Penalties you just don't understand and/or think should not be a thing

[darin3]

I just don't get "illegal man downfield".... can someone explain why this is a thing?

A lineman blocks a guy and the play is starting to move downfield.  But he has to just stand there and wait for something?

Maybe I'm missing something.  Can someone tell me where I'm wrong?  I certainly recognize I could be missing something.

[gilthorp]

How about the helmet to helmet when a runner is lowering their base and the defender has no chance but to lower their point of contact as well. 

[SeductiveNun]

25 minutes ago, darin3 said:

I just don't get "illegal man downfield".... can someone explain why this is a thing?

A lineman blocks a guy and the play is starting to move downfield.  But he has to just stand there and wait for something?

Maybe I'm missing something.  Can someone tell me where I'm wrong?  I certainly recognize I could be missing something.

I think this is specific to passing plays. Except in that rare instance a tackle reports as eligible, a lineman is not an eligible receiver. You could make the case then that they should not be downfield in passing routes during those plays. 
 

I could probably explain that a bit better, but that’s just my quick take on it. 

[Big John]

Illegal formation if a lineman is not covered on each end or 2 eligible receivers on one side of the line.

[Gopher]

11 minutes ago, SeductiveNun said:

I think this is specific to passing plays. Except in that rare instance a tackle reports as eligible, a lineman is not an eligible receiver. You could make the case then that they should not be downfield in passing routes during those plays. 
 

I could probably explain that a bit better, but that’s just my quick take on it. 

That's my understanding.  Once it's running play, they can move downfield.  As long as it's potentially a pass play, they can't be downfield.  I'm assuming because it would unfairly confuse the defenders, in terms of who is eligible to receive a pass versus who isn't. 

[rajncajn]

Spot foul for pass interference

[Big John]

Just now, Gopher said:

That's my understanding.  Once it's running play, they can move downfield.  As long as it's potentially a pass play, they can't be downfield.  I'm assuming because it would unfairly confuse the defenders, in terms of who is eligible to receive a pass versus who isn't. 

By wearing an ineligible number?  And in college football, ineligible receivers can be downfield as long as the forward pass does not cross the line of scrimmage (screen passes).

[Big John]

1 minute ago, rajncajn said:

Spot foul for pass interference

1978 rule change as they thought too many pass interference penalties were being committed to get the 15 yards instead of allowing a long pass to be completed.

[stevegrab]

4 minutes ago, Gopher said:

That's my understanding.  Once it's running play, they can move downfield.  As long as it's potentially a pass play, they can't be downfield.  I'm assuming because it would unfairly confuse the defenders, in terms of who is eligible to receive a pass versus who isn't. 

That makes sense. Otherwise the entire OL could just start moving downfield and who gets covered by the defense? They supposed to quickly spot and cover only guys who are elligible? 

[Wubammer]

O-lineman are not allowed to cross the line of scrimmage on passing plays. They can on running plays AND when a pass is caught, the pass has to be caught first though. On broken screen plays you'll see this flag, it comes down to timing, they blocks for 2-3 seconds then release to find the next level defenders. If there is any disruption with the QB that screws up the timing, the elephants have already crossed the LOS drawing the flags.

[Gopher]

38 minutes ago, Big John said:

By wearing an ineligible number?  And in college football, ineligible receivers can be downfield as long as the forward pass does not cross the line of scrimmage (screen passes).

Lineman are made eligible (to line up as a receiver/TE) all the time, but usually down near the goal line. Defenders don't look at numbers to determine who they should cover or not.  Anybody downfield on a pass play needs to be covered, which is why it's an "illegal man downfield" when someone who isn't eligible is beyond the line. 

[Anonymouse]

44 minutes ago, Gopher said:

in terms of who is eligible to receive a pass versus who isn't

ah, that makes sense

[darin3]

51 minutes ago, Gopher said:

That's my understanding.  Once it's running play, they can move downfield.  As long as it's potentially a pass play, they can't be downfield.  I'm assuming because it would unfairly confuse the defenders, in terms of who is eligible to receive a pass versus who isn't. 

Huh, guess that makes sense.  They usually just show the replay after the penalty and it just looks   

[Gopher]

52 minutes ago, darin3 said:

Huh, guess that makes sense.  They usually just show the replay after the penalty and it just looks   

Like someone mentioned earlier, it's usually a timing thing, where somebody gets caught downfield on what was a botched screen pass play or something like that.  

[Bier Meister]

offsetting penalties when one is a personal foul and the other is minor (motion or offsides).

[Big John]

14 minutes ago, Bier Meister said:

offsetting penalties when one is a personal foul and the other is minor (motion or offsides).

For a major/minor, the minor is disregarded.

[Bier Meister]

12 minutes ago, Big John said:

For a major/minor, the minor is disregarded.

I have seen them replay the down when we have the penalties described above 

[Big John]

8 minutes ago, Bier Meister said:

I have seen them replay the down when we have the penalties described above 

5/10 penalties offset, 10/15 penalties also offset, but on a 5/15, the 5 (no automatic first down) is disregarded.  Done so is this extreme example that on a false start the defensive player doesn't rail on the QB for the cost of an offset.

 

more: https://www.rookieroad.com/football/penalties/double-foul/

Edited October 2, 2023 by Big John

[Gopher]

1 minute ago, Big John said:

5/10 penalties offset, 10/15 penalties also offset, but on a 5/15, the 5 (no automatic first down) is disregarded.  Done so is this extreme example that on a false start the defensive player doesn't rail on the QB for the cost of an offset.

Is it possible that this is the distinction (whether they offset or not), not the amount of yards?  In other words, personal foul (15) and offsides (5) do not offset, but defensive holding (5), which IS an automatic first down, might offset with a 10- or 15-yard penalty?  

[Big John]

Just now, Gopher said:

Is it possible that this is the distinction (whether they offset or not), not the amount of yards?  In other words, personal foul (15) and offsides (5) do not offset, but defensive holding (5), which IS an automatic first down, might offset with a 10- or 15-yard penalty?  

I have not seen this, but my reasoning that the automatic first down no longer makes it a minor penalty, so it could offset.

[Shorttynaz]

Holding. 

 

I mean how else could the Giants have stopped Seattle from sacking Daniel Jones a brazillion times tonight?? 

 

Clearly blocking wasn't the answer!!

[Dcat]

On 10/3/2023 at 2:43 AM, Shorttynaz said:

Holding. 

 

I mean how else could the Giants have stopped Seattle from sacking Daniel Jones a brazillion times tonight?? 

 

Clearly blocking wasn't the answer!!

Holding calls were eliminated in Foxboro a very long time ago. It's allowed there for the home team mostly.  

Edited October 4, 2023 by Dcat

[stevegrab]

1 minute ago, Dcat said:

Holding calls were eliminated in Foxboro a very long time ago. It'a allowed there for the home team mostly.  

There were 4 offensive holding calls in the last game at Foxboro, 3 of them were against the Pats. 

[Dcat]

8 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

There were 4 offensive holding calls in the last game at Foxboro, 3 of them were against the Pats. 

Yeah....   they're ok with letting Mac get hit.  Not so much Brady. Maybe the tides a turning.  I don't think they saw Mac punch Suace in the nuts though.  Hoping Mac gets beaten to a pulp and no call by refs.  Belli deserves the come uppance.  Mac deserves the humility.    How about the Steelers though?  Still getting the calls or not?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Dcat

[stevegrab]

28 minutes ago, Dcat said:

Yeah....   they're ok with letting Mac get hit.  Not so much Brady. Maybe the tides a turning.  I don't think they saw Mac punch Suace in the nuts though.  Hoping Mac gets beaten to a pulp and no call by refs.  Belli deserves the come uppance.  Mac deserves the humility.    How about the Steelers though?  Still getting the calls or not?

Brady hasn't been the Pats QB for 4 seasons now, time to let it go   

I don't think the Steelers get a lot of extra calls these days, certainly had nothing to do with the totally ass whooping they laid on my Browns on Sunday.