News: DC: Jerry Jones: Odd To See Rules Reward 'Bad Plays'

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
If you have something to say, say it. I have no idea why you think what I said doesn't make sense. And I'm not the only one that thinks the current rule is faulty

Because you and others continue to think the first down marker has some sorta of relevance on a blocked punt.

It’s one thing to suggest a blocked punt hitting a player on the receiving should be a dead ball, but it’s entirely different to suggest the punting team should make the first down marker on a blocked punt.

A punt is not an offensive play.

It’s a complete misnomer.

Again, it’s like arguing a batter that’s being intentionally walked should be required to swing at pitches.
 

Brax

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,350
Reaction score
6,988
I don't blame him either. It was an instinctive play to try to grab the ball. I don't fault him for that at all. My main reasoning behind wanting the rule to be changed is that it stinks. And always has. Just because it's been that way forever doesn't make it correct. The rule was probably written 60 years ago .. the game is different now.. They change rules all the time to try and improve the product. IMHO changing this one would do just that.
I don't find any fault, just the way the ball bounces sometimes. Me I like the rule because it's fair and too much has been changed already it's destroying the integrity of the game, unfortunately it's only about the $$$$.
 

Brax

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,350
Reaction score
6,988
Teams touch a live ball on fumbles all the time. That doesn't mean if the team that started the play in possession of the ball recovers the fumble they no longer have to reach the first down marker to get the first down.
You are missing the change of possession when punted that the block punt caused.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,861
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Because you and others continue to think the first down marker has some sorta of relevance on a blocked punt.

It’s one thing to suggest a blocked punt hitting a player on the receiving should be a dead ball, but it’s entirely different to suggest the punting team should make the first down marker on a blocked punt.

A punt is not an offensive play.

It’s a complete misnomer.

Again, it’s like arguing a batter that’s being intentionally walked should be required to swing at pitches.
I have repeatedly said I understand that under the current rule the first down marker doesn't have relevance, so your first comment doesn't apply to anything I have said.

In fact, none of this does. All you are doing is telling me how the current rule works. I have never indicated in any way that I don't understand how the current rule works.

I have just said I don't think the way the current rule works is the best way to handle the situation.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,861
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
You are missing the change of possession when punted that the block punt caused.
No, I get that is the way it is under the current rule. I understand how the current rule works. I just don't like that a change of possession is determined by the mere act of the ball being punted. I think change of possession should be determined by the physical act of possessing the ball. Like on a fumble recovery
 
Last edited:

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
Come on man.. knowing the rule doesn't automatically mean you make a play. I just watched the play again and it certainly looks to me like he moves toward the ball with eyes on it. He just didn't secure it.. but the ball bounced at the line of scrimmage and came up on him quick. Ironically he touches it less than a yard from the line of scrimmage. If he had been one step quicker it would have hit him behind the line of scrimmage.. I wonder what the rule is then?
I believe the rule is dependent on crossing the LOS to open up possibility for change of possession if touched.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
No, I get that is the way it is under the current rule. I understand how the current rule works. I just don't like that a change of possession is determined by the mere act of the ball being punted. I think change of possession should be determine by the physical act of possessing the ball. Like on a fumble recovery
And I think it is unless of course it crosses the LOS. Strange rule no doubt. It has something to do with advancing the ball once it’s crossed the LOS. I still haven’t seen the absolute clarity or reasoning behind the rule.

Only other time I recall it coming up was Leon Lett fumble recovery of a kick on our snowy Thanksgiving game against Miami in what 93.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
I have repeatedly said I understand that under the current rule the first down marker doesn't have relevance, so your first comment doesn't apply to anything I have said.

In fact, none of this does. All you are doing is telling me how the current rule works. I have never indicated in any way that I don't understand how the current rule works.

I have just said I don't think the way the current rule works is the best way to handle the situation.

Lol, maybe that’s because you continue to say you understand the rule and then immediately argue that the punting team should be required to get past the first down marker if they recover a muffed punt.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
And I think it is unless of course it crosses the LOS. Strange rule no doubt. It has something to do with advancing the ball once it’s crossed the LOS. I still haven’t seen the absolute clarity or reasoning behind the rule.

Only other time I recall it coming up was Leon Lett fumble recovery of a kick on our snowy Thanksgiving game against Miami in what 93.

I think it’s because when you go through the act of punting the ball, it must pass the LOS to be considered a change of possession. And that is the case whether a punt travels 5 yards or 50 yards past the LOS.

The former ref they had on the broadcast seemed to insinuate that if the punt was blocked and recovered behind the LOS, they (punting team) can advance it but must make it past the first down marker to maintain possession (presuming the punt happened on 4th down).
 

Brax

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,350
Reaction score
6,988
No, I get that is the way it is under the current rule. I understand how the current rule works. I just don't like that a change of possession is determined by the mere act of the ball being punted. I think change of possession should be determined by the physical act of possessing the ball. Like on a fumble recovery
I look at like a muffed punt just not that far.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
No, I get that is the way it is under the current rule. I understand how the current rule works. I just don't like that a change of possession is determined by the mere act of the ball being punted. I think change of possession should be determined by the physical act of possessing the ball. Like on a fumble recovery

So, you’ve had an issue all these years with the ball being punted and the defense downing the ball without the receiving team even touching the ball?

So what happens when a punt is kicked out of bounds like it commonly is without being returned. Does the ball remain with the punting team, loool?
 

RonnieT24

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,498
Reaction score
21,564
So, you’ve had an issue all these years with the ball being punted and the defense downing the ball without the receiving team even touching the ball?

So what happens when a punt is kicked out of bounds like it commonly is without being returned. Does the ball remain with the punting team, loool?

I think most people understand the rule as written.. I just think it should be similar to intentional grounding when the ball does not travel beyond the line of scrimmage. In those instances it's a forward pass that the ruling literally depends on how far the ball travels. A punt that does not reach the line to gain should be treated likewise. A team should not be rewarded for being inept at punting the ball. If the guy who recovered it after Wright had run for the first down I would have had no problem with it. But he didn't.. He was like 7-8 yards short.. So failure to block, failure to punt the ball beyond the line of scrimmage AND failure to advance to the first down marker after recovery all equaling first down your ball doesn't sit well with some folks. That's the long and the short of it. Nobody expects it to change and even if it does it will obviously not go back and fix that play in that game. But I have no issue with folks disliking the rule.. I dislike a lot of stupid rules in the NFL.. This is just the latest.
 

Fritsch_the_cat

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,749
Reaction score
4,138
Do you really not grasp that a person can understand how the rule works and believe the rule should be different?

You have a bunch of people feeling superior saying they understand the rule and if someone doesn't agree with them it's because they are dumb and don't understand it.

There have been valid reasons given for the rule to change but the argument that the rule should stay the same seems to be because it's always been that way.

This also is being considered by the same group as a downfield punt when it is a different situation that might should have a different rule.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,861
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
So, you’ve had an issue all these years with the ball being punted and the defense downing the ball without the receiving team even touching the ball?

So what happens when a punt is kicked out of bounds like it commonly is without being returned. Does the ball remain with the punting team, loool?
You aren't talking about a blocked punt. In the situation you mentioned I have no problem with a punt that is completely untouched by the receiving team going over. Being untouched by the receiving team could be considered the point of change of possession. For that matter, if the ball crosses the line of scrimmage without being touched that could be the point of change of possession.

A blocked punt is not untouched. I think the rule would be better and more fair if a blocked punt were treated as a as if the defense had forced a fumble.

If you don't agree, that's up to you.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
Do you really not grasp that a person can understand how the rule works and believe the rule should be different?

Your diverting.

I’ve clearly and continually pointed out that your rationale for a rule change to make the punting team have to get past the first down marker is completely misguided.

Now you can again reference “I understand the rule,” but you would be missing the point again.
 

CalPolyTechnique

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,232
Reaction score
43,941
You aren't talking about a blocked punt. In the situation you mentioned I have no problem with a punt that is completely untouched by the receiving team going over. Being untouched by the receiving team could be considered the point of change of possession. For that matter, if the ball crosses the line of scrimmage without being touched that could be the point of change of possession.

A blocked punt is not untouched. I think the rule would be better and more fair if a blocked punt were treated as a as if the defense had forced a fumble.

If you don't agree, that's up to you.

If a punt is blocked and is behind the LOS it is a live ball. If it’s partially blocked and goes past the LOS that’s a punt.
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
If it was well and truly blocked, it wouldn't have traveled past the line of scrimmage. In this case, he got a hand on it but I wouldn't call it a 'block'.

If it had been us kicking the ball and the same thing had happened, we would have no problem understanding that it was a punt and punt rules apply to any punted ball that goes past the LOS.
Interesting. The stat sheet seems to show a blocked punt.
I guess they need to change it to "not truly blocked" or "a hand on it".

If it situation was reversed I would be happy and say that we got away with one.
Sorry does this not fit your narrative?
 

Tass

Lucky Devil
Messages
2,946
Reaction score
1,635
Interesting. The stat sheet seems to show a blocked punt.
I guess they need to change it to "not truly blocked" or "a hand on it".

If it situation was reversed I would be happy and say that we got away with one.
Sorry does this not fit your narrative?

They can call it a block if they want (I don't know what the strict definition is) I'm just saying to ME, a blocked kick would go backwards, not forwards.

And 'block' or not, if the punted ball goes past the line of scrimmage, punt return rules apply. That's all.
 
Top