The Blocked Punt

[EGTuna]

murphy’s law game. they happen. on to atlanta.

 

[Proof]

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

again, you think there’d some ulterior motive for disagreement. tells me everything i need to know about your stance. if you initially thought the call was “weird” then the rest of this is unnecessary. you agree with the explanation, fine. others thought (despite the call being correct) that it’s a “weird” rule. since you were previously in that camp were in agreement.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Why is it we always get these obscure rules called against us? It's like when the deep snapper was called for movement against Washington that cost us the game. Deep snappers had been doing what he did for years and no one could remember ever seeing it called.

I remember a game against Green Bay, playoff game I think and they called some obscure penalty on the offense, can't remember exactly what it was but no one had ever seen that one called either.

And then there was the time, Thanksgiving game against Philly, Cowboys were losing big so it didn't effect the outcome but still. I think it was Jesse Holley back to field a punt near the goal line. He hit the Philly gunner who was coming to try to down the ball, which was perfectly legal, but they gave Jesse an "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" call, said he hit the Philly guy too hard.

It always some stupid crap like that. Might have been the right call but was still obscure and is a stupid rule.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

The arguments of why the call was wrong or "stupid" don't even pass the barstool test.

Imagine if the teams were reversed and the Cowboys benefitted from the Broncos muffing the blocked punt. I guarantee you the same tenderhearts on this thread would be saying "hey, I gotta say the refs did a terrific job of applying the rules.....Bronco fans are really whining about this."

 

[Proof]

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.

i’m not missing it, i’m saying it’s dumb. it’s the rule, so i’m fine with it, i just don’t agree.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

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.

we are aware of the rule

 

[MarcusRock]

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.

That's actually not true. Red highlight applies. The Cowboys receiver had a "chance" to secure possession of a kick and muffed it.

ARTICLE 3. CHANGE OF POSSESSION. A change of possession occurs when a player of the defensive team secures
possession of a ball that has been kicked, passed, or fumbled by a player of the offensive team, or when the ball is awarded to
the opposing team by rule. A change of possession includes, but is not limited to:
(a) An interception of a forward pass;
(b) A catch or recovery of a fumble or backward pass;
(c) A catch or recovery of a Scrimmage Kick, Free Kick, or Fair-Catch Kick;
(d) When the offensive team fails to reach the line to gain on fourth down; or
(e) When the offensive team misses a field-goal attempt​

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

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.

End of story.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The arguments of why the call was wrong or "stupid" don't even pass the barstool test.

Imagine if the teams were reversed and the Cowboys benefitted from the Broncos muffing the blocked punt. I guarantee you the same tenderhearts on this thread would be saying "hey, I gotta say the refs did a terrific job of applying the rules.....Bronco fans are really whining about this."

we never get the benefit of weird rules

 

[Alexander]

I really hope our very dumb fanbase does not cling to this play as a reason why the Cowboys lost.

 

[Proof]

The arguments of why the call was wrong or "stupid" don't even pass the barstool test.

Imagine if the teams were reversed and the Cowboys benefitted from the Broncos muffing the blocked punt. I guarantee you the same tenderhearts on this thread would be saying "hey, I gotta say the refs did a terrific job of applying the rules.....Bronco fans are really whining about this."

that’s because you believe yourself to be a superior fan here to take the rest of us to task with your singular objectivity. if we benefited from it i, personally, would think “whew, lucky break on a dumb rule”

 

[MapleLeaf]

Why do I hate this rule?

I think a lot of other posters have chimed in about being rewarded posession without getting the first down.

Here is another prime example of why I think it is not a valid representation of the fairness of the game.

Say you have a Broncos RB get the ball punched out, a Cowboys defencder tries to corral the ball, and touches it, and a Broncos player jumps on the ball shrot of the first down marker. The Broncos don't get a first down.

In the above scenario the Dallas player did not establish possession, he just touches it, but if the Broncos recover it short of the first down marker they don't get (4) new fresh downs.

How is this situation different? Both a live balls. Just one came off a foot and the other out of a ball carriers arms.

You shouldn't be rewarded for not making the first down marker. Period. That is the point of the game process. YOu get first downs to consistently move down the field.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

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)

Then you don't even understand the basic rules of football and shouldn't be trying to participate in the conversation.

The second the ball is punted it's a change of possession which is why if the ball bounces and touches a player on the receiving team it becomes a live ball. The receiving team doesn't need to have full possession of the ball like in the sense of catch.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

that’s because you believe yourself to be a superior fan here to take the rest of us to task with your singular objectivity. if we benefited from it i, personally, would think “whew, lucky break on a dumb rule”

Do I think there is a spectrum of intelligence of the fans on this forum?

Yes.

Guess which side of it you're on trying to argue against this basic rule?

 

[cowboysfan99]

Stop responding to this thread. The OP is trolling.

 

[IceStar-D7]

Who says Lightning doesn't strike twice??
blob:https://www.youtube.com/9eb9929b-85c9-455b-bb3e-6e7b9ef7255d

 

[ottawacowpoke]

that’s because you believe yourself to be a superior fan here to take the rest of us to task with your singular objectivity. if we benefited from it i, personally, would think “whew, lucky break on a dumb rule”

I don’t think it’s a dumb rule. The rule makes sense. It’s just a weird circumstance, as many have said here, this rarely happens. That being said the application of the rule by the officials was correct. The result just sucked. Personally I think that eschewing two very makeable field goal attempts and 6 probable points was worse. Because of that the offense was chasing those points all day. I really feel that set the tone.

 

[Proof]

Do I think there is a spectrum of intelligence of the fans on this forum?

Yes.

Guess which side of it you're on trying to argue against this basic rule?

i’m
not arguing sides of the fan base because that’s a ridiculous position to take. i’m stating my personal opinion and reasoning behind it. it doesn’t bother me who specifically agrees or disagrees. and i’m fine being wrong as well. i just can’t stomach what i feel is a disingenuous counter argument

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Why do I hate this rule?

I think a lot of other posters have chimed in about being rewarded posession without getting the first down.

Here is another prime example of why I think it is not a valid representation of the fairness of the game.

Say you have a Broncos RB get the ball punched out, a Cowboys defencder tries to corral the ball, and touches it, and a Broncos player jumps on the ball shrot of the first down marker. The Broncos don't get a first down.

In the above scenario the Dallas player did not establish possession, he just touches it, but if the Broncos recover it short of the first down marker they don't get (4) new fresh downs.

How is this situation different? Both a live balls. Just one came off a foot and the other out of a ball carriers arms.

You shouldn't be rewarded for not making the first down marker. Period. That is the point of the game process. YOu get first downs to consistently move down the field.

Lol, smh.

Because a blocked punt and a fumble (in the scenario you gave) are not the same.

The second a ball is punted, one team (the punting team) is conceding a change of possession to the receiving team, so long as they gain possession of the football. The ball was punted beyond the LOS (that's all that is required); a Cowboys player tried to field that punt; he failed; the punting team recovered.

END.OF. STORY.

 

[Proof]

Then you don't even understand the basic rules of football and shouldn't be trying to participate in the conversation.

The second the ball is punted it's a change of possession which is why if the ball bounces and touches a player on the receiving team it becomes a live ball. The receiving team doesn't need to have full possession of the ball like in the sense of catch.

lol. man go somewhere else with that condescending nonsense. i’m very clearly talking about possession in the traditional sense. i’ve already agreed that it was the correct call.