Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 46 to 56 of 56

Thread: Muffed punt Rule question

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spikerman View Post
    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

  2. #47
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, TX (but wanting to move)
    Posts
    14,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    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.
    “If there are no animals in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” - Will Rogers (paraphrased)

  3. The Following User High Fived spikerman For This Post:


  4. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spikerman View Post
    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 contradictoryrule. That's the Competition Committees fault (like soooo many other things,) not the refs, but needs to go the way of the Tuck Rule.
    Oh, valid point. I thought you meant all starters, you should take the time to be more descriptive, don't be shy. Jaded

    Never confuse frustrated candor and disloyal malice.
    Love can't be coerced. —Me

  5. #49
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, TX (but wanting to move)
    Posts
    14,232

    Default

    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.
    “If there are no animals in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” - Will Rogers (paraphrased)

  6. The Following 5 Users High Fived spikerman For This Post:


  7. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    A galaxy far far away
    Adopted Bronco:
    Rey
    Posts
    21,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spikerman View Post
    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

  8. The Following User High Fived Valar Morghulis For This Post:


  9. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spikerman View Post
    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.

  10. The Following User High Fived I Eat Staples For This Post:


  11. #52

    Default

    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.

  12. #53
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Antonio, TX (but wanting to move)
    Posts
    14,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by I Eat Staples View Post
    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!
    “If there are no animals in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” - Will Rogers (paraphrased)

  13. #54

    Default

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

  14. The Following 3 Users High Fived Slick For This Post:


  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Adopted Bronco:
    Paul George
    Posts
    29,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spikerman View Post
    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.

  16. The Following User High Fived NightTrainLayne For This Post:


  17. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chazoe60 View Post
    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.

  18. The Following User High Fived gregbroncs For This Post:


Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group