Rules Loophole? (Terrelle Pryor Taunting Call On Webb)

[ERey]

I don't know if the Browns got hosed or not on the Terrelle Pryor taunting call at the end of the game. It depends on Pryor's intentions which only he can speak to.

In any event, what I don't understand is why a dead ball foul after the play is over results in offsetting penalties with something that happened during the play. Had Webb not been called for defensive holding (which the Browns would have declined) the ball would have been placed at the 10 yardline and then marched back to the 25 due to the taunting call on Pryor. However, since Webb held on the play the ball was placed back at the 30 yardline. It was to the Ravens advantage that Webb held on that play. Of course, Webb had no idea Pryor would be called for the penalty so it's not like he planned it. It just seems to me a deadball penalty should not result in offsetting with a penalty that happened during the play.

Thoughts?

Edited September 19, 2016 by ERey

[rmcjacket23]

50 minutes ago, ERey said:

I don't know if the Browns got hosed or not on the Terrelle Pryor taunting call at the end of the game. It depends on Pryor's intentions which only he can speak to.

In any event, what I don't understand is why a dead ball foul after the play is over results in offsetting penalties with something that happened during the play. Had Webb not been called for defensive holding (which the Browns would have declined) the ball would have been placed at the 10 yardline and then marched back to the 25 due to the taunting call on Pryor. However, since Webb held on the play the ball was placed back at the 30 yardline. It was to the Ravens advantage that Webb held on that play. Of course, Webb had no idea Pryor would be called for the penalty so it's not like he planned it. It just seems to me a deadball penalty should not result in offsetting with a penalty that happened during the play.

Thoughts?

One particular issue with this is that it implies that the Browns would have the right to decline the holding penalty. When fouls occur on both teams, regardless of whether they are live or dead-ball penalties, you typically don't give both team the option to accept or reject the penalty, because that implies that one team gets preference over another for committing infractions. So you'd be essentially committing "penalty bias". 

So in your scenario, you either have to enforce both penalties as offsetting, or enforce both as they exist. So it would be a five yard holding penalty, negating the play, and then a fifteen yard enforcement of the taunting, netting the Browns a loss of 10 yards.

Also, I'd point out that even IF the taunting penalty would be enforce separately, the Browns would decline the holding penalty to get the yardage from the completion but then would be march backed 15 yards from that spot. So it would be 1st down at the 25 with 20 seconds to go in a best case scenario.

So at maximum, its a 5 yard benefit for us.

[ERey]

9 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

One particular issue with this is that it implies that the Browns would have the right to decline the holding penalty. When fouls occur on both teams, regardless of whether they are live or dead-ball penalties, you typically don't give both team the option to accept or reject the penalty, because that implies that one team gets preference over another for committing infractions. So you'd be essentially committing "penalty bias". 

So in your scenario, you either have to enforce both penalties as offsetting, or enforce both as they exist. So it would be a five yard holding penalty, negating the play, and then a fifteen yard enforcement of the taunting, netting the Browns a loss of 10 yards.

Also, I'd point out that even IF the taunting penalty would be enforce separately, the Browns would decline the holding penalty to get the yardage from the completion but then would be march backed 15 yards from that spot. So it would be 1st down at the 25 with 20 seconds to go in a best case scenario.

So at maximum, its a 5 yard benefit for us.

However, the taunting call is just applied. The Ravens would not be asked to accept or reject the penalty. So I can't see where penalty bias would occur. Seems more logical to call the play as is and have the Browns decline the defensive holding. The taunting call would be automatically applied placing the ball at the 25.

[rmcjacket23]

26 minutes ago, ERey said:

However, the taunting call is just applied. The Ravens would not be asked to accept or reject the penalty. So I can't see where penalty bias would occur. Seems more logical to call the play as is and have the Browns decline the defensive holding. The taunting call would be automatically applied placing the ball at the 25.

Right but if the outcome of the play is different, than so is the decision by BOTH parties regarding the penalty. That's why the league takes that decision out of their hands.

If you are allowing each team to individually decide if they want to accept or decline a penalty... which teams get to choose first, because that matters a ton?

Edited September 19, 2016 by rmcjacket23