L'échiquier vert (©Oleo) - Questions sur les règles du jeu

Je relance le topic ouvert par Oleo dans l'ancien forum avec un article que j'ai trouvé intéressant qui résume assez bien les différences entre les défenses 4-3 et 3-4 même sans entrer dans les détails.

Citation :

The 4-3 vs. the 3-4
By Mike Tanier

Once upon a time, defenses lined up almost the same way that offenses did. The offensive line has a center, two guards, and two tackles. Long ago, the defensive line did to.

This was the 1930’s and early 1940’s, when power running was king and strategies were a little simpler. But times were changing. Offenses were throwing the ball more, and quarterbacks were discovering how easy it was to complete passes right over the middle of the field, just behind the defensive line.

The defenses adjusted. “Centers” like Bill George began taking a few quick steps back before the snap, putting them in better position both to defend short passes and chase running plays toward the sidelines. The era of two-platoon football had arrived, and these players no longer had to line up at center on both offense and defense. Gradually, these defensive specialists started lining up a few yards off the ball, at the position we now call middle linebacker. The 4-3 defense had arrived.

The 4-3 defense was the main formation in the NFL throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s. But a new breed of running back inspired another switch. In the early 1970’s, defenses tied themselves into knots trying to chase down O.J. Simpson and his generation of fast, powerful runners. Defensive linemen at the time were too slow for the job. Defensive coordinators decided that the solution was to put another linebacker on the field. The University of Oklahoma had long used a five-man defensive line on which the two ends were smaller, quicker players who would sometimes take a step or two off the line or drop into coverage. The ends were essentially extra linebackers, so pro teams modified the scheme. Thus, the 3-4 was born.

The two alignments have co-existed ever since. In the 1980’s, the Raiders and Giants won Super Bowls with a 3-4 defense (Lawrence Taylor terrorized quarterbacks as an outside linebacker in a 3-4 scheme). But the crushing Bears defense of the mid-1980’s was a 4-3, and it inspired many imitators. By the mid-1990’s, only a few teams used a 3-4 defense, most notably the Bills and Steelers. But the Patriots have now won three Super Bowls using a version of the 3-4, so the alignment is back in style.

Which leaves casual fans begging the question: what’s the difference?

The Base 4-3
In a standard 4-3 defense, the line consists of two tackles and two ends. Where exactly they line up depends on the coach, the play, and the situation. But generally, the tackles take on the opposing guard and center, while the ends attack the opposing tackles and tight end.

What happens at the snap depends on the play and the philosophy of the coach. There are two basic responsibilities for defensive linemen: one-gap and two-gap. When playing one gap, the lineman attacks a space between two blockers. For example, one of the defensive tackles may try to penetrate the line by attacking the space between the right guard and right tackle. The defender is only responsible for what happens in that hole. When playing two-gap, the lineman engages his blocker, reads the play, and takes responsibility for anything that happens to his left or right. The same defender from the last example, playing two-gap, might engage the right guard head on. Once he knows how the play is developing, he’ll know whether he has to move to the left or to the right to make a tackle or chase a play.

Whether they’re playing one-gap or two-gap, the defensive linemen want to disrupt the blocking scheme and occupy offensive linemen. That frees the three linebackers to make tackles. Like the linemen, linebackers often have gap responsibilities. But when the four defensive linemen have forced all five offensive linemen to block them, the linebackers have it relatively easy: they only have to worry about the fullback and/or tight end getting out to block them, not a 320-pound guard.

On passing plays, the four linemen attempt to sack the quarterback in most situations. Again, the four-on-five mathematics is critical. Ideally, with defensive ends using their speed and tackles using their power, the defensive line will be so effective that all five offensive linemen will be needed to block them, and even then the quarterback will be in jeopardy. The defensive coordinator then has lots of options: he can send a linebacker or two on a blitz, knowing there is no one to block them, or he can commit the linebacker to coverage, knowing that the line will still be able to get pressure.

The one- or two-gap scheme is a gross oversimplification. Linemen can have many other responsibilities. They can slant, moving laterally to engage a blocker to the left or right of the one facing them. They can stunt or twist, wrapping around one another to confuse the blockers. Coordinators can create all sorts of variations from a base 4-3 front, but the goals are generally the same: disrupt blocking patterns, take away running lanes, harass quarterbacks.

In terms of personnel, the ideal 4-3 defensive tackle weighs close to 300 pounds but is quick-footed enough to shoot through a gap at the snap. Ends are lighter and quicker. Right ends, who line up against the offensive left tackle and attack the quarterback from the blind side, are usually the best athletes on the line: 275-pound monsters with incredible quickness and agility who can outflank blockers who are bigger and heavier. The middle linebacker in a 4-3 scheme must be as smart as he is athletic; his assignment on any given play may change from pursuing a running back to dropping into zone coverage, depending on what the offense does at the snap. The outside linebackers must be fast enough to chase ballcarriers from one side of the field to the other, and must also be big enough to do battle with an offensive lineman.

The Base 3-4
The key player in a 3-4 scheme is the lone interior lineman, who is usually called the nose guard or nose tackle. He lines up directly across from the center – on the center’s “nose” – though he may sometimes shade over to the space between the center and one of the guards. He almost always has two-gap responsibility. His job on nearly every play: force two offensive linemen or more to block him.

The defensive ends in a 3-4 alignment have jobs similar to that of the nose tackle: they want to take up space, fill gaps, and occupy blockers. In a 4-3 system, linemen are supposed to occupy blockers, but they are also expected to free themselves to make tackles and sacks. In the 3-4, linemen aren’t expect to make many sacks or tackles. Most of the playmaking responsibilities fall upon the linebackers.

The 3-4 system gives the defensive coordinator a variety of options. At the snap, he can blitz any combination of linebackers, and the offense doesn’t necessarily know where the rush is coming from. Typically, one or both of the outside linebackers will attack the line of scrimmage, whether to pressure the quarterback or tackle a running back in the backfield. That leaves two inside linebackers to follow the flow of the play, pursue running backs, or drop into pass coverage.

The 3-4 alignment is popular now because it allows defenses to zone blitz effectively. The “zone blitz” is just what it sounds like: some defenders blitz, the rest drop into zone coverage. In a 4-3 system, zone blitzing is tricky: the linebacker or safety who blitzes leaves a zone unoccupied. Another player can take over in the unoccupied zone, but a) that defender is stretched pretty thin, with an extra-large zone to defend, and b) the quarterback can usually see what’s happening. Many a smart quarterback has defeated a zone blitz by waiting for a linebacker to attack, then dropping a soft pass into the part of the field that the linebacker usually defends. But with an extra linebacker on the field, the defensive coordinator has more flexibility. The faster linebackers can rotate quickly at the snap of the ball, filling each other’s zones.

Say the coach wants both the left outside and middle linebacker to blitz. Normally, that would leave a big space on the left side of the field, one the offense could exploit with a quick slant pass. But in the 3-4 alignment, there’s an extra inside linebacker who can quickly slide into that unoccupied zone. The right outside linebacker can move over to cover the middle of the field. The zones are a little wide, and the defenders in coverage have a lot of space to defend, but the quarterback must assemble a jigsaw puzzle to figure out who’s where, all the while bracing for the blitz.

The nose guard in a 3-4 system must be huge, strong, and have incredible stamina: he takes on two blockers per play, every play. Ends must also be bigger and more durable than the ends in a 4-3 scheme, though they don’t have to be as fast. Pass rush responsibilities are handed to the outside linebackers, who are expected to be lightning-quick runners and ferocious hitters. The inside linebackers in a 3-4, like middle linebackers in the 4-3, have to be smart, athletic, and versatile.

Variations
The base alignments explained above are very broad outlines. In modern football, there are hundreds of variations of each base set.

For some teams, the 3-4 and 4-3 are almost interchangeable. The right end in a 4-3 may be a 255-pound defender who sometimes drops into coverage: how different is he from an outside linebacker? Or, the outside linebacker in a 3-4 may line up in a three-point stance on the line of scrimmage for much of the game: why not call him a defensive end?

Teams that want to use a standard 4-3 scheme often face a dilemma: there aren’t enough great defensive ends to go around. Players like Julius Peppers or Jevon Kearse come along about once per year in the draft. Most college defensive ends are great athletes who weigh about 260 pounds: put them on the line against a 320-pound left tackle, and they’ll be plowed under on most running plays.

Changes in offensive style have also forced evolution in defensive alignments. When an offense lines up with five wide receivers on first down, then two tight ends and two running backs on second down, what’s a defense to do? It has to adjust, by using five or six defensive backs on some plays, and extra linebackers on others. The one constant is that the defense usually tries to attack the five offensive linemen with four defenders, but those defenders could be any combination of traditional tackles, ends, and linebackers.

Teams like the Steelers and Bills ran the ball so effectively last year that opponents switched to a 4-4 defense: four linemen, four linebackers. At times, the extra linebacker crept up to the line and into a three-point stance. Suddenly, the five-man defensive line had returned to the NFL, strategy coming full circle. That’s the nature of the game, and that’s why it’s a source of endless fascination.

posted 6-16-2005 at 3:41 PM by Mike Tanier || Strategy Minicamps

EDIT: Bien sûr, à l'instar du topic d'origine, il pourra servir à tous pour débattre ou poser des questions sur l'aspect tactique du jeu (j'en profiterai pour vous refiler en douce mes Q&A sur l'arbitrage que vous aimez tant ).

J'avais pas lu ça.

C'est très bien vu.
Le boulot des lignes se montre assez pointu lui aussi.

Excellent cet article en plus je me posais pas mal de questions sur la différence entre les défenses 4-3 et 3-4.
D'ailleurs j'ai une petite question, les Ravens change de défense l'année prochaine ils passent d'une 3-4 à une 4-3. Ce changement intervient surtout pour préserver Ray Lewis apparement en évitant qu'il prenne trop de blocks par des linemen. Mais mon interrogation vient du futur de Terrell Suggs qui va passer DE poste qu'il jouait en college mais il n'as pas le gabrit d'un DE NFL donc à votre avis est ce qu'il va réussir à être aussi dominant en DE? Parceque le système 3-4 était parfait pour lui un beau gabarit pour un LB avec 260 livres et des blizs qu'il éxecuté à merveille.
Donnez moi votre avis.

Torry Holt a écrit:

Excellent cet article en plus je me posais pas mal de questions sur la différence entre les défenses 4-3 et 3-4.
D'ailleurs j'ai une petite question, les Ravens change de défense l'année prochaine ils passent d'une 3-4 à une 4-3. Ce changement intervient surtout pour préserver Ray Lewis apparement en évitant qu'il prenne trop de blocks par des linemen. Mais mon interrogation vient du futur de Terrell Suggs qui va passer DE poste qu'il jouait en college mais il n'as pas le gabrit d'un DE NFL donc à votre avis est ce qu'il va réussir à être aussi dominant en DE? Parceque le système 3-4 était parfait pour lui un beau gabarit pour un LB avec 260 livres et des blizs qu'il éxecuté à merveille.
Donnez moi votre avis.

Dans une 4-3, un end à 260 lbs c'est suffisant. John Abraham ou Jason Taylor ont prouvé qu'on peut est plus qu'efficace à ce poids là. Je suis pas inquiet pour Suggs vu qu'il jouait DE en collège, ce sera pour lui un retour au source.
L'interrogation sera de voir comment il se comporte contre le jeu de course.

Il peut aussi rester en position d'outside si jamais... (Je plaisante pas )

Torry Holt a écrit:

Excellent cet article en plus je me posais pas mal de questions sur la différence entre les défenses 4-3 et 3-4.
D'ailleurs j'ai une petite question, les Ravens change de défense l'année prochaine ils passent d'une 3-4 à une 4-3. Ce changement intervient surtout pour préserver Ray Lewis apparement en évitant qu'il prenne trop de blocks par des linemen. Mais mon interrogation vient du futur de Terrell Suggs qui va passer DE poste qu'il jouait en college mais il n'as pas le gabrit d'un DE NFL donc à votre avis est ce qu'il va réussir à être aussi dominant en DE? Parceque le système 3-4 était parfait pour lui un beau gabarit pour un LB avec 260 livres et des blizs qu'il éxecuté à merveille.
Donnez moi votre avis.

Jcroyais qu'il passait en 4-6 les ravens !!! Non ?

Oui les ravens passent en 46 pour mettre plus de pressions au niveau des blitzs et du jeu de course.Le GROS point positif de ce dispositif c'est que ray sera protegé des gros linemens au lieu de jouer le poste de NT et de devoir se taper 1 voir 2 linemens sur chaque plays. Dc ds l'ideal ray pourra voir le jeu idealement et prendre de bonnes decisions comme il a su si bien le faire durant les saisons precedentes et redevenir le dominant player qu'il etait.
Avec le passage de suggs en de on va avoir du pass rusher à foison domage que boulware soit cutté parce que ac les 2 lascars les qb's auraient eté bien en stress .
Mais comme tout dispositifs à ses failles , les ravens vont jouer aussi en 4-3 et 3-4, pr s'adapter à certaines equipes mais bon ça je pense que tte les teams le font plus ou moins , quand on joue un manning je pense pas que l'on reste en 46 tres longtemps.

Templiers_RaVenS_crew a écrit:

Mais comme tout dispositifs à ses failles , les ravens vont jouer aussi en 4-3 et 3-4, pr s'adapter à certaines equipes mais bon ça je pense que tte les teams le font plus ou moins , quand on joue un manning je pense pas que l'on reste en 46 tres longtemps.

Déjà que vous arrivez pas à stopper Chad Johnson et Houshmandzadeh...

Blitz77 a écrit:

Templiers_RaVenS_crew a écrit:

Mais comme tout dispositifs à ses failles , les ravens vont jouer aussi en 4-3 et 3-4, pr s'adapter à certaines equipes mais bon ça je pense que tte les teams le font plus ou moins , quand on joue un manning je pense pas que l'on reste en 46 tres longtemps.

Déjà que vous arrivez pas à stopper Chad Johnson et Houshmandzadeh...

Lol j'avoue mais bon pr moi chad johnson est un tres grand receveur , il a mis pas mal de grands cb's à l'amende genre champ bailey,, il a une tres grande acceleration aux demarages et une tres bonne technique sur le debut des traces ce kil fait qu'il est svt demarqué des le depart. Apres je crois que le match retour bengals-ravens fut horrible ds pas mal de secteurs du jeu ac un naufrage en 2eme mi-tps .
Sinon ac l'uppgrade rolle sur baxter qui est certe moins physique mais vu les nouvelles regles vaut mieux un db qui colle aux fesses des wr's.Donc je pense que le jeu de passe ira mieux cette année . Faur dire qu'avec chad , Tj et warrick les bengals avaient de belles armes l'annee derniere.

Et l'annee derniere on mettait pas assez la pression sur la ligne dc ...logiquement ac plus de pressions les db's seront moins à la rue et feront du meilleur taff . à moins que la theorie est que ces les db's qui en collant bien leur wr's permettent les sacks ...

J'ai une question :

Voilà, sur qui est placé le micro en Défense entre le coordinateur et le meneur de la Defense? Généralement c'est le MLB ou bien c'est le capitaine?

Y'a un truc que je me demande aussi, est ce que c'est une véritable radio? Le quarterback peut parler à son coordinateur si je ne m'abuse?
Qui d'autres à un micro? Seulement le QB non?

Double C a écrit:

Holmes#31 a écrit:

J'ai une question :

Voilà, sur qui est placé le micro en Défense entre le coordinateur et le meneur de la Defense? Généralement c'est le MLB ou bien c'est le capitaine?

Y'a un truc que je me demande aussi, est ce que c'est une véritable radio? Le quarterback peut parler à son coordinateur si je ne m'abuse?
Qui d'autres à un micro? Seulement le QB non?

C'est juste une oreillette que portent les joueurs, non?
Lorsqu'ils portent un micro, c'est pour la TV... enfin, il me semble.

oui et pour les QB la liaison et filtré, 12 secondes(je crois) avant le snap un mec de la nfl coupe la liaison pour laisser le QB lire les defense tous seul.
pour les defense je sais pas comment ca se passe

Citation :

The I-Formation: Offensive Bread and Butter
By Michael David Smith

Offensive formations are rapidly evolving, with three-receiver sets, four-receiver sets, and multipurpose backs who can line up anywhere and catch the ball as well as they run it. But the way Pro Bowl rosters and media depth charts show each team’s starting lineup hasn’t changed in decades. Every team is still shown with two receivers, a fullback and a running back, the formation that became standard thanks to the development of the I-formation.

La suite ici.

Une vraie mine, ce site. A lire aussi, un long (et un peu rébarbatif) mais instructif article à propos des Gaps and Techniques pour les DLs.

le i formation est une tactique les plus previsible.
j'avais déjà lu quelque part je crois que c'etait brian cox
qui disait si les bills utilise le i formation je vais detruire a cous sure thurman thomas.
j'amais les bills ne feront de passe lors du i formation.
leurs ligne offensive ne resistera pas assez longtemps a la pression sur le qb en i formation.
maintenant c le meme brian cox qui avait declaré que les fans des broncos c'etait des paysan.
Enfin je me souviens du i formation des cowboys avec emmitt smith et moose johnston.
a deux pour blocker et proteger aikman pour une courte passe a jay novacek et ça 3 fois de suite dans un meme first and ten.
et le troisième pour un touchdown de novacek.
sinon cette saison les boys vont previlegier le two tight end set au lieu du i formation.
ils vont meme d'après certaine rumeur utiliser un des deux tight end en glissement pour faire une sorte de i formation.

Je viens de découvrir une règle sur une situation qu'on a peu l'occasion de voir : un fumble d'un attaquant qui va dans la end-zone adverse. Résultat de l'action, même si l'équipe en attaque le récupère : touchback, balle à l'adversaire ! Quelle entube !

j'ai vu cette action dans un Packers/Bucs de 99, et c'était encore plus pointu que ça puisque sur l'action, Antonio Freeman fait fumble juste avant la end-zone, la balle rebondit sur le petit piquet qu'il y a à l'angle de la end-zone et de la ligne de touche, reste dans le terrain vers la ligne des 1 yard, freeman récupère la balle et l'avance jusque dans la end-zone, tout ça pour un touchback. La seule explication que je vois, c'est que le piquet est considéré comme faisant partie de la end-zone.

Les textes : 3. A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent's end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.

[quote="oleo"]Je viens de découvrir une règle sur une situation qu'on a peu l'occasion de voir : un fumble d'un attaquant qui va dans la end-zone adverse. Résultat de l'action, même si l'équipe en attaque le récupère : touchback, balle à l'adversaire ! Quelle entube !

Tu es sur de ton affaire ? Je croyais qu'un fumble recouvert en end zone par l'attaque donnait systématiquement un touchdown... Pour le cas de 1999, ce serait pas litigieux parce que le pilone est considéré comme out of bounds (question) ?

Non cette règle existe bien, lorsqu'un attaquant fait un fumble dans la end zone il y aura obligatoirement touch back.
Si vous avez vu le match de playoffs cette saison entre les Vikings et les Eagles ceci était arrivé à Freddie Mitchell.

GoldRush-BlackStripes a écrit:

Tu es sur de ton affaire ? Je croyais qu'un fumble recouvert en end zone par l'attaque donnait systématiquement un touchdown...

c'est vrai que dans la règle j'ai pris en compte "in the opponent end-zone" mais pas "out of bounds". L'histoire du pilone combinerait alors les deux.

Freddie Mitchell face aux Vikings, son fumble est juste allé dans la end-zone et a été recouvert là ? ou le ballon est parti out of bounds ? est-ce que c'est pas une règle qui a un rapport avec ce match (ne me souviens plus lequel) où une équipe avait fait un fumble volontaire en 4e QT en désespoir de cause ?

Quelqu'un se souvient-il de la "crowd-noise rule" ? Je crois qu'après les Vikings ça doit être le truc le plus idiot que la NFL ait pondu. J'en ai revu les effets sur certains matchs des années 80, quand elle était en vigueur, quelle comédie !

Le principe était donc de limiter le bruit fait par le public dans le stade : dès que l'équipe visiteuse jugeait qu'il y avait trop de bruit dans le stade pour jouer en attaque, le QB était autorisé à interrompre le jeu pour demander aux arbitres de faire taire les spectateurs Evidemment, c'était tellement grotesque que le public était encore plus encouragé à faire du bruit, là l'arbitre passait à la phase B : il demandait au coach de l'équipe locale de faire taire son public je ne sais pas pourquoi, ça marchait pas in fine, y avait la sanction d'une pénalité, mais bon sur les matchs que j'ai vus, c'était surtout 2 minutes de délai pour voir l'attaque reprendre le jeu dans des conditions sonores encore pire qu'avant l'interruption, et en général l'action suivante ne donnait rien parce que l'attaque avait totalement perdu son rythme.

En faisant quelques recherches sur le sujet, je suis tombé sur certains commentaires ironiques sympa sur la stupidité de la situation : who the hell cares what a team does to enhance its homefield advantage??? Anything short of having the cheerleaders perform a defensive endzone sex show during a fourth-and-goal situation should be legal.


dans un autre registre, je suis tombé aussi sur la liste des pénalités, et je ne savais pas que comme dans le rugby le touchdown de pénalité existait :

Touchdown Awarded (Palpably Unfair Act)

1. When Referee determines a palpably unfair act deprived a team of a touchdown. (Example: Player comes off bench and tackles runner apparently en route to touchdown.) perso, j'ai jamais vu, mais ça doit être sympa.

Je sais que vous attendiez ce moment fébrilement depuis février alors sans plus attendre voici le grand retour du Q&A sur l'arbitrage!
Oleo, ça devrait te plaire, on y parle justement de la crowd-noise rule.

Citation :

Ask Jerry Markbreit
Former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit answers readers' questions every week throughout the football season.

September 14, 2005, 3:05 PM CDT

Jerry, Would you please go over the major rules changes for 2005? -- Dave Knorowski, Chicago

Sure. Here are the major NFL rule changes for the 2005 season:

• An attempt by a team to call a second charged time out during the same deadball period to "freeze" a kicker prior to a field goal attempt or a try is now an unsportsmanlike conduct foul carrying a 15-yard penalty.
  
  
• If there is a defensive foul following the end of the second or fourth period that occurs in the action immediately after the down ends, the offensive team may choose to extend the period for one untimed down. In the past, this foul was not enforced, and the half or the game was over.
  
  
• No player on the kicking team who has been out-of-bounds may touch or recover a scrimmage kick beyond the line until it has been touched by a kicking team player, or, until it has been touched by a member of the receiving team. In the past, the penalty for this violation was five yards from the previous line of scrimmage for the result of the play. This year, if the illegal touching occurs inside of the receiver's five-yard line, the receiving team may elect to take a touchback.
  
  
• Any five-yard penalty committed by the offensive team during a scrimmage kick play will either be penalized from the previous line of scrimmage or from the end of the return of the kick.
  
  
• It is now a 15-yard penalty for unnecessarily running, diving into or throwing the body against or on a player who is out of the play.
  
  
• A kicker or punter who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team throughout the end of the play, or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. An opponent may not unnecessarily initiate helmet-to-helmet contact to the kicker during the kick or during the return.

Jerry, Is there still a crowd noise rule in the NFL, or did they do away with the delay of game penalties imposed on the crowd if the quarterback could not call the play? They used to penalize the home team. Is that rule still in effect? -- Keith Totzke, Port Orchard, Wash.

Yes. Obvious inability of the offense to hear team signals because of crowd noise is handled under NFL rules by the following procedure: If the quarterback indicates to the referee that he cannot hear the signals, and the referee agrees, the referee will stop the clock and extend his arm fully over his head. The referee will announce over the wireless microphone that he has asked the defensive team to assist in quieting the crowd. If the crowd noise continues, the referee will again raise his arm and announce that any further crowd noise that is disruptive will result in the forfeiture by the defense of one of its remaining time outs. In the absence of any time outs remaining, a five-yard penalty against the defense will be assessed. Thereafter, if crowd noise reoccurs, the referee will stop the clock and assess the above loss of time out or five-yard penalty.

Can a player, unable to run out-of-bounds, lateral the ball out-of-bounds to stop the clock? -- Butch Brzeski, Chicago

If the backward pass is thrown out-of-bounds during the last minute of play during the second or fourth quarter in order to stop the clock, a five-yard penalty for delay of game and a 10-second runoff is assessed. If this act occurs at any other time during the game, no penalty is called and the clock is started when the ball is made ready for play by the referee.

Can the ball be punted beyond the line of scrimmage? Example: The punter tries to run for the first down, but decides to punt after crossing the line of scrimmage. -- Craig Siwy, Wauwatosa, Wis.

The kicking team behind its line of scrimmage may punt, drop kick, or place kick the ball. For any of these kicks made from beyond the line of scrimmage, a 10-yard penalty is assessed from the spot of the kick, or, the receiving team may decline the penalty and take the result of the play.

I wonder if a player can gain an advantage by committing a penalty. Let's say a team is trying for a two-point conversion. The defender is clearly in position to intercept or knock away a pass in the corner of the end zone. The receiver throws the defender out of the way, clearly and intentionally committing offensive pass interference, then catches the ball for the two-point conversion. Am I correct that the defense's choices are to accept the penalty for 10 yards and give the offense another try at a conversion or to decline the penalty and have the two-point conversion be good. Or is there some rule in a case like this that would make the conversion automatically not good? -- Neil Lupton, Boston

You are correct. The defender's choice is to accept the penalty for the offensive pass interference or decline, which, of course, would give the offense two points. The only time that intentional fouls carry additional penalties is when they, the fouls, prevent the offensive team from snapping the ball when they are in scoring position. An example would be continued encroachment fouls.

At the end of the OSU-Texas game on fourth down, the Texas runner tried to run the ball into the end zone to ice the game. He was not given the touchdown and the announcers questioned whether the ball was outside the pylon. Does the goal line extend "all the way around the world" in the pro game only? If the ball is outside the pylon but the runner has not yet touched the out-of-bounds area, is it not a touchdown? -- Peter Vedder, Wausau, Wisc.

Yes, the goal line extended does go "all the way around the world" in all organized football leagues: grade school, high school, college and professional. If the runner touches the pylon with his body, or dives over it, the ball may be over the side line and a touchdown will be awarded because the goal line extends beyond the side line.

oleo a écrit:

j'ai vu cette action dans un Packers/Bucs de 99, et c'était encore plus pointu que ça puisque sur l'action, Antonio Freeman fait fumble juste avant la end-zone, la balle rebondit sur le petit piquet qu'il y a à l'angle de la end-zone et de la ligne de touche, reste dans le terrain vers la ligne des 1 yard, freeman récupère la balle et l'avance jusque dans la end-zone, tout ça pour un touchback. La seule explication que je vois, c'est que le piquet est considéré comme faisant partie de la end-zone.

Hier, on a eu l'occasion de voir à peu près le même cas de figure. Joe Horn a voulu plonger sur la ligne de TD pour marquer les 6 points mais il a fait fumble juste avant et le ballon a directement percuté le pilone orange. Les Giants se sont vus gratifier d'un touchback. Que le ballon sorte directement du terrain après ou qu'il reste à l'intérieur, le résultat est le même. Le pilone est bien considéré comme faisant partie de l'end-zone.

Ce pilonne permet plus facilement de juger s'il y a ou non td car lorsqu'il est touché par le ballon en possession du joueur offensif il y a automatiquement TD. c'est d'ailleurssurement à cela qu'il sert, plutot qu'a délimiter la end zone, y'a deja les lignes pour cela.

Citation :

Ask Jerry Markbreit
Former NFL referee Jerry Markbreit answers readers' questions every week throughout the football season.

September 20, 2005, 2:35 PM CDT

I was among many people who saw a fumble in the Bears game that was ruled down by contact. I saw the same thing in another game later in the day. How do referees decide when to call a play over? -- Steve Branch, Roscoe, Ill.

An official declares a dead ball and the down ended when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and the runner touches the ground with any part of his body, except his hands or feet. The ball is dead immediately. This happens often at very high speed and it is a judgment call on the part of the officials.

A touchdown is scored when the football breaks the plane of the endzone. Can a touchdown be scored when the receiver catches the pass, has two feet down in the endzone, yet the ball does not break the plane because it's angled out of bounds away from the endzone? -- Craig Henkhaus, Atkinson, Ill.

To answer your questions, No. It is a touchdown when a runner advances from the field of play and the ball touches the opponent's goal line or goal-line plane. In your play, even though the receiver had both feet down in the end zone, the ball had yet to break the plane of the goal line. Consequently, there is no touchdown.

When do penalties switch from five-, 10- and 15-yard varieties to half the distance from the goal line? If the offense was already on their goal line, would penalties have no real effect on their distance to first down? --Hank Jones, Joliet

If a distance penalty, enforced from a specific spot between the goal lines would place the ball more than half the distance to the offender's goal line, the penalty is half the distance from that spot to the goal line. This general rule supercedes any other general or specific rule with regard to enforcement of penalties. An exception would be intentional grounding, which is penalized at the spot of the foul if that spot is more than 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.

Fo example: If the ball was snapped from a team's own 15-yard line, and the quarterback illegally grounded the ball at his 2-yard line, the enforcement of the penalty would put the ball at the 2 instead of half the distance to the goal.

Why can an offensive player stiff-arm a defender in the facemask, but a defender cannot touch the facemask of a player on offense? Aren't the dangers the same? -- Russell Petersen, Chicago

Only a runner may ward off an opponent with his hands or arms, but no other offensive player may use them to obstruct an opponent. The runner may push an opponent in the face mask while warding him off, as long as he does not grasp the mask. This would result in a personal foul and a 15-yard penalty against the runner.

Defensive players are restricted from incidental grabbing or intentional grabbing of the face mask. The runner is given this extra latitude because it would not be possible to ward off a potential tackler if his face mask was a restricted area.

If a pass rusher takes a swipe at the football as the quarterback is in the act of throwing and completely misses the football but hits the quarterback in the face hard enough to where the head snaps backward, is this considered roughing the passer? - Dan, Roseville, Calif.

In the NFL, referees must be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders use the helmet or the face mask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms or other parts of the body to hit the passer in the head, neck or face area. Even though what you describe might truly be accidental, it is still a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer.

Is there still a rule on the NFL books that allows a free field-goal attempt after fair-catching a kickoff? Does this apply only to placekicks and does this rule exist at the college level? -- Fred Davis, Red Oak, Iowa

The NFL rule allows a free kick field goal attempt after any successfully made fair catch. NCAA rules do not allow this. The rule states that on a field goal attempt following a fair catch, all general rules apply as for a field goal attempt from scrimmage. The clock starts when the ball is kicked. The fair catch kick line for the kicking team is the yard line through the most forward point from which the ball is kicked. The fair catch line for the receiving team is the yard line 10 yards in advance of the kicking team's fair catch kick line. There is no snap and no defensive rush and if the ball is kicked through the goal posts, three points are scored for the kicking team.
[Absolument rien compris à cette question et encore moins à la réponse. Si quelqu'un peut m'expliquer ]

Is there a penalty for an injury if a team is out of timeouts at the end of a game? -- Michael Arnold, Bay City, Mich.

Injury timeouts prior to the last two minutes of either half when a team has used all of their time outs will be awarded without penalty and the injured player must be removed from the game. Injuries inside of two minutes of either half, with all three time outs being used, will be granted with no penalty for the "fourth" time out. Any injury time outs after the "fourth" will incur a five-yard delay-of-game penalty.

I noticed the other day Ron Blum was now a head linesman. In years past he was the referee Is this typical, guys moving positions season to season? --Jim Bruse, Amherst, Mass.

Ron Blum has gone back to his old position of line judge. It is not uncommon for officials to change positions during their careers. It is a personal choice.

Is there still a rule on the NFL books that allows a free field-goal attempt after fair-catching a kickoff? Does this apply only to placekicks and does this rule exist at the college level? -- Fred Davis, Red Oak, Iowa

The NFL rule allows a free kick field goal attempt after any successfully made fair catch. NCAA rules do not allow this. The rule states that on a field goal attempt following a fair catch, all general rules apply as for a field goal attempt from scrimmage. The clock starts when the ball is kicked. The fair catch kick line for the kicking team is the yard line through the most forward point from which the ball is kicked. The fair catch line for the receiving team is the yard line 10 yards in advance of the kicking team's fair catch kick line. There is no snap and no defensive rush and if the ball is kicked through the goal posts, three points are scored for the kicking team.

C'est une regle qui m'a toujours titillé.

En fait une équipe peut tenter un FG apres ni'mporte quel fair catch. La regle stipule que sur une tentative de FG suivant le faire catch, toutes les regles générales du FG normal sont appliquées. L'horloge demarre quand le ballon est botté. Les defenseurs sont placés a 10 yds de la ligne de fair catch. Il n'y a aucun snap et le rush de la defense pour bloquer le coup de pied n'est pas autorisé. Si le ballon passe a travers les poteaux, c'est 3 points pour l'equipe qui a botté.

En fait, j'imagine que c'est une deformation de la règle de l'arret de volée provenant du rugby. Les joueurs s'en servent pour sortir le ballon en touche et gagner une position avantageuse sur le terrain, la en NFL, c'est pour tenter un FG. Mais bon, a mon avis, c'est du jamais vu en NFL pour l'instant.

Par contre, le ballon est il tenu par un holder (malgre le fait qu'il n'y a pas de snap), ou est il mis sur un T, ou bien botté comme un punt l'a j'en ai aucune idee.