The Blocked Punt

[jrumann59]

Theoretically it was the right call but I have seen punts blocked and someone on the receiving team tries picking it up but fumbles and the kicking team falls on it but it always went to the team that blocked it.

did the blocked punt go past the LOS or did it stay behind it? The LOS is key here the ball on a kick has to go beyond the LOS to be a live ball.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Do you want a blocked punt that's touched by the receiving team after the block to not be a live ball?

I want the league to revisit this rule in the off season. My initial thought was that if the punting team recovers it, they could maintain possession IF they advanced past the first down marker. In other words, the punt and its block would not remove their obligation to get a first down. Other poster here suggested that in blocked punt situation, that the ball simply be dead if the punting team touches it. I hadn't thought of that, but that might also work. IMO the league should debate the possibilities in the offseason and make a decision after considering evidence. Since you don't change rules mid-season, the current rule should apply for the rest of this season. It would only change if the league decides to change it.

 

[Haimerej]

We're talking about changing the way the NFL is played here. I'm thinking most don't realize what they're asking for.

I think they're just upset about how the play ended up. This generation can't accept rules they don't like (which, generally speaking, are rules they find themselves on the wrong side of). Throw some embarrassment on top from not knowing the rule and you get a crusade to change it... until it works in their favor again.

 

[Haimerej]

I want the league to revisit this rule in the off season. My initial thought was that if the punting team recovers it, they could maintain possession IF they advanced past the first down marker. In other words, the punt and its block would not remove their obligation to get a first down. Other poster here suggested that in blocked punt situation, that the ball simply be dead if the punting team touches it. I hadn't thought of that, but that might also work. IMO the league should debate the possibilities in the offseason and make a decision after considering evidence. Since you don't change rules mid-season, the current rule should apply for the rest of this season. It would only change if the league decides to change it.

Why does the first down marker matter, though? It's a change of possession. They've already conceded possession by kicking the ball. I mean, they already loosen the touch part by not ruling a block or partial block as the initial touch.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Why does the first down marker matter, though? It's a change of possession. They've already conceded possession by kicking the ball. I mean, they already loosen the touch part by not ruling a block or partial block as the initial touch.

A possession change should count with a successful punt. This was an unsuccessful one, and should therefore be treated like a fake punt. You can keep the ball if you advance past the first down marker. If you don't, you can't. I don't think they should view a successful punt and a blocked punt the same way.

In the end, it won't be for us fans to decide. Since Jerry is now interested in this, the league will probably debate it in the offseason. Of course, that doesn't guarantee a rule change. They may or may not change it. If they do change it, they may or may not consider the first down marker -- or they may just whistle the play dead if the kicking team touches the blocked punt. I don't see that much point in arguing it further here. It's the league that will decide what to do, if anything.

 

[Haimerej]

they may just whistle the play dead if the kicking team touches the blocked punt.

They already do that.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I think they're just upset about how the play ended up. This generation can't accept rules they don't like (which, generally speaking, are rules they find themselves on the wrong side of). Throw some embarrassment on top from not knowing the rule and you get a crusade to change it... until it works in their favor again.

They flat out don’t understand what the actual rules are and what a punt is. They think it’s just another offensive play ran by the offense which is why you keep hearing the incessant reference to the first down marker.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

They already do that.

Blowing it dead and giving possession to the blocking team. I'm sure that's one of the options Jerry is going to ask the league to consider. In any event, we the fans won't be deciding it. It will be the league that will decide how to change the rule, if at all.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

They flat out don’t understand what the actual rules are and what a punt is. They think it’s just another offensive play ran by the offense which is why you keep hearing the incessant reference to the first down marker.

You're not the only fan who understands the rules. There are plenty of intelligent fans here besides yourself. People already know that a blocked punt applies the rules of an unblocked punt. What they're asking for is to regard a blocked punt differently than a successful punt. They're not the same situation. Jerry Jones himself sees them as different. We could just assume that the league already has all its rules down perfectly and that none of the rules should ever change, or the league could consider a change in the offseason. You seem to think no rule should ever be changed. If the league refused to ever consider rule changes, we would still be frustrated when a replay shows a call his been blown, and there's no chance for it to be corrected via the refs viewing a replay. We would still have players slamming into the goalpost getting injured trying to make a touchdown. Helmet-to-helmet hits causing concussions would still be legal. There isn't a single poster here who has been claiming, "This rule is bad; therefore the refs should have changed the rule on the fly and ruled differently." Everyone who doesn't like this rule has been asking the league to look at it in the offseason to consider a change. Your view seems to be that the league should never even consider change. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are you okay with the league examining in the offseason the current rules governing blocked punts and considering changes? Yes or no.

 

[kskboys]

A possession change should count with a successful punt. This was an unsuccessful one, and should therefore be treated like a fake punt. You can keep the ball if you advance past the first down marker. If you don't, you can't. I don't think they should view a successful punt and a blocked punt the same way.

In the end, it won't be for us fans to decide. Since Jerry is now interested in this, the league will probably debate it in the offseason. Of course, that doesn't guarantee a rule change. They may or may not change it. If they do change it, they may or may not consider the first down marker -- or they may just whistle the play dead if the kicking team touches the blocked punt. I don't see that much point in arguing it further here. It's the league that will decide what to do, if anything.

Then if a player barely tips the punt, it's a free ball 50 yards downfield.

You're saying we should change a major rule.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You're not the only fan who understands the rules. There are plenty of intelligent fans here besides yourself. People already know that a blocked punt applies the rules of an unblocked punt. What they're asking for is to regard a blocked punt differently than a successful punt. They're not the same situation. Jerry Jones himself sees them as different. We could just assume that the league already has all its rules down perfectly and that none of the rules should ever change, or the league could consider a change in the offseason. You seem to think no rule should ever be changed. If the league refused to ever consider rule changes, we would still be frustrated when a replay shows a call his been blown, and there's no chance for it to be corrected via the refs viewing a replay. We would still have players slamming into the goalpost getting injured trying to make a touchdown. Helmet-to-helmet hits causing concussions would still be legal. There isn't a single poster here who has been claiming, "This rule is bad; therefore the refs should have changed the rule on the fly and ruled differently." Everyone who doesn't like this rule has been asking the league to look at it in the offseason to consider a change. Your view seems to be that the league should never even consider change. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are you okay with the league examining in the offseason the current rules governing blocked punts and considering changes? Yes or no.

My contention is not about changing the rule (or any rule), rather it’s the underlying rationale behind it.

The continued reference voiced throughout this thread regarding how “they (the punting team) should have to get it past the first down marker” is nonsensical.

Again, it’s no different arguing a batter that is intentionally walked shouldn’t be allowed to score because he “shouldn’t be rewarded for not getting on base via a hit.”

You would be changing the basic mundane rules of punting that have been in place as long as I can remember and have worked perfectly fine.

The mantra about “the team that got their punt blocked shouldn’t be rewarded” is misplaced. The play was already a negative for them because you lose field position with a blocked punt.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Then if a player barely tips the punt, it's a free ball 50 yards downfield.

You're saying we should change a major rule.

I'm saying the league should debate this in the offseason. A barely tipped punt is not what we had in this game. It was a fully blocked punt that did not even advance past the first down marker. That's very different from a punt that just barely got touched and goes all the way down the field. That's still a successful punt. The Broncos' punt in this game that we're talking about was an unsuccessful one. The Cowboys made a great play that they didn't benefit from, and the Broncos made a major screwup, but benefited by keeping the ball. When something like that happens, the league absolutely should consider if a rules change might be a good idea. They did the same thing when the Raiders won a game by deliberately fumbling. They also considered a rules change back when a receiver was not allowed to catch any pass that the defense tipped.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

My contention is not about changing the rule (or any rule), rather it’s the underlying rationale behind it.

The continued reference voiced throughout this thread regarding how “they (the punting team) should have to get it past the first down marker” is nonsensical.

Again, it’s no different arguing a batter that is intentionally walked shouldn’t be allowed to score because he “shouldn’t be rewarded for not getting on base via a hit.”

You would be changing the basic mundane rules of punting that have been in place as long as I can remember and have worked perfectly fine.

The mantra about “the team that got their punt blocked shouldn’t be rewarded” is misplaced. The play was already a negative for them because you lose field position with a blocked punt.

You didn't answer my question. It was a yes or no question. It's either "Yes, the league should consider a rule change in the offseason" or "No, the league should not even consider any change."

And, btw, considering a change is not a guarantee that they make a change. It only means they would debate it. They would ask if a rules change would make the game better or if the game is better off as is, and come to a decision after anaysis.

 

[MarcusRock]

well except it was punt a regardless if it was partially blocked, either fully block it or know the rules. If they fully blocked it like the one 2 games ago it would not have been an issue.

This is my stance on the issue. If a FG team partially blocks a kick but it goes through and rolls on the ground, almost the entire team is telling their teammates to stay away from the ball. They know that rule. Why can't punt teams know the rules to that degree? That's partly on coaching and players to study the rules.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You didn't answer my question. It was a yes or no question. It's either "Yes, the league should consider a rule change in the offseason" or "No, the league should not even consider any change."

And, btw, considering a change is not a guarantee that they make a change. It only means they would debate it. They would ask if a rules change would make the game better or if the game is better off as is, and come to a decision after anaysis.

Lol, should the league consider rule changes?

Sure.

Should the league change the punt rules based on the arguments forwarded in this thread?

No.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Lol, should the league consider rule changes?

Sure.

Should the league change the punt rules based on the arguments forwarded in this thread?

No.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. There's nothing wrong with that. It's okay for fans to have different views on a topic. Thank you for sharing yours.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. There's nothing wrong with that. It's okay for fans to have different views on a topic. Thank you for sharing yours.

Roger that RC. You too.

 

[jrumann59]

This is my stance on the issue. If a FG team partially blocks a kick but it goes through and rolls on the ground, almost the entire team is telling their teammates to stay away from the ball. They know that rule. Why can't punt teams know the rules to that degree? That's partly on coaching and players to study the rules.

There is also a rule in those cases where a player cannot be blocked into touching the ball.

 

[vicjagger]

Does the change of possession occur once the punt (whether tipped or not) crosses the LOS? Example, 4&4 and the receiving team commits a penalty while the punt is in the air. They don't give a first down to the kicking team.

It occurred when Wright touched it. Same as if there wasn't a block and we simply fielded a punt. IOW, change of possession is official only when possession has changed.

 

[Sheepherder]

if it went the other way, they blocked our kick and we got a first out of it you guys would have no problem
sheesh

That's not tr

I think they're just upset about how the play ended up. This generation can't accept rules they don't like (which, generally speaking, are rules they find themselves on the wrong side of). Throw some embarrassment on top from not knowing the rule and you get a crusade to change it... until it works in their favor again.

All I

It occurred when Wright touched it. Same as if there wasn't a block and we simply fielded a punt. IOW, change of possession is official only when possession has changed.

Just to set me straight,if Wright doesn't touch the ball and the kicking team recovers, the receiving team gets the ball, correct?