Botched Punt ruling (1 Viewer)

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.

Point is that he never officially kicked it in the first place. As for having a beef, I don't as it is a rare play where rules could be interpreted in different ways. I just think it was a fumble that he illegally kicked forward that the Saints were forced to take like bad medicine. What would have happened if the Saints "blocked" the "punt" and returned it for a TD. I don't think the refs would have ruled a Saints TD either.
 
I'm still confused. Since when can you kick a fumble? I can see him recovering his own fumble and passing it. Or maybe re establishing position and punting it. But to just kick it? Doesn't make sense. if Drew were to fumble the ball could he kick it down field too?
 
The officials were a joke in that game, so this doesn't surprise me.
 
If the Jets player had downed the ball, since it was 4th down the ball would have been move back to the spot of the fumble at the 43.
 
I'm still confused. Since when can you kick a fumble? I can see him recovering his own fumble and passing it. Or maybe re establishing position and punting it. But to just kick it? Doesn't make sense. if Drew were to fumble the ball could he kick it down field too?

You can't kick it. It was an illegal kick, but the punter behind the line of scrimmage has all kinds of rules where it isn't a fumble but an illegal kick.
 
Here is the issue.... IF it's an illegal kick, why do they use the yardage from said illegal kick.

Makes ZERO sense. If the kick is illegal, it didn't happen. If it didnt happen, Saints ball at spot of the fumble. Whats the problem?
 
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.

The ball is spotted at the spot of the fumble if it is recovered by an offensive player. If it was a fumble, it was recovered by a defensive player (Porter). The rule does not state anything about spotting the ball at the spot of the fumble when it is recovered by the defense.

I'm not sure if in that situation a penalty would be called on the Cowboys, but the end result would be the same, since the penalty was declined.
 
In the Pats/Giants super bowl, around the 2 minute mark Eli Manning was sacked and fumbled the ball and the Giants RB batted the ball forward which I think Steve Smith recovered for 1st down, but was called back for a 10 yard flag for illegal batting of the ball. If a Pats played had gotten the ball, there would have declined the flag.
 
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.

That's exactly what I think. I don't see the penalty unless the ref can determine that it wasn't a drop kick attempt, but what if it had gone through the uprights by accident!!
 
If the Jets player had downed the ball, since it was 4th down the ball would have been move back to the spot of the fumble at the 43.

ignoring the confusion on the teams, but there wasn't a kick on that fourth down. If there wasn't a kick, there couldn't be a kick to be downed, nor a kick to be returned or fielded. It was a ball that was kicked while loose on the ground that just so happened to be kicked by the punter. Not trying to argue for or against, just that the ruling given makes no sense. Peira's explanation was lacking. If he had picked it up and kicked it, I have no problem, but he kicked a live bouncing ball that anyone could have fallen on. And again I ask what if the "kick" was "blocked" and returned for a touchdown? There is no way the Saints are allowed to return it, although technically it would have been a fumble and a return for touchdown.
 
rule change needed on Cowboy's botched punt

Let me get this straight, according to NFL rules when a punter fumbles the snap and in a desperate move, kicks the ball while it's lying on the ground, the only price they have to pay is a 5 yard penalty for an illegal kick?!! That rule and situation needs to be looked at. Now just tell your punter to kick the ball on the ground to avoid losing a fumble.Insane!
 
Here is the issue.... IF it's an illegal kick, why do they use the yardage from said illegal kick.

Makes ZERO sense. If the kick is illegal, it didn't happen. If it didnt happen, Saints ball at spot of the fumble. Whats the problem?

this is my question, how is it not illegal at the moment of contact
the ruling was like "well, it's illegal but we're gonna see how all this plays out"

it can't be a live ball b/c then any team could just have their punter drop the ball and pooch it and try to recover downfield

the ruling of that kick is like schrodinger's cat, "we don't know what it i until it's received"
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom