The Blocked Punt

[Fritsch_the_cat]

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

Well, since the Cowboy player touched it apparently it's considered a muff and the kicking team can recover it but can't advance a muff.

 

[Runwildboys]

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?

No, but the ball went past the first down marker, and the kicking team maintained possession.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Why is it stupid?

If the receiving team touches the ball past the line of scrimmage it's a live ball. There's literally ZERO difference whether it's 10 yards past the LOS or 50 yards.

Think of it this way. It's 4th and 25 and they go for it. They attempt a pass, which is tipped by the opponent, but one of their own players catches the ball. However, he doesn't advance past the first down marker. Their obligation to get a first down isn't somehow magically wiped out just because the ball was touched by the opposing team. It should be the same on a punt. In fact, it actually is on a fake punt. If they do a fake punt and complete a pass, but fail to advance past the first down marker, they don't maintain possession. That's fair. It wouldn't be any different if the opposing player tipped the ball, but their player caught it. Advance past the first down marker or not's not a first down.

The way the rule stands is absurd. It rewards a team for screwing up and getting their punt blocked. It could be 4th and 45 and they would get the ball back with a fresh set of downs after just a one-yard gain. Absurd.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

No, but the ball went past the first down marker, and the kicking team maintained possession.

The first down marker had zero relevance.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Well, since the Cowboy player touched it apparently it's considered a muff and the kicking team can recover it but can't advance a muff.

I can see their thinking, but I totally disagree with it. If they did a fake punt and passed a ball that got tipped, it would not negate their obligation to advance past the first down marker. Again, I'm not complaining about the refs. They did a correct ruling. The rule itself is bad.

 

[Runwildboys]

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?

That's the way it is now. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be that way. The rule should be changed so that unless the receiving team gains possession, then loses it, the kicking team should have to advance the ball past the first down marker.

I guess for as infrequently as this is ever going to happen, it doesn't matter, but it just seems like a cheap way to keep possession without getting a first down.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Think of it this way. It's 4th and 25 and they go for it. They attempt a pass, which is tipped by the opponent, but one of their own players catches the ball. However, he doesn't advance past the first down marker. Their obligation to get a first down isn't somehow magically wiped out just because the ball was touched by the opposing team. It should be the same on a punt. In fact, it actually is on a fake punt. If they do a fake punt and complete a pass, but fail to advance past the first down marker, they don't maintain possession. That's fair. It wouldn't be any different if the opposing player tipped the ball, but their player caught it. Advance past the first down marker or not's not a first down.

The way the rule stands is absurd. It rewards a team for screwing up and getting their punt blocked. It could be 4th and 45 and they would get the ball back with a fresh set of downs after just a one-yard gain. Absurd.

A punt and a fake punt are two entirely different plays. That’s fundamental. They are not the same.

A punt is the offense conceding that it’s turning over the ball the opposing team; you’re literally kicking the ball to the opponent. That’s exactly the reason why you can have a punt where the receiving team doesn’t touch the ball and it’s downed by the punting team, but the receiving team still gets the ball.

A fake punt is nothing more than a team trying to gain a first down and maintain possession using deception. It’s an offensive play.

 

[Haimerej]

That's the way it is now. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be that way. The rule should be changed so that unless the receiving team gains possession, then loses it, the kicking team should have to advance the ball past the first down marker.

I guess for as infrequently as this is ever going to happen, it doesn't matter, but it just seems like a cheap way to keep possession without getting a first down.

No cheaper than a dropped punt that was tipped off someone's fingertips. At least it's not 30 yards downfield.

 

[Proof]

"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)"

Yeah, precisely, which is why you don't understand the difference when you talk about "because we never had possession." A punted football is an automatic change in possession, smh.

just seeing this, and is entirely my point. yes i understand that by rule it’s a technical change of possession, but in practicality it’s not. that’s the whole point of it being silly.

that’s the point of accepting it’s correct but disagreeing. why did you initially feel the same?

 

[Reverend Conehead]

A punt and a fake punt are two entirely different plays. That’s fundamental. They are not the same.

A punt is the offense conceding that it’s turning over the ball the opposing team; you’re literally kicking the ball to the opponent.

A fake punt is nothing more than a team trying to gain a first down and maintain possession.

I don't care. It's a dumb rule as it stands. The NFL changes bad rules all the time, and this is one it should change. A team that makes a huge error of allowing its punt to be blocked should not be allowed to maintain possession if it doesn't advance past the first down marker. That would make the rule fair. The way it is now, the team that made the great play of blocking the punt can get hozed while the team that made the boneheaded play of not protecting their punter gets rewarded. That's absurd. I don't care if they've considered it some kind of instant change of possession in the past. They used to also wear leather helmets. It used to also be legal to spear an opponent with helmet-to-helmet contact. There used to be no two-point conversion. There used to be no replay rule to overturn bad calls. The league has changed numerous rules to make the game better. Well, this is one of them.

 

[Runwildboys]

The first down marker had zero relevance.

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.

 

[Runwildboys]

No cheaper than a dropped punt that was tipped off someone's fingertips. At least it's not 30 yards downfield.

But the dropped punt is at least past the first down marker, so the kicking team is literally getting a first down.

 

[Haimerej]

But the dropped punt is at least past the first down marker, so the kicking team is literally getting a first down.

Hey man... you're thinking too linearly here, bro... it's not all about yards... sometimes there's feet... and balls... and touches...

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

I don't care. It's a dumb rule as it stands. The NFL changes bad rules all the time, and this is one it should change. A team that makes a huge error of allowing its punt to be blocked should not be allowed to maintain possession if it doesn't advance past the first down marker. That would make the rule fair. The way it is now, the team that made the great play of blocking the punt can get hozed while the team that made the boneheaded play of not protecting their punter gets rewarded. That's absurd. I don't care if they've considered it some kind of instant change of possession in the past. They used to also wear leather helmets. It used to also be legal to spear an opponent with helmet-to-helmet contact. There used to be no two-point conversion. There used to be no replay rule to overturn bad calls. The league has changed numerous rules to make the game better. Well, this is one of them.

Lol, okay.

There’s two problems. 1) You’re trying to assign value (“that team made a great play”) and “fairness” to even out the ledger in your mind. 2) You keep thinking the first down marker has some sort of relevance on a punt. It doesn’t.

 

[nalam]

Think of it this way. It's 4th and 25 and they go for it. They attempt a pass, which is tipped by the opponent, but one of their own players catches the ball. However, he doesn't advance past the first down marker. Their obligation to get a first down isn't somehow magically wiped out just because the ball was touched by the opposing team. It should be the same on a punt. In fact, it actually is on a fake punt. If they do a fake punt and complete a pass, but fail to advance past the first down marker, they don't maintain possession. That's fair. It wouldn't be any different if the opposing player tipped the ball, but their player caught it. Advance past the first down marker or not's not a first down.

The way the rule stands is absurd. It rewards a team for screwing up and getting their punt blocked. It could be 4th and 45 and they would get the ball back with a fresh set of downs after just a one-yard gain. Absurd.

It should be a dead ball when blocked , because technically Its 4th down and once blocked its possession change on downs , to me that seems logical.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

just seeing this, and is entirely my point. yes i understand that by rule it’s a technical change of possession, but in practicality it’s not. that’s the whole point of it being silly.

that’s the point of accepting it’s correct but disagreeing. why did you initially feel the same?

Because I was enlightened when someone presented me the rationale behind it so I changed my perspective based on the information forwarded.

Others choose to dig in their heels when their wrong because they think they’re losing something by acknowledging they could be wrong.

We got people in here that still think the first down marker has relevance even after the ball is punted, lulz.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

It should be a dead ball when blocked , because technically Its 4th down and once blocked its possession change on downs , to me that seems logical.

Not when it goes past the LOS.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

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.

I don’t see why.

1. The team punting is conceding a change of possession with the opponent.
2. The receiving team can either not touch the ball or it must field the punt cleanly to maintain possession.
3. The punt cleared the LOS and therefore effectively was just a normal punt, albeit a short one.
4. Dallas failed to field the ball cleanly.
5. First down Broncos.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

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.

Because their Special Teams coach didn't prepare them for how to react in a situation like that.

 

[Bullflop]

That recovered blocked punt was proof, positive, that on any given play, anything can happen! Unfortunately, for us, it did . . .

I'm not too sure that Murphy's Law really was destined to be quite so proven as it was yesterday, in that game versus the Broncos!