Botched Punt ruling (1 Viewer)

[CHEF]

I for one was not satisfied with Pierea's explanation of that rule. It was ruled that it would have been a 5 yard penalty and a replay of fourth down. However, there was no official punt. McBriar just kicked a loose ball down the field which is to me illegal touching as it is no different that a player fumbling the ball and a teammate or the fumbling player throwing it out of bounds, or kicking it. I dug this up in regards to fumbles:

Fumble
1. The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.

2. A fumble may be advanced by any player on either team regardless of whether recovered before or after ball hits the ground.

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.

4. On a play from scrimmage, if an offensive player fumbles anywhere on the field during fourth down, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If any player fumbles after the two-minute warning in a half, only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the spot of the fumble. In that case, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery. Any defensive player may recover and/or advance any fumble at any time.

If you look at number four, isn't this what happened? Ball should have been blown dead where he lost the ball, not where he kicked it to.

 

[Saint Brees]

That kick by him should have been viewed as a pass and a turnover on downs

 

[NewOrleansFan]

Agreed. It should have been our ball at around the 40. The Cowgirls actually benefit from an illegal play

 

[Boudro]

It made no sense that we could either keep the ball at the end of the run or a 5 yard penalty and a re-kick. It should have been our ball on the spot of the illegal touch.

 

[FWtex]

My first thougt was the kick should have been considered a drop kick and the ball spotted at the point of the kick. however, the kick was returned so it would be down at the spot of return.

 

[theicebox]

That was worse that mob mentality.

 

[Three Monkeys]

I agree the call sucked for the home team, but the punter fumbled the ball behind the line of scrimmage and then kicked it. That's what the penality was for. No. 4 doesn't apply because he made no effort to advance the ball.

 

[CHEF]

I agree the call sucked for the home team, but the punter fumbled the ball behind the line of scrimmage and then kicked it. That's what the penality was for. No. 4 doesn't apply because he made no effort to advance the ball.

Just because he made no effort doesn't mean it should be the Saints ball at the return spot. Exactly what was Porter returning? It wasn't a punt, it was an illegal forward fumble that just so happened to be moving forward from someone's foot which looked like a kick because of a fortunate bounce. A receiver cannot fumble the ball out of bounds forward lest it be brought back to the spot of the fumble. He can fumble it backwards and it is marked out at that spot.

 

[ktbarthedoor]

I think the league's going to admit they blew that one tomorrow.

 

[bradman1965]

Seems like you guys have a beef with the competition committee, but if the penalty doesn't have loss of down the Saints were better taking the ball with only 19 yards of field position change rather then have them kick it again.

 

[Three Monkeys]

Just because he made no effort doesn't mean it should be the Saints ball at the return spot. Exactly what was Porter returning? It wasn't a punt, it was an illegal forward fumble that just so happened to be moving forward from someone's foot which looked like a kick because of a fortunate bounce. A receiver cannot fumble the ball out of bounds forward lest it be brought back to the spot of the fumble. He can fumble it backwards and it is marked out at that spot.

No, it wasn't an illegal forward fumble. It was a fumble that was kicked.

If a receiver had fumbled the ball, and then kicked it forward, the ball would be moved back to the spot of the fumble and the penalty yardage applied.

 

[lapaz]

I guess the ruling could have been that he advanced the ball via the kick, and then the defensive team advanced it via the return. That would not have even been a penalty, so that was obviously not the ruling.

 

[TriPolarTroy]

I think the league's going to admit they blew that one tomorrow.

I agree

 

[CHEF]

No, it wasn't an illegal forward fumble. It was a fumble that was kicked.

If a receiver had fumbled the ball, and then kicked it forward, the ball would be moved back to the spot of the fumble and the penalty yardage applied.

Wrong choice of words, sorry. But nevertheless, what we're saying is basically the same thing. The receiver would have been credited with his catch, the ball spotted where he fumbled it from and a penalty from that spot. If on a third down he gained 8 of the 10 yards, fumbled out of bounds forwards intentionally, then it would be fourth down and 7. I see no difference if it's fourth down on a botched snap and the kicker boots the ball forward. It's technically still a fumble.

 

[bradman1965]

I think the league's going to admit they blew that one tomorrow.

I doubt it, that's why they bring Pariera in to explain the call. I can see where the gripes are coming from. I just think it's the rule that might be broken, not the interpretation.