
So it goes both ways and you articulated my thinking pretty well on it
Often times you'll have a holding call on the offense, which leads to a big gain, then a facemask on the defense, and instead of the holding call (which led to the facemask) holding up, the offense gets to replay the down.
So it goes both ways and you articulated my thinking pretty well on it
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:30 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
If true, then the Saints should have declined the penalty
Not sure you can decline offsetting penalties but I don't really know that for a fact
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:30 am to TigerintheNO
quote:
If true, then the Saints should have declined the penalty
Can a team decline an offsetting penalty?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:31 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I mean, I guess it would be hard to figure on a 'boom boom' type play, but it creates such an obvious absurdity.
It would be near impossible. Not just hard.
You want defensive players to focus on penalty flags instead of their assignment?
Additionally, what you are essentially asking for the defender to commit a unnecessary roughness or personal foul that was placed in the game for player safety.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:31 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Why don't other teams figure out this absurdity, and just practice committing subsequent "offsetting" penalties any time they see an obvious offensive flag on a play that would still result in a net yardage gain?
Would be damn near impossible for players to be able to see the flag, think of the situation and react fast enough to commit a penalty on the play were it could benefit them. Way too many moving pieces for this ever to be realistic.
This post was edited on 12/18/18 at 11:33 am
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:32 am to Y.A. Tittle
It’s only offsetting if it’s an accepted penalty
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:33 am to JG77056
quote:
It’s only offsetting if it’s an accepted penalty
Do you know if you can decline an offsetting penalty?
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:35 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
. There were some arguments that it was a shitty call,
It was a shitty call, since when is a stiff arm called for unnecessary roughness, especially when Thomas didn't close his hand around or pull the facemask
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:38 am to TigerDat
For the record, I thought it was a shitty call too, but I just didn't want to focus on that in my hypothetical/philosophical discussion. 
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:43 am to al_cajun
quote:
Would be damn near impossible for players to be able to see the flag, think of the situation and react fast enough to commit a penalty on the play were it could benefit them. Way too many moving pieces for this ever to be realistic.
On top of that they'd have to do it during the play, otherwise it's a dead ball foul, which isn't the same I don't believe.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:47 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I thought it was a shitty call too
I thought unnecessary roughness was a dead ball foul, meaning the facemask should've been accepted, then the unnecessary roughness should've been marked off as a post-play infraction, (similar to an unsportsmanlike conduct) which would have lead to a 25 yard gain for the Saints, in no way, shape or form can I find a situation in which that should have resulted in a replay of the down, unless they called Thomas for grabbing the facemask instead of unnecessary roughness.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:48 am to Y.A. Tittle
If it was a 5 & 15 yard penalty it can't be declined, which leads me to believe if you committed a 15 yard, it could be declined.
I didn't know until recently you can accept a penalty, and decline the yardage.
quote:
Five vs. 15 enforcement cannot be declined by the team that committed the minor foul, except as described in (ii) below. See 4-8-2-c-Exc. 2 and 14-4-9-Exc. (a) and (b) for dead ball fouls at the end of a half.
I didn't know until recently you can accept a penalty, and decline the yardage.
Posted on 12/18/18 at 11:51 am to Buckeye06
quote:
Not sure you can decline offsetting penalties but I don't really know that for a fact
You can't even decline a facemask so why would declining offsetting penalties even be an option?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News