Weird corner-case rule
(Written by kencraw)
I was reminded of an odd-rule that exists in both college and pros last night watching the 49’ers pre-season game. An offensive player committed a dead-ball foul just after making a first down. The result was the ball was moved back 15 years (it was a personal foul) and it was 1st and 10.
This has never made any sense to me. Shouldn’t it be 1st and 25?
If it’s 1st and 10 and the running back gains 5 yards and when he gets up he head-butts a defensive player (a dead-ball, personal foul), the ball will be moved back 15 yards and it will be 2nd and 20 instead of 2nd and 5. Those 15 yards don’t magically disappear as far as down and distance is concerned. Why if he instead gains 12 yards, does it not affect the post-foul down and distance?
Of course there are two possible ways to do it, both of which would make sense to me. If he gained 12 yards, it could be 2nd and 13, moving the ball back for the penalty before determining whether a 1st down was reached. Or it could be 1st and 25, moving the ball back after moving the chains. (BTW, 1st and 25 makes more sense to me, particularly since dead-ball fouls can happen a long time after the previous down is complete but still before the huddle of the next.)
But doing this weird ‘after the 1st down is reached but before the new chains are set’ thing just doesn’t feel right.
Anyone else ever thought this?
August 26th, 2013 at 8:58 am
Don’t forget that it’s still a spectator sport and having more drives stall out because of 1st and 25’s is probably not in the best interest of the NFL.
August 27th, 2013 at 9:52 pm
Ken,
I thought about this a lot when I was a football official back in college. It made no sense to me then. I also officiated basketball and baseball — those sports were much more intuitive.
Football has the most arcane, logic-defying rule book. The five century old Rules of Golf are less anachronistic than those on the gridiron.
August 28th, 2013 at 8:41 am
That makes a lot of sense, Rick. Another test one can use is the “how long does it take to explain the game to a newbie” and Football is BY FAR the hardest to explain and most quickly gets into all the odd exceptions that you have somewhat contradict your earlier explanation with “except when…”.
Although I must say, although it is philosophically consistent, I’ve never liked the nature of basketball’s rules regarding blocking and who’s at fault when two people run into one another. While “the guy with the ball can go where ever he wants as long as a defender isn’t standing with his feet planted, and if anyone else interferes with him going where ever he wants, it’s a foul.” is logically consistent and enforceable, it has never felt quite just to me. Watching a guy running full steam at the hoop and a defender slides one step to the side, thus getting creamed/bowled over by the guy running to the hoop, and yet the foul is on the guy who’s face is stuck to the floor, has never felt right to me for a “non contact” sport. It really turns me off to the game.
August 28th, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Ken,
The basketball foul rules are relatively easy to call. It’s based on the “rule of verticality”. Once you get the concept, it’s easy to be consistent.
Basketball is a contact sport. Much of the action away from the ball (and thus the cameras) invloves colliding bodies. Picks are set and rebounders are blocked out. The rules are fair and they prevent injuries. Most basketball injuries are self-inflicted — they are not caused by another body.
I’ve played various levels of organized basketball for 30 years. Most often I was the smallest person on the court…and I’ve never been injured. The rules protect those who understand them.