Muffed punt Rule question

[Davii]

Why was that a touchback? It hit the Steeler return man then the guy who recovered it did so out of the end zone and slid in. I thought it should've been down at the 1. Can someone explain? Was it a bad call? It could not have been a safety on a punt in that case since it was touched by the receiving team before being going into and, supposedly, being recovered in the endzone?

[Simple Jaded]

Looked to me like he didn't get full control of ball until it touched goal line, I think if he covers it clean it's either down on 1/2 yard line or a safety, which would depend on when he's touched I would think.

Btw, ST's are rounding into PO shape.

[Joel]

Same question as in the gameday thread: After they muff it—even IN the end zone—if WE recover in the end zoneis that a TB or TD? Pretty sure it's the latter, because once the receiving team touches the ball it's live. So why's that not the case when THEY recover their own muff in the end zone?

Thank heaven neither that nor Miller dropping Bens fumble-that-was-not-a-fumble BEFORE crossing the goal line mattered, but little things can be decisive in NARROWLY decided games (which virtually all ours are now.) Great for NFL and network revenue, but bad for my heart.

[spikerman]

Ok, here's the deal. A muff does not change the status of a kick; it is still a kick. When the Pitt player muffed the kick and then it rolled into the end zone it was still a kick just as if he hadn't touched it at all (for whether it's a kick or not purposes) so it would be a touch back. If, the Broncos had recovered it in the end zone it would have been a td because it was touched by the receiving team. If, the Broncos had recovered the ball outside of the end zone it would have been their ball at that spot as the kicking team can recover, but cannot advance a muff. It all has to do with impetus on the ball, which is a long explanation.

[Joel]

Ok, here's the deal. A muff does not change the status of a kick; it is still a kick.
So?


When the Pitt player muffed the kick and then it rolled into the end zone it was still a kick just as if he hadn't touched it at all (for whether it's a kick or not purposes) so it would be a touch back. If, the Broncos had recovered it in the end zone it would have been a td because it was touched by the receiving team. If, the Broncos had recovered the ball outside of the end zone it would have been their ball at that spot as the kicking team can recover, but cannot advance a muff. It all has to do with impetus n the ball, which is a long explanation.
The highlighted part seems the critical issue, but the receiving team had already touched the ball WHOEVER recovered it in the end zone. The fact it's still a kick shouldn't change that, because the TB should've been off the table as soon as the receiving team 1) touched the ball in 2) the field of play.

To be clear, I'm not saying a returner in the end zone dropping the ball and then falling on it should be a safety: I'm arguing this is analogous to a returner cleanly fielding a punt OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN running into it: That's "still a kick," but also still a SAFETY, not a TB, yes?

[spikerman]

No, once the ball is caught by the returner the kick is over and it is now a running play. Running it into the end zone from outside the end zone and being tackled would then result in a safety, unless the returner's momentum carried him not the end zone.

This is why you'll hear penalties being enforced "from the end of the kick" which is basically where it was caught and possessed.

[gregbroncs]

So?


The highlighted part seems the critical issue, but the receiving team had already touched the ball WHOEVER recovered it in the end zone. The fact it's still a kick shouldn't change that, because the TB should've been off the table as soon as the receiving team 1) touched the ball in 2) the field of play.

To be clear, I'm not saying a returner in the end zone dropping the ball and then falling on it should be a safety: I'm arguing this is analogous to a returner cleanly fielding a punt OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN running into it: That's "still a kick," but also still a SAFETY, not a TB, yes?Not only that but he did appear to recover it outside of the endzone and then slide in. Shouldn't that be at the 1 not 20? Also this seems to reward a guy for bobbling the ball into the end zone just to get a TB instead of a ball inside the 5. Seems like either a stupid rule or called the wrong way on the field.

[Joel]

I will say this: Pitt got REALLY lucky on several muffs that nearly gave us easy TDs in a game where we struggled to score ANY. The Stealers ESPN beat report was critical of that in his postgame summary, noting it was another thing they lost in Brown (their usual punt returner.)

Our STs came up HUGE for the first time I recall in the Manning Era. Pitts punt returner muffed a couple, but Colquitt did well to get the ball in the right place, and (I'm embarrassed to say I forget whom) got down to the goal line to keep another out of the end zone early. Webster CAUSED one of those muffs, and made an immediate crushing tackle inside the 20 on another punt. Pitts punter helped out with a giftwrapped early FG, but the other was 100% Boldens runback. On top of that, McManus was perfect on 5 FGs, including a 51 yder and two more from 40+, and prevented all returns by putting every kickoff in the end zone.

Maybe DeCamillis earned the Divisional Round gameball.

[spikerman]

Not only that but he did appear to recover it outside of the endzone and then slide in. Shouldn't that be at the 1 not 20? Also this seems to reward a guy for bobbling the ball into the end zone just to get a TB instead of a ball inside the 5. Seems like either a stupid rule or called the wrong way on the field.

It wouldn't be smart because the ball is live. I don't think the Steeler gained control of the ball until he was in the end zone.

[I Eat Staples]

This is what I don't get about the whole "it's still a kick" thing: if the kicking team catches/touches the punt without a member of the receiving team touching, the ball is down right there. If the receiving team DOES touch the punt, and the kicking team picks it up, they get the ball.

So how is that NOT changing the status of the kick?

[gregbroncs]

It wouldn't be smart because the ball is live. I don't think the Steeler gained control of the ball until he was in the end zone.It was close, I thought he recovered it then sort of lost it while sliding on the ground then recovered it again in the end zone. Seems to me he had control but lost it again. Not sure why he should be rewarded for that. I guess they figure if he lost it again he didn't have control. I still think it's a stupid rule, oh well it didn't cost us in the end.

[spikerman]

This is what I don't get about the whole "it's still a kick" thing: if the kicking team catches/touches the punt without a member of the receiving team touching, the ball is down right there. If the receiving team DOES touch the punt, and the kicking team picks it up, they get the ball.

So how is that NOT changing the status of the kick?
In the first scenario, that is illegal touching and the ball becomes dead at that spot; however, the receiving team can try to advance the ball after an illegal touch if it has not yet been blown dead. In the second scenario you're talking about a muff, and yes, it can be recovered by the kicking team, but not advanced. In both cases the kick ends when the ball is possessed.

[Joel]

No, once the ball is caught by the returner the kick is over and it is now a running play. Running it into the end zone from outside the end zone and being tackled would then result in a safety, unless the returner's momentum carried him not the end zone.

This is why you'll hear penalties being enforced "from the end of the kick" which is basically where it was caught and possessed.
Okay, so back to "if a muff's still a kick, why isn't an end zone recovery by the receiving team ALSO a TB?" In ALL other scenarios I can think of, gaining possession in the end zone is either 1) a TB WHOEVER gains possession or 2) a safety if possession's gained in ones own end zone but a TD if in an opponents.

It sounds like a muff OUTSIDE the end zone's "still a kick" ONLY if the receiving team recovers in the end zone for a TB: If the KICKING team recovers in the end zone it's a "now a run" (because if it were "still a kick" that would be a TB, not a TD.) That's incredibly contradictory. If that's the rule, that's the rule, but it's a horrible one (much like the rule about an offense fumbling a ball near the goal line: If it goes out at the 1, it's their ball at the 1, but if it goes out the end zone, it's a TB.)

[Joel]

It wouldn't be smart because the ball is live. I don't think the Steeler gained control of the ball until he was in the end zone.
Yeah: Because it would only be "still a kick" and thus a TB if HIS team fell on it in the end zone; if the OPPONENT did, it would be "NOT still a kick" and thus a TD.

Hence "incredibly contradictory." Whether it's "still a kick" shouldn't depend on WHO recovers it, only what CAUSED the recovery.

I couldn't agree with awarding the kicking team a safety just because the returner muffed a kick in the end zone and immediately fell on it, and do agree with awarding the kicking team a TD if THEY fall on it instead. The difference to me is that this muff occurred OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN the ball entered it. Seems like that should at least nominally shift the balls impetus from the kicking to the receiving team, even if the muff doesn't alter the balls direction/speed.

After all, must a players momentum be altered to be down by contact, or is it enough for him to be touched while on the ground?

[spikerman]

Okay, so back to "if a muff's still a kick, why isn't an end zone recovery by the receiving team ALSO a TB?" In ALL other scenarios I can think of, gaining possession in the end zone is either 1) a TB WHOEVER gains possession or 2) a safety if possession's gained in ones own end zone but a TD if in an opponents.

It sounds like a muff OUTSIDE the end zone's "still a kick" ONLY if the receiving team recovers in the end zone for a TB: If the KICKING team recovers in the end zone it's a "now a run" (because if it were "still a kick" that would be a TB, not a TD.) That's incredibly contradictory. If that's the rule, that's the rule, but it's a horrible one (much like the rule about an offense fumbling a ball near the goal line: If it goes out at the 1, it's their ball at the 1, but if it goes out the end zone, it's a TB.)
You'll have to give me some examples. It's all about which team is responsible for the ball being in the end zone. I will answer this tomorrow when I'm not so tired because I'm not sure I understand your question. FYI, this is why I spend months studying the rule book.

[spikerman]

Yeah: Because it would only be "still a kick" and thus a TB if HIS team fell on it in the end zone; if the OPPONENT did, it would be "NOT still a kick" and thus a TD.

Hence "incredibly contradictory." Whether it's "still a kick" shouldn't depend on WHO recovers it, only what CAUSED the recovery.

A kick can be recovered by the kicking team for a touchdown if it's already in the end zone if it has been touchd by the receiving team (on a punt) or even if it hasn't been touched (on a kickoff).

[spikerman]

Yeah: Because it would only be "still a kick" and thus a TB if HIS team fell on it in the end zone; if the OPPONENT did, it would be "NOT still a kick" and thus a TD.

Hence "incredibly contradictory." Whether it's "still a kick" shouldn't depend on WHO recovers it, only what CAUSED the recovery.

I couldn't agree with awarding the kicking team a safety just because the returner muffed a kick in the end zone and immediately fell on it, and do agree with awarding the kicking team a TD if THEY fall on it instead. The difference to me is that this muff occurred OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN the ball entered it.

Whether it's a kick or not has nothing to do with who recovered it and if that's what you're getting from my explanation I'm not explaining it well.

[pnbronco]

Ok, here's the deal. A muff does not change the status of a kick; it is still a kick. When the Pitt player muffed the kick and then it rolled into the end zone it was still a kick just as if he hadn't touched it at all (for whether it's a kick or not purposes) so it would be a touch back. If, the Broncos had recovered it in the end zone it would have been a td because it was touched by the receiving team. If, the Broncos had recovered the ball outside of the end zone it would have been their ball at that spot as the kicking team can recover, but cannot advance a muff. It all has to do with impetus n the ball, which is a long explanation.

Big hugs....it was so confusing. I did think dang I wish I could talk to Spiker....thanks for the information....I have a much better understanding...

[Joel]

A kick can be recovered by the kicking team for a touchdown if it's already in the end zone if it has been touchd by the receiving team (on a punt) or even if it hasn't been touched (on a kickoff).
Right, but if the OTHER team falls on it instead it's a TB, not a safety. WHO recovers dictates whether it's a score; I can't think of ANY other scenario where that's true.


Whether it's a kick or not has nothing to do with who recovered it and if that's what you're getting from my explanation I'm not explaining it well.
Then what transforms a kick into a run, if not the returner gaining possession? Maybe that's the problem: We shouldn't treat ANY muff as a fumble until/unless the returner actually has possession, rather than merely making contact with the ball (except on KOs, because, as you note, those are ALREADY live after 10 yds.)

[gregbroncs]

Yeah: Because it would only be "still a kick" and thus a TB if HIS team fell on it in the end zone; if the OPPONENT did, it would be "NOT still a kick" and thus a TD.

Hence "incredibly contradictory." Whether it's "still a kick" shouldn't depend on WHO recovers it, only what CAUSED the recovery.

I couldn't agree with awarding the kicking team a safety just because the returner muffed a kick in the end zone and immediately fell on it, and do agree with awarding the kicking team a TD if THEY fall on it instead. The difference to me is that this muff occurred OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN the ball entered it. Seems like that should at least nominally shift the balls impetus from the kicking to the receiving team, even if the muff doesn't alter the balls direction/speed.

After all, must a players momentum be altered to be down by contact, or is it enough for him to be touched while on the ground?I agree with this, If the receiving team touches the ball outside of the end zone they should not still have the ability to be awarded a TB in any situation. That is rewarding them for their own mistake and is unfair.

[gregbroncs]

I agree with this, If the receiving team touches the ball outside of the end zone they should not still have the ability to be awarded a TB in any situation. That is rewarding them for their own mistake and is unfair.If the way Spikerman is describing this rule is the way it reads then it should be fixed because the rule is unfair and rewards the receiving team for basically screwing up. Once it's touched by the receiving team, outside of the end zone they should not be rewarded. That should become either a TD or a safety depending on who recovers it. If a runner fumbles the ball while into the end zone then recovers it, it's a safety I see no difference here.

[I Eat Staples]

In the first scenario, that is illegal touching and the ball becomes dead at that spot; however, the receiving team can try to advance the ball after an illegal touch if it has not yet been blown dead. In the second scenario you're talking about a muff, and yes, it can be recovered by the kicking team, but not advanced. In both cases the kick ends when the ball is possessed.

It wouldn't be illegal touching, many punts inside the 10 are downed by the kicking team without the receiving team ever touching it. It's just the receiving team's ball at that spot.

[chazoe60]

I hate these types of things because I hate when someone gets rewarded for ******* up. They essentially gained 16 yards because they muffed the punt. It's rare though and not really a big deal but it is annoying to anyone who believes in the value of fair play.

[Joel]

The difference to me is the order and location of events:

If the kicking team puts the ball INTO the end zone entirely on their own and THEN the returner muffs it THERE, he should be able to fall on it without taking a safety; simply muffing the punt shouldn't force him to it out (and probably be tackled almost immediately, pinning his team deep) just to avoid giving up 2 pts and possession. However, if he CAN'T fall on it, and the kicking team does, it should be a TD; they earned it.

If the kicking team puts the ball OUTSIDE the end zone and THEN the returner muff sends it THERE, that should be the same as if he'd fielded it cleanly and entered the end zone under his own power: Safety if he's tackled there, TD if the kicking team gains possession there.

Frankly, bringing "impetus" just muddies the water, IMHO, because if the returners momentum while fielding the kick provides the impetus that moves it into the end zone, that's a TB, but if he fields it and voluntarily enters the end zone that SAME IMPETUS makes it a safety.

Not as bad as when NFL refs decided a game by awarding the 1-1 Giants a safety when 1-1 Dallas' returner started to run out, changed his mind, and then knelt down without ever coming CLOSE to the goal line: Both teams scored another 10 pts, making the final 12-10 Giants, and the following week the NFL PUBLICLY ADMITTED its refs (badly) blew the call, but abrogated authority to correct it. The Giants finished 10-6, only losing the division on a tiebreak; Dallas finished 3-13 and fired Tom Landry after the season, ending his legendary career. Rules are fallible—and so are refs.

I try to give them the benefit of a doubt (REALLY, spiker) because I realize they have a thankless job calling live games at pro speeds, often with distant and/or obscured vision. Increasingly complex and contradictory NFL rules make the pro refs job even MORE difficult, and all of them must learn the constantly changing and convoluting rules in between whatever ACTUAL careers feed and house their families. Judgement calls are inevitable, and even the best judgement can err, but NFL rules nominally intended to make judgement calls less necessary somehow seem to do the opposite. Like semi-pro players, semi-pro refs do it purely for love of the game; the difference is fans NEVER cheer, only boo, semi-pro refs, who don't even have the REMOTE possibility of a scout offering them a multi-million dollar contract.

I sympathize, truly: But I still won't hesitate to say a ref made an egregiously bad call if I think that's the case. Benefit of doubt, not a bucketful.

[Joel]

I hate these types of things because I hate when someone gets rewarded for ******* up. They essentially gained 16 yards because they muffed the punt. It's rare though and not really a big deal but it is annoying to anyone who believes in the value of fair play.
Well, as to that, the idiots biggest mistake was trying to field a punt inside his 10 in the first place (especially one of Colquitts, which usually go out BEFORE crossing the 20 or not at all.) If it doesn't hit the ground before the 10, odds are it'll bounce or roll into the end zone. Even if a gunner arrives in time to prevent that, that'll just mean it's dead at the spot, which is the same as a fair catch, and the best reasonable hope if the returner's dumb enough to try fielding it with that gunner in his face. The more likely result of that last case is what nearly happened here: He muffs the punt and hands the kicking team a free TD.

Don't field punts inside your 10. This is not a difficult concept, or shouldn't be. You've got to field a kickoff because it's live after 10 yds, but you don't have to do jack on a punt, and if it crosses your 10 before it lands, that's EXACTLY what you should do. Didn't most of these guys go to college? :confused:

[spikerman]

Right, but if the OTHER team falls on it instead it's a TB, not a safety. WHO recovers dictates whether it's a score; I can't think of ANY other scenario where that's true.


Then what transforms a kick into a run, if not the returner gaining possession? Maybe that's the problem: We shouldn't treat ANY muff as a fumble until/unless the returner actually has possession, rather than merely making contact with the ball (except on KOs, because, as you note, those are ALREADY live after 10 yds.)

You're confusing the issue, which is understandable because a lot of fans do. As I said before, a muff does not change the status of a kick, it's still a kick. What would the result have been if the first Steeler didn't touch it and the Steelers would have recovered it in the end zone? A touch back right? Yes, because the team recovered the kick in their end zone. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

Next, a fumble and a muff are two different things. Had the Steeler had possession and then fumbled the ball into the end zone where it was recovered by the Steeler, it would have been a safety. The status would have changed from a kick to a running play. This is all very technical and even a lot of first year officials have trouble with it.

[spikerman]

It wouldn't be illegal touching, many punts inside the 10 are downed by the kicking team without the receiving team ever touching it. It's just the receiving team's ball at that spot.

When the kicking team is the first to touch it that is illegal touching. It is a violation and not a foul so there is no penalty yardage. When you see the officials touch both shoulders after a kick they're signaling illegal touching.

[Slick]

Spike, I remember a play where they talked about momentum carrying a player into the endzone. Like on a fumble recovery or an INT too. That's why I wasn't up in arms about the call. I assumed it would be a touchback.

[spikerman]

Spike, I remember a play where they talked about momentum carrying a player into the endzone. Like on a fumble recovery or an INT too. That's why I wasn't up in arms about the call. I assumed it would be a touchback.

It's kind of the same principle. This wasn't really about momentum as much as it was that it was still a kick, but yeah there is a momentum rule too. In college, let's say a pass is intercepted inside the defender's five yard line and his momentum takes him into the end zone where he is tackled that would not be a safety. I'm not sure about the NFL, but in college it would be the intercepting team's ball at the spot of the interception.

[Davii]

Thanks for laying it out Spike, and I get it. I'd always thought that on a punt if the receiving team touched it at all the ball is then "live", so it's no longer "just a kick". Which it is IF we had recovered. I think that makes it a little confusing. I, personally, think it should have the status changed after a muff on a punt.

[spikerman]

Thanks for laying it out Spike, and I get it. I'd always thought that on a punt if the receiving team touched it at all the ball is then "live", so it's no longer "just a kick". Which it is IF we had recovered. I think that makes it a little confusing.

Yep, it is live once the receiving team touches it, but it is still a kick, which is why it can't be advanced by the kicking team.

[Davii]

Yep, it is live once the receiving team touches it, but it is still a kick, which is why it can't be advanced by the kicking team.

I think that should change. Once the ball's live, it should be live it seems. What would the negative effects of such a change be?

[spikerman]

I think that should change. Once the ball's live, it should be live it seems. What would the negative effects of such a change be?

Hmmm, good question. Honestly I'm not sure what the effects of a change would be.

[NightTrainLayne]

I think that should change. Once the ball's live, it should be live it seems. What would the negative effects of such a change be?

Well, the effect would be that almost any muffed punt recovered by the kicking team would result in a touchdown. There's not anyone behind the receiver at that point to stop the kicking team. It would swing the pendulum too far in the favor of kicking teams. It would go from a team being stopped, and having to punt to a very likely TD if they can recover a muffed punt.

[spikerman]

Well, the effect would be that almost any muffed punt recovered by the kicking team would result in a touchdown. There's not anyone behind the receiver at that point to stop the kicking team. It would swing the pendulum too far in the favor of kicking teams. It would go from a team being stopped, and having to punt to a very likely TD if they can recover a muffed punt.
In a situation like yesterday that's true, but usually kicks don't wind up in the end zone and very few of them aren't recovered without a scramble.

[Davii]

In a situation like yesterday that's true, but usually kicks don't wind up in the end zone and very few of them aren't recovered without a scramble.

I think that even the percentage of muffed punts is pretty low. I mean, you catch the punt. Period.

[spikerman]

I think that even the percentage of muffed punts is pretty low. I mean, you catch the punt. Period.

True, but it's also the same with free kicks (kick offs, etc). They also can't be advanced by the kicking team. For instance, if they legally recover an onside kick with a free run to the end zone they can't advance it. They gain possession at the recovery spot.

[Davii]

True, but it's also the same with free kicks (kick offs, etc). They also can't be advanced by the kicking team. For instance, if they legally recover an onside kick with a free run to the end zone they can't advance it. They gain possession at the recovery spot.

And that makes sense, UNLESS the receiving team has touched the ball. If the receiving team had a chance at it and screwed it up I think it should be a live ball.

I know it's not, but I think it should be.

[pnbronco]

You're confusing the issue, which is understandable because a lot of fans do. As I said before, a muff does not change the status of a kick, it's still a kick. What would the result have been if the first Steeler didn't touch it and the Steelers would have recovered it in the end zone? A touch back right? Yes, because the team recovered the kick in their end zone. I don't know how to explain it better than that.

Next, a fumble and a muff are two different things. Had the Steeler had possession and then fumbled the ball into the end zone where it was recovered by the Steeler, it would have been a safety. The status would have changed from a kick to a running play. This is all very technical and even a lot of first year officials have trouble with it.

This makes it clear. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

[Joel]

You're confusing the issue, which is understandable because a lot of fans do. As I said before, a muff does not change the status of a kick, it's still a kick. What would the result have been if the first Steeler didn't touch it and the Steelers would have recovered it in the end zone? A touch back right? Yes, because the team recovered the kick in their end zone. I don't know how to explain it better than that.
That's the thing: Since they touched it BEFORE it reached the end zone, I think a muff recovered there should be a safety (if they do it) or TD (if we do,) but SOME score WHOEVER recovers it, because of HOW it reached the end zone: Because the receiving—NOT kicking—team sent (i.e. "impelled") it there.


Next, a fumble and a muff are two different things. Had the Steeler had possession and then fumbled the ball into the end zone where it was recovered by the Steeler, it would have been a safety. The status would have changed from a kick to a running play. This is all very technical and even a lot of first year officials have trouble with it.
No, I get that, but if it's "still a kick" if they recover the muff in the end zone, it should be "still a kick" if WE do. If a muff's "still a kick" and not live, an end zone recovery should ALWAYS be a TB, WHOEVER recovers. Conversely, if a muff's live so the kicking team can fall on it for a TD, the receiving team falling on it should be a safety: They didn't grab it after the punter sent it into the end zone, they grabbed for it and sent it there THEMSELVES.

[Joel]

Well, the effect would be that almost any muffed punt recovered by the kicking team would result in a touchdown. There's not anyone behind the receiver at that point to stop the kicking team. It would swing the pendulum too far in the favor of kicking teams. It would go from a team being stopped, and having to punt to a very likely TD if they can recover a muffed punt.
Only if it goes into the end zone, because the kicking team can't advance a recovered muff, and recovering a muff in the end zone's already a TD for the kicking team. The problem, I still contend, is if "live is always live" that would mean muffing it in the end zone and falling on it would be a safety, not a TB, which definitely gives the kicking team too big an advantage.

I still say we can get around that by simply distinguishing between whether the kicking or receiving team sends it into the end zone. In that respect, if we want to be fair (not arbitrary) as well as consistent, the question on that PARTICULAR punt is whether the muff sent the ball into the end zone when the punt wouldn't have, or if it was always going there unless someone stopped it (essentially, that "impetus" thing, at least in the physics sense of the term.)

In this case, that's probably a judgement call; we don't know if the ball would've hit inside the 5 and died or bounced back without the muff, but it was moving toward and near the goal line at a good clip, so there's a good argument it wouldn't have, and thus that the muff didn't change that. And there's a good reason judgement calls aren't reviewable; by nature, their outcome depends on whom we ask, and the only thing worse than one ref deciding a game is ALL refs doing it by vote.

[spikerman]

That's the thing: Since they touched it BEFORE it reached the end zone, I think a muff recovered there should be a safety (if they do it) or TD (if we do,) but SOME score WHOEVER recovers it, because of HOW it reached the end zone: Because the receiving—NOT kicking—team sent (i.e. "impelled") it there.


No, I get that, but if it's "still a kick" if they recover the muff in the end zone, it should be "still a kick" if WE do. If a muff's "still a kick" and not live, an end zone recovery should ALWAYS be a TB, WHOEVER recovers. Conversely, if a muff's live so the kicking team can fall on it for a TD, the receiving team falling on it should be a safety: They didn't grab it after the punter sent it into the end zone, they grabbed for it and sent it there THEMSELVES.
That's the thing, a muff DOES NOT change the impetus of the ball by rule, therefore the kicking team is still responsible for it being there.

[spikerman]

Joel, instead of arguing what the all should have been, why can't you just accept that that's the rule, and not just at the NFL level? The referee clearly stated that the play was "still a kick"in his explanation, I'm just telling you why that was and why, by rule, it was he correct call.

[Northman]

In a situation like yesterday that's true, but usually kicks don't wind up in the end zone and very few of them aren't recovered without a scramble.

Thats what i was wondering, had Denver recovered that in the endzone it would of most certainly been a Denver TD correct?

[spikerman]

Thats what i was wondering, had Denver recovered that in the endzone it would of most certainly been a Denver TD correct?
Definitely!

[Northman]

Definitely!

So with that in mind im baffled that the ball still didnt remain on the one. But, i guess it has to do with the momentum factor. Its just weird that had Denver recovered it would of been a score or at least on the 1 yd line, but because the returner was able to jump on it and because his momentum took him into the endzone it remained a touchback. So weird. lol

[spikerman]

So with that in mind im baffled that the ball still didnt remain on the one. But, i guess it has to do with the momentum factor. Its just weird that had Denver recovered it would of been a score or at least on the 1 yd line, but because the returner was able to jump on it and because his momentum took him into the endzone it remained a touchback. So weird. lol
Had he recovered it on the one, that's where it would have been (well, on the six after the penalty). I think the issue was that the Steeler didn't have control of it until it in the end zone, so you have the touch back. If the Broncos had recovered it on the one it would have been their ball on the one yard line, but not really because Pitt would have accepted the penalty and backed them up five to re-kick.

[Joel]

That's the thing, a muff DOES NOT change the impetus of the ball by rule, therefore the kicking team is still responsible for it being there.
If that's the case, what's the difference between the kicking team downing it in the end zone and recovering a muff there? Either way, it's "still a kick" and still went into the end zone under the KICKING teams impetus, so why is one a TB but the other a TD? Because the latter's a live ball—UNLESS the receiving team recovers instead; then it's "still a kick," so a TB.

I get that that's the rule, but it's a wildly inconsistent—outright contradictory—rule. That's the Competition Committees fault (like soooo many other things,) not the refs, but needs to go the way of the Tuck Rule.

[spikerman]

You've finally completely confused me. It's "live" (recoverable by anyone) because it touched a receiving team player. If a kicking team player is the first to touch it, it is illegal touching. Honestly I'm not sure what's difficult or inconsistent about it.

[Valar Morghulis]

You've finally completely confused me. It's "live" (recoverable by anyone) because it touched a receiving team player. If a kicking team player is the first to touch it, it is illegal touching. Honestly I'm not sure what's difficult or inconsistent about it.

Even I get it. #stupidbrit

[I Eat Staples]

When the kicking team is the first to touch it that is illegal touching. It is a violation and not a foul so there is no penalty yardage. When you see the officials touch both shoulders after a kick they're signaling illegal touching.

Oh I didn't know that, so there's no yardage penalty and the receiving team just gets the ball where it was touched? I guess that's why the kicking team touches it to "down" it inside the 10.

That makes sense since it's consistent with the muff still being a kick thing.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

I still don't think it should have been a touch back. It looked to me like it was recovered at the 1 and then he slid into the endzone.

[spikerman]

Oh I didn't know that, so there's no yardage penalty and the receiving team just gets the ball where it was touched? I guess that's why the kicking team touches it to "down" it inside the 10.

That makes sense since it's consistent with the muff still being a kick thing.

That's it exactly!

[Slick]

It wouldn't have been a touchdown because Denver was flagged on the play. That's where my concern ended.

[NightTrainLayne]

In a situation like yesterday that's true, but usually kicks don't wind up in the end zone and very few of them aren't recovered without a scramble.

I'm saying (writing) that if the rule on advancing muffed punts was changed so that the ball could be advanced, that it would become much more likely that such advancing would result in touchdowns because nobody is behind the receiver.

You are right that most don't even get the chance to be advanced, and so in those situations the rule is moot. But if the kicking team is able to advance it, and there is not a rule prohibiting such advancing, then it's almost assuredly going to lead to touchdowns because there is nobody left to tackle the kicking team player "advancing" the ball.

[gregbroncs]

I hate these types of things because I hate when someone gets rewarded for ******* up. They essentially gained 16 yards because they muffed the punt. It's rare though and not really a big deal but it is annoying to anyone who believes in the value of fair play.This is how I feel. I think the rule is stupid. I accept that the play was called according to the rules, but I still think the rule is flat out wrong. If a receiving team touches the ball outside of the end zone the ball should be a safety or a TD once it enters the end zone. How do they know the ball would have carried into the end zone had the guy not fielded it? It easily could have bounced back after hitting the ground there. So how can you definitively say the ball was still controlled by the kicking team once it's touched by the receiving team? At the point he touches it he controls the ball more than the kicker and he should not be rewarded for it.