The Blocked Punt

[Elusiv1]

Not to mention that Bridgewater reach for the goaline that was slapped out of his hand and should have been a dead ball.. Also Denver ran a play then they were able to challenge a catch that luckily for us turned out that receiver never had possession so it was ruled incomplete. I mean we had a bad day at the office but this bias towards the Cowboys from the Zebras has gotten worse for the Boys for the last 40 plus years I've been watching them.

 

[Canada180]

The big difference between what happened on the block punt yesterday is that the punt was blocked and then touched by a receiving teams player making the ball live for the Broncos or cowboys. But when the punt only travels to the line of players in punt formation there are soo many players in that area already . As opposed to a lone punt receiver touching or fumbling the ball at the end distance of the said punt.
I think the rule needs to be tweaked.

 

[xwalker]

I heard a lot of confusion (and crying) about the blocked punt that somehow turned into a first down for the Broncos.

The refs made the right call.

Think of the blocked punt no different than a muffed kick. In fact, if it makes it easier to understand imagine if the Cowboys player only got a piece of the ball and the punt still traveled 25-30 yards down the field and then Cedric Wilson or Lamb tried to return it but bobbled the ball and the Broncos recovered. That's first down Denver.

There's no conspiracy.

The fact the Broncos recovered it behind the 1st down marker has ZERO relevance to the play.

I don't have problem with the rule per se; although it is a bit odd.

The 25 to 30 yard partially blocked punt that is then muffed is technically different than the ball never traveling past the 1st down marker.
- The rule could be different between the 2 scenarios.
- The rule isn't different, but it could be because the 2 scenarios are not identical.

 

[Diehardblues]

I heard a lot of confusion (and crying) about the blocked punt that somehow turned into a first down for the Broncos.

The refs made the right call.

Think of the blocked punt no different than a muffed kick. In fact, if it makes it easier to understand imagine if the Cowboys player only got a piece of the ball and the punt still traveled 25-30 yards down the field and then Cedric Wilson or Lamb tried to return it but bobbled the ball and the Broncos recovered. That's first down Denver.

There's no conspiracy.

The fact the Broncos recovered it behind the 1st down marker has ZERO relevance to the play.

Of course there was confusion initially. Many of us had never seen that scenario before .

 

[Diehardblues]

The fact that you don't have to get a 1st down needs to be adjusted. What if someone blocks the punt, and it hits off of someone's leg? Now all of a sudden it's an automatic first down for the punting team?

I'm not sure what the football move the rule is protecting in that instance.

Yea , I’m not sure either but the key it was touched at or beyond the LOS. I’ve never seen that before . Not sure what it’s protecting .

 

[Streifenkarl]

I don't understand why anyone thinks the rule is bad.

It was a punt. We muffed the punt. They recovered it. We've all seen it happen a million times. The only thing different is that it was blocked initially, but the rule is the same. You're all acting like there's some weird rule for these circumstances, but it's the standard punting rules.

Why is it so hard to understand, that most people here agree that this is the rule and the refs called it correctly but it should be also the rule, that the punting team should have to cross the 1st down marker in any case?

It doesn't matter that this was like any other punt. They should add something like "if the punting team recovers the ball before their own first down marker, via fumble or not, it has to pass the marker in order to keep the ball.

The "blocking team" should be rewarded in any case. Only a "regular" punt (as in the ball got punted away without being blocked) should benefit them, if the receiving team fumbles the ball.

 

[MyFairLady]

When your players don't know the rules and can not secure the ball properly these things happen.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

I know, but I'm saying it should be relevant, since the object up until that point is to gain a first down by crossing that line, and getting one without crossing that line shouldn't be possible...again, unless the receiving team gains and then loses possession.

This is exactly it. Plenty of people have accurately described the rule as is. That's not the point. The refs did not screw this one up. They got the rule right, but many of us are saying this is just a bad rule. It used to also be illegal for an offensive player to catch a ball that had been tipped by the defense. This was the Oakland Raiders' gripe about the so-called "Immaculate Reception" TD catch by the Steelers' Franco Harris. That ball may very well have been touched by a Raiders player before Harris caught it, which would have made any Steelers player ineligible to catch it, and thus the TD should have been called back. They later changed that rule because it just made more sense to allow any player on the offense or defense to catch a tipped ball.

It just seems logical to still hold a punting team responsible for getting past that first down marker if it's blocked and they recover. The unjust result of that not being the rule is what we saw today. The Cowboys made a great play, the Broncos made a boneheaded play, but the Broncos benefited from it. That doesn't make sense. The league changed a rule some years back because the didn't want teams to win via fumbling. In a game between the Raiders and Chargers, the Raiders were behind, needing a TD to win. Rather than take a sack on 4th down and lose the game, Stabler deliberately fumbled the ball forward. A Raiders player tried to pick it up, but fumbled it forward into the endzone and fell on it for the winning TD. The league decided it didn't want victories caused by creative fumbling and thus banned that practice via the Holy Roller rule.

The point is, if a rule doesn't make sense, the league can change it. I'm not saying the refs should have changed the rule on the field. They were right to rule the way that they did. I'm saying it makes sense to change the rule.

 

[Runwildboys]

This is exactly it. Plenty of people have accurately described the rule as is. That's not the point. The refs did not screw this one up. They got the rule right, but many of us are saying this is just a bad rule. It used to also be illegal for an offensive player to catch a ball that had been tipped by the defense. This was the Oakland Raiders' gripe about the so-called "Immaculate Reception" TD catch by the Steelers' Franco Harris. That ball may very well have been touched by a Raiders player before Harris caught it, which would have made any Steelers player ineligible to catch it, and thus the TD should have been called back. They later changed that rule because it just made more sense to allow any player on the offense or defense to catch a tipped ball.

It just seems logical to still hold a punting team responsible for getting past that first down marker if it's blocked and they recover. The unjust result of that not being the rule is what we saw today. The Cowboys made a great play, the Broncos made a boneheaded play, but the Broncos benefited from it. That doesn't make sense. The league changed a rule some years back because the didn't want teams to win via fumbling. In a game between the Raiders and Chargers, the Raiders were behind, needing a TD to win. Rather than take a sack on 4th down and lose the game, Stabler deliberately fumbled the ball forward. A Raiders player tried to pick it up, but fumbled it forward and fell on it for the winning TD. The league decided it didn't want victories caused by creative fumbling and thus banned that practice via the Holy Roller rule.

The point is, if a rule doesn't make sense, the league can change it. I'm not saying the refs should have changed the rule on the field. They were right to rule the way that they did. I'm saying it makes sense to change the rule.

My thinking exactly...which kinda scares me!

 

[Chuck 54]

Not a bad rule at all.
When a punted ball, blocked or not, stays behind the line of scrimmage, either team can recover and the kicking team could run it past the first down marker for a first down,

When a punted ball, blocked or not, goes beyond the line of scrimmage, it belongs to the receiving team (unless they screw it up), and the kicking team can only down the ball. Unless that blocked punt beyond the LOS is dropping right into your arms with no one around, you should get away from it. #25, Nashon Wright, reached out and touched it beyond the LOS, which now made it a live ball for either team, like a fumble.

For reference, this blocked punt, touched by Wright past the LOS, is exactly the same as the famous Thanksgiving Leon Lett mistake after a blocked FG in the snow.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I don't have problem with the rule per se; although it is a bit odd.

The 25 to 30 yard partially blocked punt that is then muffed is technically different than the ball never traveling past the 1st down marker.
- The rule could be different between the 2 scenarios.
- The rule isn't different, but it could be because the 2 scenarios are not identical.

The first down marker is irrelevant. The determinative factor is the ball traveling past the LOS.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

This is exactly it. Plenty of people have accurately described the rule as is. That's not the point. The refs did not screw this one up. They got the rule right, but many of us are saying this is just a bad rule. It used to also be illegal for an offensive player to catch a ball that had been tipped by the defense. This was the Oakland Raiders' gripe about the so-called "Immaculate Reception" TD catch by the Steelers' Franco Harris. That ball may very well have been touched by a Raiders player before Harris caught it, which would have made any Steelers player ineligible to catch it, and thus the TD should have been called back. They later changed that rule because it just made more sense to allow any player on the offense or defense to catch a tipped ball.

It just seems logical to still hold a punting team responsible for getting past that first down marker if it's blocked and they recover. The unjust result of that not being the rule is what we saw today. The Cowboys made a great play, the Broncos made a boneheaded play, but the Broncos benefited from it. That doesn't make sense. The league changed a rule some years back because the didn't want teams to win via fumbling. In a game between the Raiders and Chargers, the Raiders were behind, needing a TD to win. Rather than take a sack on 4th down and lose the game, Stabler deliberately fumbled the ball forward. A Raiders player tried to pick it up, but fumbled it forward into the endzone and fell on it for the winning TD. The league decided it didn't want victories caused by creative fumbling and thus banned that practice via the Holy Roller rule.

The point is, if a rule doesn't make sense, the league can change it. I'm not saying the refs should have changed the rule on the field. They were right to rule the way that they did. I'm saying it makes sense to change the rule.

It’s not a bad rule because you’re describing it inaccurately.

1. The ball was blocked
2. The ball went past the LOS
3. The receiving team failed to secure the ball past the LOS when trying to field it
4. The punting team recovered

If I described that same play to you rand told you it happened 30 yards down the field you wouldn’t think twice about because that’s what you’ve likely seen before in watching all your years of football.

The play that happened yesterday is literally line-for-line the same thing only it happened closer to the LOS.

The first down marker has ZERO to do with it.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Not a bad rule at all.
When a punted ball, blocked or not, stays behind the line of scrimmage, either team can recover and the kicking team could run it past the first down marker for a first down,

When a punted ball, blocked or not, goes beyond the line of scrimmage, it belongs to the receiving team (unless they screw it up), and the kicking team can only down the ball. Unless that blocked punt beyond the LOS is dropping right into your arms with no one around, you should get away from it. #25, Nashon Wright, reached out and touched it beyond the LOS, which now made it a live ball for either team, like a fumble.

For reference, this blocked punt, touched by Wright past the LOS, is exactly the same as the famous Thanksgiving Leon Lett mistake after a blocked FG in the snow.

People don’t understand the act of punting is an automatic change of possession. That’s the problem. They think a punt is just another offensive play (ergo: “they should get it past the first down marker!”).

 

[GMO415]

That's the least of the Cowboys worries.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Not a bad rule at all..

Actually I think it is because it rewards a team that did everything wrong. They did not gain first down yardage then allowed their punt to be blocked, then were rewarded with a first down. That's not a good rule regardless.

It's viewed as a muff but really that should only apply to the downfield punt returner in my opinion. This is very different than a muff because it was a block. On a block or tip that goes beyond the line of scrimmage the ball should automatically be downed and receiving teams ball at the point of contact with any player, Seems more fair than rewarding a team that made a mistake.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

My question without going back and looking at it, if it's like a muffed punt (which it is) you can't return it past the spot of the muff. Was the ball spotted where Wright touched it at about the 18, or where the Denver player finished running with it at the 27. Seemed like the latter without going back and looking at it.

 

[OmerV]

I heard a lot of confusion (and crying) about the blocked punt that somehow turned into a first down for the Broncos.

The refs made the right call.

Think of the blocked punt no different than a muffed kick. In fact, if it makes it easier to understand imagine if the Cowboys player only got a piece of the ball and the punt still traveled 25-30 yards down the field and then Cedric Wilson or Lamb tried to return it but bobbled the ball and the Broncos recovered. That's first down Denver.

There's no conspiracy.

The fact the Broncos recovered it behind the 1st down marker has ZERO relevance to the play.

It was the right call under the rules, but it's a stupid rule.

Cowboys never got possession of the ball, so it should have all still been part of the same 4th down play, and since they did not get 1st down yardage the ball should have turned over on downs. This rule punishes the team that made the positive play and rewards the team that made the negative play.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

NFL Rulebook:

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It was the right call under the rules, but it's a stupid rule.

Cowboys never got possession of the ball, so it should have all still been part of the same 4th down play, and since they did not get 1st down yardage the ball should have turned over on downs. This rule punishes the team that made the positive play and rewards the team that made the negative play.

It’s an automatic change of possession the second a ball is punted. It went past the LOS and was touched by a Cowboys that failed to secure it. It’s no different than if Cedric Wilson muffed it trying to field it 40 yards down the field.

 

[sunalsorises]

It was the right call under the rules, but it's a stupid rule.

Cowboys never got possession of the ball, so it should have all still been part of the same 4th down play, and since they did not get 1st down yardage the ball should have turned over on downs. This rule punishes the team that made the positive play and rewards the team that made the negative play.

The negative play was touching a live ball. The positive play was not giving up on it in case the other team made a bone headed play. I admit that it seems a bit counterintuitive to block a punt and not get the ball but it is the rule and should have been practiced along with the punt block scheme that ended up blocking the punt.