The Blocked Punt

[CalPolyTechnique]

why should they be rewarded for not getting 10 yards?

For the same reason if the punt went 40 yards and hit a player on the receiving team and the punting team recovered.

If you can't see why the first down marker has no relevance on the play I can't help you. You'll just have to be upset thinking the refs have won again.

 

[Proof]

Sorry, do you think a fumble and blocked punt are the same?

I see the problem.

it’s an example that’s extremely similar what you’re doing is arguing that it’s not a silly rule…. by referencing the rule. that’s the problem

 

[TheHerd]

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.

The mistake was us trying to grab it. On a block you get away. Leon Lett taught us nothing

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

People are focused on the tipped punt instead of the muffed recovery.

Lol, they're also focused on the first down marker for some odd reason.

 

[Proof]

But what if we picked the ball up, ran a few yards, and then fumbled it back. That would be a new set of downs. That's essentially what happened here.

it’s not, because we never had possession, which is more my point. fourth down, possession never changed and they didn’t advance past the marker. just doesn’t compute to first down (to me)

 

[CowboysDrew]

I hate that it happened but the rules are the rules and it's a right one.

The punt wasn't fully blocked, it was still a punt. It was a short one that the defender got a hand on, but a punt none the less. Once it's past the LOS it's just like any punt.

Have to stop thinking about it as if it was fully blocked backwards.

 

[HungryLion]

So. I initially thought the rule was stupid.

However, after reading this thread. I guess it makes sense.

man what a shot to the nuts though. To think you’re getting the ball on the 25 and got a stop. And the other team then gets basically a freebie first down.


that was essentially a turnover. A big one.

 

[Proof]

Lol, they're also focused on the first down marker for some odd reason.

not “some odd reason” a very pointed and easy to understand reason. logic

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

it’s an example that’s extremely similar what you’re doing is arguing that it’s not a silly rule…. by referencing the rule. that’s the problem

Incredulity is not an argument.

You don't like the rule so you refuse to have it make sense to you, which is exemplified by you trying to treat a fumble and a blocked punt the same.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

For the same reason if the punt went 40 yards and hit a player on the receiving team and the punting team recovered.

If you can't see why the first down marker has no relevance on the play I can't help you. You'll just have to be upset thinking the refs have won again.

holy false equivalency Batman

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

So. I initially thought the rule was stupid.

However, after reading this thread. I guess it makes sense.

man what a shot to the nuts though. To think you’re getting the ball on the 25 and got a stop. And the other team then gets basically a freebie first down.


that was essentially a turnover. A big one.

100%

I was bummed out too and then I thought the refs got it wrong and then the announcer and Mike Perira (or whomever he is) explained it and it made sense.

 

[Plankton]

The kicking team should at least have to recover or advance beyond the first down marker to retain possession.

Dude, the minute the ball is punted, it's a change of possession. The kick went past the LOS, even with the block. It's a live ball. Wright touched it, making it a fumble.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

not “some odd reason” a very pointed and easy to understand reason. logic

Sure, if you're so emotionally invested in not wanting to understand the rule.....makes perfect sense.

 

[Proof]

Incredulity is not an argument.

You don't like the rule so you refuse to have it make sense to you, which is exemplified by you trying to treat a fumble and a blocked punt the same.

i don’t care about the rule, we botched it, it stands. but it is incredibly simple to see why it’s a weird and questionable result. that’s not incredulity whatsoever. you seem to misunderstand questioning with inability to comprehend. not the case

 

[Alweezy]

I get it, but to get a first down when you don't cross the first down line is what makes it stupid to me.

I realize the rule is the rule, but a block punt and a punt return muff 50 yards down the field feel like two different things to me. And if we stick to the context of hey it's a live ball, it's anyones chance to take it and run with it after it crosses the LOS, then I want to see the kicking team at least accomplish the primary goal of getting a first down. It just something seems lawyer like in it's current construction.

 

[HungryLion]

100%

I was bummed out too and then I thought the refs got it wrong and then the announcer and Mike Perira (or whomever he is) explained it and it made sense.

Agreed.

As a fan. I want calls to require the least amount of referee judgment as possible. If you change the rule. Then every time a punt receiving team even grazes the football on a block attempt. You would have the refs need to make the judgment of what constitutes a “block” or not.

at least with this rule. If the ball passes the LOS. It’s a kick and subject to the same rules no matter what.

less ref judgement needed this way.

 

[TheHerd]

Dak didn't go from mvp candidate to bus driver. We still have an elite QB, who had an epicly bad game.

A zone defense and a crap offensive line doesn't help.

 

[droopdog7]

Lol, why is it a dumb rule? Because it happened to the Cowboys?

The ball went past the LOS scrimmage like a punt. The Cowboys player (N. Wright) touched the ball but failed to maintain possession, so it's a live ball.

End of story. It sucks because it seems like it would have been a momentum changer but it doesn't make it a dumb rule because it's consistently applied to all punts.

The 1st down marker has ZERO to do with it. You can keep referencing it but it doesn't matter.

It’s pretty clear that the rule is mostly consistent with the way a punt is handled. But I would ask one question about potentially adjusting it.

In most cases, when you muff a punt it is well past the first down. So the other team recovers and it’s a first down. One would think that the recovering team should still need to get the first down if they recover.

 

[pansophy]

it’s not, because we never had possession, which is more my point. fourth down, possession never changed and they didn’t advance past the marker. just doesn’t compute to first down (to me)

See and that is what you are missing -- as soon as the punt goes past the LOS in the air that is a change of possession. We touched it and couldn't control it, and like any other muffed punt, that makes it a live ball.

 

[droopdog7]

Agreed.

As a fan. I want calls to require the least amount of referee judgment as possible. If you change the rule. Then every time a punt receiving team even grazes the football on a block attempt. You would have the refs need to make the judgment of what constitutes a “block” or not.

at least with this rule. If the ball passes the LOS. It’s a kick and subject to the same rules no matter what.

less ref judgement needed this way.

One thing I would change is that offensive team still needs to get a first down. That’s usually not an issue of course but it was here.