The Blocked Punt

[CalPolyTechnique]

Exactly. It's not like we ever had possession of the ball, so how could we lose it?

lol?

So when a punt returner tries fielding a punt but the ball hits him in the chest and the punting team recovers, does the receiving team get the ball back?

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I'm not saying it just for this one play. It makes more sense to me that the kicking team should have to get past the first down marker to get a first down, unless the receiving team takes possession, then loses possession.

Why?

What does the first down marker have anything to do once the ball is punted?

The act of punting is a change of possession. Why do you think a punted ball can be downed even if the receiving team never touches the ball?

 

[tyke1doe]

It's not a bad rule. If you recover a blocked punt and fumble the ball, it's live.
That's how it is with a fumble in general.
It just worked against us. Shrug.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

So basically it's like the Broncos had an extremely short punt, and Wright's touching it was the equivalent of a muff on the return since it occurred past the line of scrimmage.

So I understand the reasoning behind it now, but I still think it's dumb to enforce that after a block. Like I said earlier, it rewards the team that screwed up.

 

[bigdnlaca]

I have a feeling the updated rule will be if a team blocks a punt, there is no punishment for the receiving team if they muffed or fumble the ball.

Kind of similar to if the kicking team touches the ball during a punt first.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

If all it takes to be considered a change of possession is a player for the non-kicking team to only touch the ball, then the Cowboy player who blocked it touched the ball so it was live after that and a Cowboy had to recover it. I say that because people are saying it was stupid for the Cowboy player to try for it after the block.

 

[MapleLeaf]

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.

First, way to go with the condescending manner.

Second, the ball never travels beyond the line of scrimmage off the block. Take a look at the replay. It is touched after by a Cowboy player only after bouncing beyond the LOS which well short of the distance they were held under when they were trying to regain a fresh set of 4 downs.

Conceding a change of posession or any other football play should always follow the main premise of the game. If you do not gain the requisite number of yards to have a refresh set of downs you should not be rewarded in any circumstance.

Based on the rule we could have had a blocked punt. The ball could have bounded beyond the line of scrimmage, and then took a weird bounce backwards for 5 yards, then touched by a Dallas player who hits the ball back another 5 yards to be secured by a Bronco.

So the overall gain would have been a -10 yards, but a first down for the Broncos. That flies against the common sense and overall tenet of the game of defending your territory.

Even in a conceded change of possession the premise of the yards necessary for a first down should always be tantamount to some odd bouncing circumstance of the ball. Keeping the first down rule rewards the effort the defence placed in preventing the offensive team from gaining the first down that led to the concession of the possession in the first place.

LIke everyone else we realize the rule, but it makes absolutely no sense against the 99.99% of the other plays in this league that maintains the primacy of what a first down is.

Why do you think all the Cowboys players were celebrating when they blocked the punt, and the Broncos never gained the first down marker? They were conditioned to protect from gaining the first down.

Stupid rule in my opinion.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

If all it takes to be considered a change of possession is a player for the non-kicking team to only touch the ball, then the Cowboy player who blocked it touched the ball so it was live after that and a Cowboy had to recover it. I say that because people are saying it was stupid for the Cowboy player to try for it after the block.

That's my reasoning too. The first player to touch the ball was Malik Turner, who blocked it. So what difference does it make at that point if another Cowboy touches it? To me it was still the 4th down play and Dallas was robbed of their last chance to make it a game today.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

Based on the rule we could have had a blocked punt. The ball could have bounded beyond the line of scrimmage, and then took a weird bounce backwards for 5 yards, then touched by a Dallas player who hits the ball back another 5 yards to be secured by a Bronco.

Apparently it only requires one touch by the non-kicking team, unless there is some specific rule about blocking a punt. If it's not blocked, it travels downfield if it touched a Dallas player it would be a live ball and Denver could recover. That only required one touch so the Cowboy player touched the ball when he blocked it, so from that point on it was live by this reasoning.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

To me it was still the 4th down play and Dallas was robbed of their last chance to make it a game today.

Yeah, that they didn't, or couldn't, advance the ball to gain the needed first down yardage is the real crappy part of the rule.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

First, way to go with the condescending manner.

Second, the ball never travels beyond the line of scrimmage off the block. Take a look at the replay. It is touched after by a Cowboy player only after bouncing beyond the LOS which well short of the distance they were held under when they were trying to regain a fresh set of 4 downs.

Conceding a change of posession or any other football play should always follow the main premise of the game. If you do not gain the requisite number of yards to have a refresh set of downs you should not be rewarded in any circumstance.

Based on the rule we could have had a blocked punt. The ball could have bounded beyond the line of scrimmage, and then took a weird bounce backwards for 5 yards, then touched by a Dallas player who hits the ball back another 5 yards to be secured by a Bronco.

So the overall gain would have been a -10 yards, but a first down for the Broncos. That flies against the common sense and overall tenet of the game of defending your territory.

Even in a conceded change of possession the premise of the yards necessary for a first down should always be tantamount to some odd bouncing circumstance of the ball. Keeping the first down rule rewards the effort the defence placed in preventing the offensive team from gaining the first down that led to the concession of the possession in the first place.

LIke everyone else we realize the rule, but it makes absolutely no sense against the 99.99% of the other plays in this league that maintains the primacy of what a first down is.

Why do you think all the Cowboys players were celebrating when they blocked the punt, and the Broncos never gained the first down marker? They were conditioned to protect from gaining the first down.

Stupid rule in my opinion.

Wrong.

You look at the replay.

The punt was blocked and came down past the LOS.

The rest of your theory is incredulous gobbledygook.

END OF STORY.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

The punt was blocked and came down past the LOS.

Doesn't matter. Unless there is a specific rule about blocked punts, the ball was live as soon as the Cowboy player blocked it.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Apparently it only requires one touch by the non-kicking team, unless there is some specific rule about blocking a punt. If it's not blocked, it travels downfield if it touched a Dallas player it would be a live ball and Denver could recover. That only required one touch so the Cowboy player touched the ball when he blocked it, so from that point on it was live by this reasoning.

His premise entirely off.

The ball went past the LOS. That's the key.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Doesn't matter. Unless there is a specific rule about blocked punts, the ball was live as soon as the Cowboy player blocked it.

The official they had on the broadcast literally said that because the ball went past the LOS it was effectively like any other punt, albeit a short one. Same standard punt rules apply.

You can act like some new rule was made up or simply don't want to believe it but it doesn't change reality, the facts, or the rules.

 

[pansophy]

I'm not saying it just for this one play. It makes more sense to me that the kicking team should have to get past the first down marker to get a first down, unless the receiving team takes possession, then loses possession.

Technically, that is what the rule is since once the punt goes past the line of scrimmage it's a change of possession. Actually, the rules favor us in that situation because if they had grabbed the ball and tried to "get a first down" after it was tipped all they would be doing is downing the ball like any other punt. So if we don't touch the ball in that situation the punting team is screwed. Even though the ball was tipped they still can't advance the ball.

 

[pansophy]

I have a feeling the updated rule will be if a team blocks a punt, there is no punishment for the receiving team if they muffed or fumble the ball.

Kind of similar to if the kicking team touches the ball during a punt first.

There is never ever going to be a rule change based on that play. You are basically saying that if there is even the slightest tip on a punt there is no scenario in which the punting team can recover the ball no matter how slight the tipped punt is or how many times the returning teams fumbles the ball.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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

That's exactly it. I'm not blaming the refs. They called it right according to the rule. It's the rule itself that is GARBAGE, and I hope the league will consider a change. If the punting team recovers their own blocked punt, then it should work just like a fake punt where they're obligated to advance the ball past the first down marker in order to retain possession. I didn't even realize this terrible rule existed. When the refs were huddled in discussion, I wasn't worried because I knew they didn't advance past the first down marker. The way the rule is, a team can be rewarded for making the terribly bad play of letting their own punt get blocked. That is absurd. Change this rule.

 

[JD_KaPow]

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.

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

Just want to say, as stated in another thread, no way should Wright be blamed here. There are world class WC keepers that'd get this wrong in English-football. Wright hasn't played that sport in any major competition according to his wikipedia. As a result, no way do I expect him to get the read correct here. As someone who's played keeper, that the second worst kinda ball to stop behind a penalty. Penalties are entirely a guessing game. This kind of ball is impossible to read because you think the ball is going one way, so you try to react that way, when it ends up changing directions on you and you try to catch it when you're supposed to knock it down and try to get on top it. Not much you can really do with it, and that's as an experienced keeper. A rookie like Wright had a near impossible task here.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

There is never ever going to be a rule change based on that play. You are basically saying that if there is even the slightest tip on a punt there is no scenario in which the punting team can recover the ball no matter how slight the tipped punt is or how many times the returning teams fumbles the ball.

It’s surprising (but really shouldn’t be) that so many people don’t realize that the simple act of punting is a change of possession. Based on the arguments (“they should get to the 1st down marker!”) presented they really seem to think a punt is just like another offensive play for the team punting.