|
fuckpot posted:Yep and an illegal one. He'd get a few weeks ban if he did that here. As a ball-carrier? I wouldn't expect to see a ball-carrier penalised for leading a shoulder into contact.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
I mean, I know a thing or two about rugby league and I'd be prepared to write it off as just a quirk of the NRL's judiciary versus the RFL, but e.g. this NRL statement presents the shoulder charge solely as something that's done to a ballcarrier by a tackler.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
That is an excellently early leak of this year's NFL book. Usually you have to wait months until someone takes pity.
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Oh thank God they've finally joined the 21st century. Yeah, that's a new innovation; until very recently they used to sit on electronic versions of their rulebook and not make it easily availabe to the public.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Blotto Skorzany posted:Did a rules/officiating thread get posted this year? I don't see it in the first few pages I don't really have time to do a proper one this year, I guess we can do questions in here though. quote:Ok it's 4th and 10. A pass is thrown and caught short of the first down marker. The receiver fumbles, then defense picks it up and runs it a little, then fumbles, the original offense recovers. It's short of the first down. So is it a first down or does the offense turn it over on downs? Let's just tweak this a bit, because there's two rules we can use this play to illustrate. We'll have the fumble occur two yards behind the line to gain, the ball then rolls forward three yards. If it's recovered by Team B then there's this concept called continuity of downs that comes into play; a series of four downs is over and the line to gain disappears when the continuity of downs is broken. Once that happens, the next down will always be 1st and 10 (unless the previous play ended in a score) no matter who's in possession or where it is. This is why it's always 1st and 10 when a scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone, Team B touches it, and Team A then recovers; the continuity of downs is broken when the kick crosses the neutral zone. A change of possession also breaks the continuity of downs, so that's why the result of your play is 1st and 10. There is however another rule that's potentially relevant here, which is the fourth down fumble rule (see here for why this is a thing). On fourth down, and before any change of possession, the only Team A player who can recover and advance a fumble is the fumbling player. If any other teammate recovers the ball, it's dead immediately, and if the ball is in advance of the spot of the fumble it returns to the spot of the fumble. This cuts out all the "did someone just try to pull a fast one?" knots that the Holy Roller crew got tied in, and makes it very difficult to benefit from deliberately fumbling. So, if a teammate recovers that fumble, it's going to be brought back to the spot of the fumble and turned over on downs. (The NFL takes the rule further, and applies it to any fumble at any time inside the last two minutes of a half, which is probably sensible; the NCAA used to have a huge stick in its butt about not adopting rules that change depending on what time is on the clock but they're over that now, so expect it to change in college right after someone pulls a fast one on a desperation play on 2nd down with 30 seconds left.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
After the two-minute warning.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2015 12:24
|
|
|
Blotto Skorzany posted:Does DPI on a two-point conversion attempt work any differently than regular DPI? It does, very slightly, if you're playing NCAA rules! (This is not what you asked. No, there is nothing that actually matters. Feel free to skip the rest of this.) DPI enforcement is really weird in NCAA because it's a whole heap of conditionals; you don't just put the ball at the spot of the foul like you do in the NFL, but it's not a simple 15-yard penalty either. The way I teach people to remember it is that you get the ball, go to the previous spot, start walking, and stop whenever you reach 1). the spot of the foul, or 2). Team B's 2-yard line, or 3). 15 yards from the previous spot, and then you set up a new first down. This works much better than saying "OK, so it's a spot foul out to a maximum of 15 yards from the previous spot, and there's no half-distance rule, except you can't get closer than B's 2-yard line, and if you have DPI in the end zone then you're putting the ball on the 2-yard line unless it's more than 15 yards downfield or you snapped from B's 2..." and watching people decide that actually going to the garden centre for some compost on Sunday afternoon isn't such a bad idea after all. Er, so the one thing that changes on a try down is that NCAA for some reason snaps the ball from B's 3 instead of B's 2 (or, if you prefer, "for some reason, the NFL snaps the ball from B's 2 instead of B's 3"); and on try downs only there is an exception to allow DPI to take the ball to B's 1.5 instead of B's 2.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
For me that's squarely in unfair acts territory and at the very least the clock is going to be reset and the ball is going a looooong way downfield (how far likely depends on the exact score and time remaining). Sure, the crew might puss out and just go with five yards and an auto first, but equally they might jump straight to the second half of "The Referee may enforce any penalty he deems equitable, including awarding a score." Even if they bottle it, the replay official might buzz in and tell them "I've got the Commissioner on the other end of this phone and he's saying that that was bullshit..." Would you rather chance that, or back your defense to do their jobs and defend two passes?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
quote:A defenseless player is one who because of his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless players are: I've added a few carriage returns to clean that sentence up a little. "Attempting to catch a forward pass" includes someone who is e.g. running towards where the ball will drop and looking for it. An airbone receiver who goes to ground while trying to catch a pass remains defenseless until he gets up afterwards. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
A quarterback is considered defenseless at any time after a change of possession, as is a kicker during the kick and any return. The rule is there to make it easier for guys with no backbone to eject players who go "awesome, an interception, I'm gonna go take a cheap shot on the QB now"; but if the QB (or kicker) goes full-speed towards the ballcarrier and is then hit by an opponent above the shoulders or using the opponent's helmet, that's a targeting foul. Block that QB shoulder to chest, that's okay because the QB has involved himself in the play.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:Since there's no rules thread: Does anybody have any idea why the official might have put it back in his pants on this fair catch? I wasn't actually watching the game, I only saw that gif, so I don't have any more context. If this is a potential late hit out of bounds, this is a great change of mind; the defender realises at the last moment that he's come in late and does everything possible to mitigate the contact that he's already made (which isn't that hard to begin with), he holds the runner up off the ground, he's not hopping up and down about "I hit you, I hit you", he does everything right, sure, that's not worth 15 yards. Unfortunately this is not a potential late hit out of bounds, this is a fair catch; you do not touch players who have made a fair catch signal, there is forcible contact, this is a foul. The only thing I can possibly think of is that might make this a reasonable thing to do is if there were a seriously late whistle that fooled the gunner into thinking "I gotta hit him in case they're going to let this play run" (which has been known to happen), he eases up as soon as he hears the whistle, and the B was then thinking "no, I created that situation with the late whistle, I'm not going to charge him 15 yards for my gently caress-up". If we can get a video with sound, that'd settle it; but this is also me scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard for an explanation that isn't "Dude, way to blow your playoff chances this year".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
CanUSayGym posted:At the end of the video posted there is an angle that clearly shows that Ertz has his hands around the ball underneath Collins when they come to the ground, however as the play continues Collins comes off the ground with the ball. My question through this is why? Hmmm. You're right, this is a far more interesting play than it appeared at first look. The killer angle to watch here is the one beginning at 30 seconds (I nearly didn't bother going that long, because at first look it seems like an interception most of the way, which the defender nearly blows at the end but then gets the ball back.) We can quite clearly see from this angle (and from this angle only) that the first player to gain control of the ball is A86 (Ertz), which he does by clamping the ball against B21's (Collins) helmet.  Although B21 subsequently puts his own hands on the ball, this no longer matters.  A86 has established control first. If this control continues all the way through the ground, he's going to get the catch. To deny it to him, B21 has to somehow cause him to lose control.  They hit the ground and bounce; A86 loses one of his hands but appears to maintain control with the other as B21 really begins working on the football, and then the broadcaster annoyingly cuts away from that killer angle before the critical moment. What then happens (but not clearly enough for further screencaps from other angles to be of any use) is that right as their momentum ends (and you're splitting hairs to be able to tell whether it's just before or just after), B21 rips the ball away, regathers it before it hits the ground, and is awarded the catch. So there's your answer; A86 did not complete the process of the catch to the covering official's satisfaction before he had the ball taken off him. In a situation like this, what I would be looking for to award A86 possession (and assuming that I'd correctly identified that he got control of the ball first and then maintained it, which is by no means a certainty; this would be seriously difficult to process everything first time) is for both players' momentum to stop and then to count off "1 mississippi" or "show me the ball" with A86 still in control. If the ball's taken off him before I can count that beat, as appears to have happened, then I've got to err on the side of letting it run, even though he clearly deserves the catch on style points. TL;DR This is an extremely difficult call to process properly at full speed and the covering official may well just plain not have seen that A86 got control first and been thinking "this is an interception" through the process, but even if he did he's still probably going to arrive at an interception. Also: I would not expect replay to overturn this, and I would not have been surprised if replay had overturned it from touchdown to interception; at the same time I also wouldn't have been surprised if replay had said the ruling stands for insufficient evidence to overturn, regardless of what the ruling on the field actually was. (I would be surprised if it was overturned from interception to touchdown.) Sometimes, regardless of how you decide when a catch has been completed, you get edge cases where it's simply impossible to say "yes, this is clearly X", and this is one of them. It's a very, very interesting play!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
The NCAA rule has better language to make it clearer what the rule's for:quote:No player shall use words or signals that disconcert opponents when they are preparing to put the ball in play. No player may call defensive signals that simulate the sound or cadence of (or otherwise interfere with) offensive starting signals. The equivalent NFL rule only has that first sentence. Fun fact: the NFL book says disconcerting signals is unsportsmanlike conduct, but the NCAA book has it as delay of game.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
I would just like to reassure all 1st downies that this is not an approved supplementary signal https://instagram.com/p/-b7R9Tq-27/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I have my own rules question for Trin: The stumbling receiver is still an edge case that doesn't have any specific guidance.. It's the sort of thing that happens rarely enough that it takes a while for anyone to realise that it's even a situation that needs addressing, so there's a gap in philosophy that could use filling. Here's two plays I've seen from recent games: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14186770 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rikn30H9osI Both of these plays were ruled touchdowns and my first reaction for both of them was "incomplete pass". After looking at the first one about twenty-six times I'm now happy with a catch, as it seems the receiver controlled the ball and took two good steps before the defender who was hanging all over him started taking him down; for me the second one (which is from a Texas high school game) is an incomplete pass but I can understand why the F has gone for a touchdown, even though I think he's wrong and I'm not surprised that his mates had a drat good go at talking him off it. (That play is also an excellent example of how selling a call is just as important as getting it right - none of the players argue, and on replay the commentators are looking for reasons why the call was right when they analyse it, even though they're clearly not entirely convinced.) The other thing that might interest you here is two competing philosophies* for what you should do when you're not sure on this kind of play. Until very recently the mantra coming from supervisors was "no cheap fumbles" and "no cheap scores"; when in question, make it an incomplete pass. On the other hand, these two things clash with another philosophy that's come out of the NFL and Div 1-A recently, which is that when in question you should make certain calls in a way that allows replay to fix the error - and in cases like these, that usually means ruling the play a catch so that any subsequent action can play out, and then replay can intervene to help out if it needs to. *A philosophy is something that isn't a rule, but which officials still use to help them make a call. For instance, there are many instances during a game where holding could be called, but there's a whole buttload of philosophy to tell us which holds are actually worth calling (very few) and which holds aren't (very many).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The first looks like he gains possession on his feet You'd think that, and yet they've started a whole load of discussion with people violently disagreeing with each other about what a catch is in closed forums. When are we going to get you out on a field somewhere, by the way? I've never yet known someone who asks the kind of questions you ask and didn't turn out to be good at calling games.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Here, have the 2013 TASO mechanics manual (they do some things differently to others, but there's more similarities than differences): http://www.spczebras.org/football/images/2013TASOFB5ManMechanics.pdf I'd download a local copy, it might disappear if someone discovers a lot of traffic going to it that they weren't expecting. This is for a crew of 5 calling the 2013 NCAA rulebook in Texas high school games. Yes, the formatting is a bit pony. Contains such gems as: quote:NOTE: Be prepared to give complete and through instructions to assistants if a different line to gain device is to be used in the game Which now makes me want to go find out which Texas AD with a sense of humour insists on still using that vintage Dickerod his pop bought back in 1972. On the question of complexity: I would say that 20% of the rulebook covers 80% of the things that will ever happen in a game of football, and the other 80% is only used 20% of the time. I would also say that in many regards, and once you've actually managed to get your head round that Godawful rulebook, football is actually simpler to officiate because of the crew concept and zones of responsibility. This is not a sport that's controlled by  The Referee and a couple of his mates who occasionally help him out, if he feels like asking for their help; it's controlled by equals who all have their little bit of stuff to look after, and nobody has to worry about all the players at once.
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Miloshe posted:What happens to the tee during kickoffs? Does a ref snatch it up immediately after the kick or does it sit on the field during the return? If the latter, has anyone ever tripped on it or other weird poo poo? Some teams have their kicker throw it at the sideline. Most just leave it there until the end of the down. (Any good mechanics manual gives an official the responsibility for checking that they have in fact taken it away.) I've never yet known anyone to come to grief on it, but it's definitely a "never say never" thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
You're into unfair acts territory there. I might be inclined to rule that the appropriate penalty is for the tee to be inserted into the kicker.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, that's happened twice, previously in 1918 with Navy. It was only a 15 yard penalty in the rule books at the time, but the ref just awarded whomever they were playing a touchdown, then at some point before the 1950's the rule as we know it came about. I believe that the rule actually exists because the referee in 1954 said "gently caress you, you cheating fucker, 15 yards is not an adequate penalty, I give no fucks what the rulebook says, I'm awarding a touchdown"*, and the Rules Committee then went "hmm, not a bad idea, that" and passed it in the offseason. *Quote may not be 100% representative of actual events but I guarantee you he was thinking it
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Just found out that back in September, in Georgia, they had a successful  fair catch kick!http://usatodayhss.com/2015/video-watch-ga-football-player-make-rare-63-yard-free-kick-field-goal This is a nearly-obsolete (but not quite) rule from the days when football was much more of a field-position game. In NFL and NFHS rules (but not NCAA, it got removed in the 50s for boring, fun-hating reasons), when a player makes a fair catch, his team then has the option of putting the ball in play by scrimmage or by a free kick - and, unlike a free kick after a score, you can score a field goal with it. The NFL will even let you have an untimed down to take the kick if time expired before the fair catch. This is the edge case in which it remains useful; make a fair catch right at the end of a half, and it may well be a better option to take the kick than trying to run a play from scrimmage. The last successful fair catch kick in the NFL was made in 1976; there's usually an attempt every five years or so. It's impossible to talk about the fair catch kick without posting the canonical example (also from Georgia, a few years back now), so here we go.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mMAnYyf8tc The commentators, of course, have less than no idea what's going on, and there are few things more amusing than a confused hillbilly. You do not want to miss this. "Ah can't tell you what's fixin' to happen here..."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Just so we're clear, the sequence of events is that Team A uses a scrimmage kick to punt, and knowing that Team B might want a fair catch kick, they deliberately punt it out of bounds? In that case, yeah, tough poo poo, Team A is entitled to scrimmage-kick the ball out of bounds if that's what they want to do, and it's a valid tactic; the ball belongs to Team B and they must scrimmage. No different from kicking it out so the dangerous returner can't return it, or from dropping it short of the returner so it bounces before getting to them (by rule you can only catch a ball that has not touched the ground; anything after it touches the ground is a recovery). (In case anyone is interested: the logic behind free kick out of bounds being a foul is that Team B can't attempt to block a free kick like they can a scrimmage kick because they can't get closer than 10 yards to the kicker.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Same as any other play after an administrative stoppage; 25 seconds from the ready-for-play whistle. (In case anyone's wondering, there are reasons for having a whistle rather than another 40-second clock. Among other things: it often takes longer to get another ball because we need to play fun police and make sure the celebrations don't qualify for the rulebook definition of unsportsmanlike conduct; and Team A is allowed to snap the ball from any point on or behind the relevant yard-line between the hashes as long as they tell us before the ball is ready, so using the whistle gives them a bit longer to do that.) Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:In the ARI/GB game, Larry Fitzgerald got a penalty in the second half for (I think) unsportsmanlike conduct when he hit another player. The commentators were saying it had something to do with him moving towards the goal line instead of perpendicular or reversing direction or something like that. Sorry it is so vague, but I had no idea even what they are talking about. Can somebody tell me what the significance was with what direction he was going? This could have been a peel back or it could have been targeting against a blindsided opponent. NFL 12-2-4: quote:ILLEGAL “PEEL BACK” BLOCK. An offensive player cannot initiate contact on the side and below the waist against an opponent if: and 12-2-7: quote:PLAYERS IN A DEFENSELESS POSTURE. It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture. For it to have been a 12-2-7 foul the contact must be to the targeted player's head with any part of the fouling player's body, or with the fouling player's head towards any part of the targeted player's body; in NCAA this would also be an automatic disqualification.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
I wonder how long it'll be before they start having one of those apparently loafing receivers run a jerk route?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
There is no rule to cover the situation. I would strongly consider killing it and doing whatever seemed fair in the circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
The ball is dead if the ball-carrier's helmet comes off, but not if any other player's helmet comes off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
El Seano posted:1. Is there anything to look forward to in the gap between draft and pre-season? How much do you like football? How much do you like really bad football? In Europe we play really bad football through the summer. Some of it will be on TV in Europe, some of it will be officially livestreamed. There's also the CFL, which starts in June because Canadian weather, which is hilarious and wonderful in the original sense of the word. edit: American Football International often has news about upcoming livestreams. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Funny you should mention that, but we do have some data points here. Back in 2007 the Colchester Gladiators played a team of about 18 high school mates who'd just graduated and were touring Europe over the summer, and lost about 28-7. Centre College Kentucky also used to send a team over to play the GB national team once every few years (mostly for the extra kitted practices the NCAA would grant them): the last time they did it was 2010, and they only won 10-9 on a blown coverage, a holding flag, and a botched extra point (the Holy Trinity of Britball).
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Well, but rushing the blind side is still better than rushing the open side because the QB won't see the hit coming. If the best rusher has to move to the open side, that's a win for the offense; he might get through more, but the QB will also avoid a sack more (and when he is hit there will be fewer fumble-forcing sacks) when he does get through.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I'm not even sure we have many football fields in the UK. Im not sure I've ever seen one. I've no idea where any of these amateur teams play. I'm assuming rugby pitches? Some rugby pitches (good clubs sweet-talk their way onto the 1st XV pitch, most get chucked onto the 4th XV's cow-mowed mudheap), some 3G and 4G pitches, some small athletics stadiums. Halton Spartans play in Widnes RLFC's stadium, Manchester Titans play on the field out back of Salford and occasionally get let inside. There's quite a few universities who've started coming up with decent playing facilities once they smelled the chance of easy BUCS points. But I do maintain that nobody in this forum has ever truly experienced what an incredible game football can be until they've watched a bunch of 19-year-old drunks who six weeks ago put on a helmet for the first time, trying to run off tackle left without literally everybody falling over, on a windswept 80-yard field in the middle of nowhere. It has 8-yard end zones, a chain that keeps coming off the stakes, a down box with a giant 45-degree bend in it from where a player fell into it last week and the idiot press-ganged into doing chain crew didn't think to run away, and several lines that wobble and curve gracefully, tracking the progress of the groundsman's hangover. On the plus side, with no TV time-outs and no visible game clock, we usually get a game done in just over two hours, and we do not ever have to hear the words "Endless Shrimp". (As long as we don't have to stop for a minute and explain in words of one syllable what "illegal formation" means.) Benne posted:I'm kinda curious as to what the level of coaching is actually like for an start-up league like the BAFL playing a foreign sport. Do they try to bring in American coaches with at least some semblance of experience coaching American college/high schools? Or is it all amateurs top-to-bottom who learned the game from Madden or whatever? In the 80s there was enough money in the game to import American coaches (or some of them came off the airbases, before the end of the Cold War there were enough bases in Britain for them to all play a season against each other and it was easily Div I-AA standard) and they provided the initial knowledge base. They educated the first generation of British coaches and now education is done by a mix of that first generation, a second generation of people who learned from them, and a yearly coaches' convention/training weekend where they bring over guest speakers. You do run into the occasional twerp who just wants to hold a clipboard and throw his hat about, but they cycle out again relatively quickly after they realise how much effort it takes to, say, run off tackle left without everyone falling over.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Bit of both, but then there are plenty of areas that just don't have a rugby-playing tradition, or if they do it's all bound up in social class issues of one sort or another, and so soccer is the only field sport a lot of people ever consider playing, and the people who would have gone to rugby might get scooped up by football instead. The league is big enough for the top to cater for actual athletes at all positions, and the bottom to cater to fat blokes who line up for every down with their hip girdle halfway down their arse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:What's the best source these days for mediocre Chinese knockoffs? http://caflfootball.com/ oh wait, you probably meant jerseys
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
This is a situation where it's very easy to confuse rules that have nothing to do with each other, or indeed the situation at hand. Let's imagine two different play situations. 1. Free kick from A's 30. Returner B15 attempts to catch the ball but makes a bollocks of it before gaining possession, at B's 5. The loose ball bounces into B's end zone, where B15 picks it up and kneels. 2. 4th and 10 from A's 45; A7 punts, returner B15 attempts to catch the ball but makes a bollocks of it before gaining possession, at B's 5. The loose ball bounces into B's end zone, where B15 picks it up and kneels. In both, the result of the play is a touchback, for exactly the same reason. It does not matter whether it is a punt or a free kick; what matters is that when there is a kick, the kicking team is considered responsible for putting the ball into Team B's end zone unless the receiving team does something to destroy that responsibility and put fresh impetus on the ball. Muffing the ball (the rulebook term for making a bollocks of an attempt to catch or recover the ball while still touching it) does not count as changing the impetus. That's why it's a touchback. There are also rules about who's allowed to touch the ball on kick plays. When there's a free kick, Team A (the team putting the ball in play) can legally touch the ball either if Team B (the team not putting the ball in play) touches it first, or if it travels ten yards. They're allowed to recover the ball, but not advance it; you can't recover and then advance your own kick. (For Team A to advance the ball, Team B needs to first gain possession and then fumble; gaining possession ends the kick.) When there's a scrimmage kick (a punt or a field goal attempt; the rules are the same for both except you can only score on one of them), the only way Team A gets to touch the ball legally is if Team B touches it first. They're allowed to recover the ball, but not advance it; you still can't advance your own kick. (For Team A to advance the ball, Team B needs to first gain possession and then fumble; gaining possession ends the kick.) Does that help any? There's two separate sets of rules here; the rules that govern when Team A can legally touch a kick, and the rules that govern whether it's a touchback or a safety, and neither of them have anything to do with each other. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Dec 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Is it spot of the kick? Not previous line of scrimmage? College still has it at the previous spot, but yeah, the NFL brings it back to the spot of the kick (watch carefully and you'll see the Referee bean bag the yard line where the holder's kneeling before the play goes off). It's seven yards' difference, you're still giving the ball back somewhere on or around the midfield line. edit: if they really wanted to make field goals harder again, the correct solution would surely be to ban place-kicks and watch Doug Flutie get signed to a multi-million dollar contract at age 60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3EaLfpZjaw There's actually quite a few punters and kickers who've practiced doing it as a party trick, it's not like nobody would be able to kick a 30-yard field goal for a generation. Volkerball posted:They could make the end zone deeper too. 
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Punters use K balls. They're a thing to stop people doing incredibly silly things to footballs because supersitition told them it helped, as was detailed in Sports Illustrated when the K balls were first brought in.
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:10
|
|