TC in St. Louis Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 The ball was on the field, and the guy was out of bounds and grabbed the ball, which never went out of bounds. So why should that penalty be on the kicking team? Doesn't the ball actually have to GO out of bounds to be a penalty? That put them at the 40 to start the drive, instead of at the 12 where he committed the infraction, apparently on our behalf. Can anybody explain that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 The ball was on the field, and the guy was out of bounds and grabbed the ball, which never went out of bounds. So why should that penalty be on the kicking team? Doesn't the ball actually have to GO out of bounds to be a penalty? That put them at the 40 to start the drive, instead of at the 12 where he committed the infraction, apparently on our behalf. Can anybody explain that one? It's just a horrendous rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's just a horrendous rule. Precisely. It is one of those, WTF rules, and has been, for a while. How do these rules stay on the books for more than the rest of the season, once they are exposed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's an idiotic rule, assuming it was called correctly. You can't go out of bounds and be the first player to touch the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 It's an idiotic rule, assuming it was called correctly. You can't go out of bounds and be the first player to touch the ball. You can't go OOB, AND COME BACK IN, and be the first to touch the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 The ball was on the field, and the guy was out of bounds and grabbed the ball, which never went out of bounds. So why should that penalty be on the kicking team? Doesn't the ball actually have to GO out of bounds to be a penalty? That put them at the 40 to start the drive, instead of at the 12 where he committed the infraction, apparently on our behalf. Can anybody explain that one? yeah it ranks up there with the tuck rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I think the root of it is the same as when, years and years ago, the Patriots fumbled the ball against us, the player fell out of bounds unconscious, but they maintained possession because a player out of bounds is treated as being part of the out of bounds line. There isn't any allowance in there for the out of bounds player initiating contact with the ball, so when the ball touched him, it was out of bounds. I agree, it's dumb, but it is consistent with the rule as I've seen it called in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebug Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Dumb rule, I can't wait for Periera to explain this rule. Any other play it is an illegal touch by the player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 I think the root of it is the same as when, years and years ago, the Patriots fumbled the ball against us, the player fell out of bounds unconscious, but they maintained possession because a player out of bounds is treated as being part of the out of bounds line. There isn't any allowance in there for the out of bounds player initiating contact with the ball, so when the ball touched him, it was out of bounds. I agree, it's dumb, but it is consistent with the rule as I've seen it called in the past. Funny that play you mention came up today in conversation regarding this asinine event. Nate Clements knocked a Patriot out cold, and he was lying half out of bounds with the ball touching his leg. and the pats maintained possession of the ball. Absurd. One might think common sense would prevail. Today it looked like the Jet player intentionally had his foot out of bounds when he grabbed the ball...like he knew the rule and took care of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 The way I understand it is if a player is out of bounds and he touches the ball it is deemed to be out of bounds (regardless of the fact that the ball is 4-5' inbounds and the player has to strain to keep his foot OOB while reaching for the ball. Yeah, I'm sure that's within the spirit of the written rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 a player who is partially out of bounds becomes part of the field as "out of bounds". if you have one foot out and catch the bal, you are out of bounds, therefore the ball is out of bounds on a kick off, thats a penalty tasker was a genius when he thought to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC in St. Louis Posted November 3, 2008 Author Share Posted November 3, 2008 a player who is partially out of bounds becomes part of the field as "out of bounds". if you have one foot out and catch the bal, you are out of bounds, therefore the ball is out of bounds on a kick off, thats a penalty tasker was a genius when he thought to do it. I had never seen that called before. I don't remember Tasker doing that. But it it's true, then well, I still think it's a dumb rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliteqb Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 The replay clearly shows the guy putting his foot out of bounds and then straining to catch the ball. He looked like a first baseman stretching for a throw. He surely knew the rule and was congratulated on the sidelines. Good for him to use the rule to his team's advantage but still a terrible rule........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 repost: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=75632 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 You can't go OOB, AND COME BACK IN, and be the first to touch the ball. Thanks for the clarification - I was having trouble figuring out how it wsn't an illegal touch, but what you say makes sense (in as much as a terrible rule can make sense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Funny that play you mention came up today in conversation regarding this asinine event. Nate Clements knocked a Patriot out cold, and he was lying half out of bounds with the ball touching his leg. and the pats maintained possession of the ball. Absurd. One might think common sense would prevail. Today it looked like the Jet player intentionally had his foot out of bounds when he grabbed the ball...like he knew the rule and took care of business. It was Leon Washington and he absolutely knew what he was doing. He stepped out of bounds intentionally and picked up the ball, even though it was a good 4 feet IN BOUNDS. The rule is asinine because the ball itself never went out of bounds. If you look at the rules of a player being down on a regular play, the line of scrimmage is where the ball is when the player is deemed down (knee touches, elbow touches, etc). Why don't the rules for these particular plays use the ball's location??? Regarding the Patriots* play...the receiver (Deion Branch, maybe?) actually LOST POSSESSION of the ball after Nate Clements cold-cocked him. What bugs me about that play is that the Bills would have hung on to the lead and likely won that game, resulting in the divisional playoff game being in Oakland, not NE*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 resulting in the divisional playoff game being in Oakland, not NE*. Resulting in the "tuck rule" debacle to have never occurred, and possibly the Tom Brady legacy to never take off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonInBuffalo Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Washington definitely did it on purpose. I've also seen other players do the same thing in the past. I don't understand why this hasn't been addressed by the rules committee already. One of the most basic rules in football (or pretty much any sport for that matter) is you have to be entirely in the field of play to make a legal play on the ball. All they would need to do is add a rule for kickoffs that makes it "illegal touching" for a player who is out of bounds to touch a ball in play. There wouldn't need to be penalty yardage associated with it; they could just spot the ball where it's touched. This hypothetical new rule wouldn't be the first penalty with no yardage associated with it. Technically, it's a penalty for the kicking team to touch a ball that has been punted before the other team touches it. They never bother to throw a flag because there's no yardage associated with the violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills-fan in arizona Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Leon Washington Play… Can anyone find the rulebook explaining the situation? I cannot understand how this is NOT illegal touching, and cannot find anything online. The only thing I can find is an NCAA rule states a similar situation, but it says that the player must be airborne and subsequently land out of bounds with the ball in his possession. This rule although obscure does actually make sense. Leon clearly was out of bounds first and then touched the ball. If he made simultaneous possession with the ball and touching out of bounce, or if he caught the ball in the air and landed out of bounds I would agree with the call. If someone can find this rule --- please post. Not sure it would have made a difference on the outcome, but it has been annoying me because (1) I think the call was incorrect (2) If it was, I am more annoyed with April / Jauron for not knowing the rule or at least questioning the call. IV. Airborne B17 has leaped from inbounds and is the first player to touch Team A’s free kick when he receives the ball. He subsequently lands out of bounds with the ball in his possession. RULING: Foul, free kick out of bounds. Team B has these options: it may accept a five-yard penalty at the previous spot with Team A re-kicking; snap the ball at its 40-yard line at the inbounds spot (assuming the free kick was from the 30-yard line); or snap the ball at the inbounds spot five yards from where the ball crossed the sideline. http://www.ncaapublications.com/Upl...2d26b95e6c1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 I think you'll find an explanation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts