I really don't understand the point of this thread at all. Yes, it was a terrible, blatant no call. But what does it matter? The play would have ended up exactly as it did regardless. In fact, it was SMART by the Ravens to do all they could to keep the SF defenders away from Koch so more time could come off the clock.
yes but were 2 defenders held the entire time so the punter could run around at his leisure to run down the clock?
Teams taking an intentional safety out of punt formation has been going on since at least the 70s. That is the first time I saw it anyway. I doubt this is the first time the punt team has held when they knew it was going to be an intentional safety. The Ravens knew the rules and worked them perfectly. Your original premise was the 49ers got hosed because holding was not called. When in actuality, if there had been 1 or 2 flags thrown on the play for holding, the play result would have been the same. So, the holds not being called did not hose the 49ers. The rules, if anything, did.
I honestly do not remember. Best I can recall, the punter fielded the punt at about 5 yds deep in the end zone, and then just casually trotted back to the end line, waited till a defender was bearing down on him, and stepped out. If there had been holding it would not have mattered. Just like it did not matter in this game. The 49ers got the benefit of a safety, which is 2 points. No one else's fault they were down by 5 at the time.
"In my honest opinion" is why I brought it up in the first place. It doesn't matter if I think San Fran would or wouldn't have won. They should've had one last shot to let the play on the field determine if they won or lost, not a loophole in the rule system. Did the Seahawks win on the below hail mary? <so you can't just assume SF would've lost if they had one last play at the 50>
Are you not complaing that because trhey were held it burned off valuable time and did you not say that time should of been put back on the clock? Is that not your postion?
You must have really lost it watching Shaquille oneal. 'hack a shaq' is the exact same idea. Team committing the penalty benefited because shaq couldn't hit free throws, where as he'd normally dominate in the paint. It was the best possible defense you could play against him. And it technically spat in the face of calling fouls. And it was also brilliant!
No hold is legal. They all get flagged when an official sees it. So whether the hold lasts 2, 3, 5, or 10 seconds, when a flag is thrown the offense gets backed up 10 yards or half the distance to the goal. If holding for any length of time is called inside the end zone, it results in a safety.
ahhh, righhhhhht...... so the punter was running around the back of the endzone looking for his lost contact. Gotchya. I find it amusing you call the play call "f***ing brilliant" but then have the audacity to say the safety didn't benefit them.
Lol, just having fun. The niners coaching staff got embarrassed. (they already looked pretty bad with that putrid string of plays when it was 1st and goal) John harbaugh made a call, if Jim harbaugh saw it coming, his team would have gotten their chance. They didn't think about the sacrifice safety play, ravens did. OUTCOACHED
Really? Do you think Niners saw it the same way <as a "benefit">? So you're saying John spotted his brother a free 2 points during the biggest game of the year just to be nice? Those 2 points didn't make a difference, which is why John CHOSE to allow it. All he cared about was not giving SF one last shot at a hail mary for the win b/c there obviously wouldn't be an ensuing FG opportunity if the punter could eat enough time off to clock to not allow a San Fran offensive snap. Hence the 3 point lead after the safety meant no different than the 5 point lead.
Bottom line is the Ravens did not break any rules on the play. Teams at any point in a game have the option to intentionally commit a penalty to prevent the other team from scoring or lessening their chances. It's the same thing when a defender intentionally holds a receiver or commits PI to prevent a likely TD. I don't understand why you are making such a big deal out of this play. If you had been the Ravens ST coach wouldn't you have told your punt team to go ahead and hold even in the end zone because the plan was to take a safety? Wouldn't you have told your punter to wait as long as possible before going out of bounds to bleed the clock as much as possible?
1. Does not matter. The team taking a safety on purpose does not need permission of the other team to do so. 2. John played it smart. That there was no flags thrown for holding did not "hose" the 49ers. The rules did.
So, based on the rules, how can you NOT be out-coached on the punt? What can you do differently? If you overload one side, the punter can run to the other if his oline is allowed to hold for as long as they want. .... and how is Jim supposed to prevent this situation? His defense stopped the Ravens on 3 straight plays to force the punt. What else could've been done?
I think you know the answer to that. Who benefits when a defender intentionally holds a receiver so he won't be able to run free for a likely TD catch? That's just the way the game has been for years. Like Snips said, it is not much different than in the NBA where they foul the worst free throw shooter, as in hack a Shaq.
Send your guys from the outside, on both sides. That way his only option is out the back or step up in a pocket. Either one the play is over in much shorter time. They sent everyone up the middle, giving the punter the easy out.
No it's not. Even if it's the last play of the game and the clock has run out the rules still give them another shot as well as the enforced penalty. No. If I can't win the game w/o holding or abusing a loophole in the system then I don't deserve to win. of course, b/c if the opposing team can't get to the punter in time, that's their fault.
It does matter in this context b/c you previously implied the 2 points from the safety was like a courtesy to San Fran.
but I asked you the question, not myself. lol I wanted to hear your answer. So, by default here, if a blatant penalty benefits the team committing the penalty, it inherently screws the opposing team. That's how that dynamic works.
There's no loophole though. A safety is worth 2 points, San Francisco got 2 points. The fact that they were in the position to be had by a forfeiture of points (and time) is a result of them getting outplayed the rest of the game. It's not like one team was given the rules and the other team wasn't.
I'm confused as to what is the problem here? Are you mad that the Ravens intentionally took the safety, or mad that the 49ers didn't get the benefit of a holding call?
so that's supposed to rationalize not allowing San Fran one last possession? Didn't Baltimore get the first possession of the 2nd half?
Essentially he's mad that the ravens were in a win-win situation. The ravens held on purpose knowing they were going to take a safety. If the holding penalty did get called, all that would happen is the ravens would give up a safety, which they were doing anyway. The only way for the niners to have stopped it is for them to have seen it coming. Which they didn't. Cause it was brilliant.
Had they received the holding call, I think they would have had one last hail mary shot to win the game. I think that's his issue with this. It really shouldn't be an issue. Yea, there was no call. But it's on the 49ers for putting themselves in a situation where they needed a last second hail mary to win the game.
Yes he would...? So? He only has two options. Punt it, or take the safety. If the niners prepared for the safety, John still would have taken the safety, but without running all 8 of those seconds off.
no, they wouldn't have. The time comes off the clock even if there's a holding call. That's why it was so brilliant.
You're missing the point. SF could have taken steps to mitigate the holding that they should have known was coming. They didn't. They hosed themselves. What the Ravens did was no worse than trying to take a delay of game to get your punter more room for a coffin. If SF wanted one last possession they should have taken it upon themselves to get it.
I'm disappointed that a SB ended without a last chance hail mary (that San Fran rightfully deserved) b/c, not only was Balt's punter allowed to roam the back of the endzone thanks to MAJOR holding, but b/c the rules are set up to where it doesn't matter if the holding was called or not b/c the team getting held gets screwed no matter what.
It wouldn't have. They still kicked it off with 4 seconds. The play in question was not the last play of the game. And yes, for what it's worth, the game can end on an offensive penalty.
