Thread: Muffed punt Rule question

Originally Posted by Joel

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).

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by 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 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...

Originally Posted by spikerman

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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

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.)

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Joel

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.

Originally Posted by I Eat Staples

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.