Yep, and most of these guys don't have eyes on the punter when it's kicked. So you keep the rule consistent because they don't know otherwise.

I'm afraid he will want a change of scenery pretty soon.

If Jerry keeps McCarthy that might be the final straw for me. This team is so poorly coached

htxag09 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I've always hate that rule

A blocked punt should be treated like a fumble and it's only a first down if the kicking team recovers it beyond the line to gain

---

Why? It's a punt, not a fumble. If he just mi****s it and that happens it'd be the punting team's ball. Know the rules. Clear the ball in a situation like that regardless.

---

Because the rule as is is incoherent in the context of the rest of the rules of the game. Similar to the fumbling out of the end zone rule. It makes an exception for a particular scenario for no reason whatsoever that disproportionately rewards a team for not only not doing anything, but often for doing something bad.

---

The rule isn't incoherent at all. It's treated just like a punt. Pretty straightforward.

Your proposal is significantly more incoherent than the rule as it stands. See my point above. What happens if it's tipped and travels 40 yards still? It's a fumble and live ball?

---

In his proposal, it would be the punting team's ball because they recovered it beyond the line to gain if the punt was touched by the receiving team beyond the line of scrimmage. If recovered by the punting team without reaching the line to gain, it would just be a turnover on downs.

So just a shank fumbled by the receiving team short of the line to gain wouldn't be a fumble either and the receiving team keeps it? Makes no sense. They punted. It crossed the LOS. Treat them all the same

They also don't always know if the ball is deflected or not. Some of these near blocks are miraculously not touched but end up a shank

htxag09 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I've always hate that rule

A blocked punt should be treated like a fumble and it's only a first down if the kicking team recovers it beyond the line to gain

---

Why? It's a punt, not a fumble. If he just mi****s it and that happens it'd be the punting team's ball. Know the rules. Clear the ball in a situation like that regardless.

---

Because the rule as is is incoherent in the context of the rest of the rules of the game. Similar to the fumbling out of the end zone rule. It makes an exception for a particular scenario for no reason whatsoever that disproportionately rewards a team for not only not doing anything, but often for doing something bad.

---

The rule isn't incoherent at all. It's treated just like a punt. Pretty straightforward.

---

Which is stupid, because it's not. It's a BLOCKED punt. The ball has already been touched by the receiving team. Using your logic the ball should already be recoverable beyond the LOS by the kicking team and possession retained. But it's not, because it's no longer a punt. It's a BLOCKED punt and the ball is no longer recoverable by the kicking team until it is touched again by the receiving team which makes it a live recoverable ball again. And in any other situation like, the ball must be recovered beyond the line to gain for the offense to retain possession on a 4th down. But not here. The rule book makes an incoherent exception for no reason that rewards a mistake. It treats a blocked punt or field goal touched beyond the LOS and recovered by the kicking team as a CHANGE of possession, which makes no sense. A blocked punt should not instantly revert to a normal punt based on the receiving team touching it again beyond the LOS. The ball needs to be touched again AND recovered beyond the line to gain, unless it's not 4th down. In a situation where a team punts or kicks on say, third down the rule as is makes perfect sense. On 4th it's incoherent. Again, the issue is RETENTION of possession vs a CHANGE of possession.

Quote:

---

Your proposal is significantly more incoherent than the rule as it stands. See my point above. What happens if it's tipped and travels 40 yards still? It's a fumble and live ball?

---

Not at all, because the ball hasn't been touched again. It's not a recoverable ball. It's just a change of possession wherever the ball comes to rest.

Nobody disputes that a blocked kick touched by the defense beyond the LOS is a live ball, it absolutely is. But there's no coherent reason why that ball then recovered by the kicking team short of the line to gain on 4th down constitutes a change of possession and they get a new set of downs. It's functionally no different from the offense failing to reach the line to gain on 4th down.

Now if the receiving teams picks it up and obtains possession then fumbles, then sure. But that's not what is happening.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

They don't necessarily know it's blocked. So you are asking players to potentially react differently to something they don't know for sure

---

His proposal also seemingly favors the punting team even more. What if it's blocked, goes past the line of scrimmage, but there aren't any defenders in the area? We're just gonna let the punting team pick up the ball and run?

The way it's written makes the most sense and is the most fair to the blocking team.

Hell, the reason you don't see this play often is because of how the rule is written and teams are smart enough the get the hell away from the ball.

This post makes zero sense? So you want the rules to stay the way they are but the line to gain stays the same?

It's a change of possession. Line to gain goes away.

Just like if it's 3 and 40, qb throws an int, defender fumbles it, and original team on offense recovers. 1 and 10, regardless of the original first down marker.

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

Yep. Once foot meets ball, line to gain doesn't mean jack. Neither does the down. That goes for punts and FGs.

Man that was pathetic.

Seven Costanza said:

---

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

---

I'm sure a defense would welcome any QB to try this

Quote:

---

It's a change of possession.

---

Correct, my point is if we're being consistent it shouldn't be.

Being consistent with what? The kicking rules are consistent across the board.

Quote:

---

His proposal also seemingly favors the punting team even more. What if it's blocked, goes past the line of scrimmage, but there aren't any defenders in the area? We're just gonna let the punting team pick up the ball and run?

---

The ball is dead as soon as the kicking team touches/recovers it behind the LOS. That is consistent across all such scenarios.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Seven Costanza said:

---

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

---

I'm sure a defense would welcome any QB to try this

---

Mike McCarthy looks like the kind of guy that would draw this up.

Imagine if that punt block play happened in a season/game we truly cared about?

Goddammit went to edit it and deleted the whole post

So how do they know it's blocked vs shanked? Very hard to tell on many that cross the LOS, sometimes even with replay. And you're asking guys who were most likely engaged with another player, not even looking in the punter's direction at the time it was kicked to know real time so they could potentially react differently. They treat blocked balls that cross the LOS (one way or another) with the same exact rules as those that aren't blocked precisely because of this. So they can play the same way. Consistency.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

So how do they know it's blocked vs shanked? Very hard to tell on many that cross the LOS, sometimes even with replay. And you're asking guys who were most likely engaged with another player, not even looking in the punter's direction at the time it was kicked to know real time so they could potentially react differently

---

Well for one thing, a shank bad enough to matter for this scenario essentially always lands out of bounds or so close to it that no player has a chance to react and touch it before it goes OOB. Punts that travel short distances and end up staying in the field of play are nearly always blocks, just because of how rarely a punter hits a ball both that poorly and relatively straight. Nearly all shanks are the result of the ball coming off the side of the foot. The exception is extreme wind.

But I'm not out here encouraging guys to touch a shank or a block beyond the LOS if there are members of the kicking team anywhere near you. Unless you're far from anyone on the kicking team and picking up a shank or a block to run there is very little benefit in ever trying to touch it. Your best case scenario is usually getting walloped and not fumbling. But merely touching a blocked punt and the kicking team recovering anywhere on the field should not result in a change of possession and new set of downs. It ends up leading to all kinds of silliness that inevitably rewards the kicking team.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

So how do they know it's blocked vs shanked? Very hard to tell on many that cross the LOS, sometimes even with replay. And you're asking guys who were most likely engaged with another player, not even looking in the punter's direction at the time it was kicked to know real time so they could potentially react differently. They treat blocked balls that cross the LOS (one way or another) with the same exact rules as those that aren't blocked precisely because of this. So they can play the same way. Consistency.

---

You're upfield guys are never going to try to get on the ball in the situation he did.
The only time they should ever be trying to snag that, is if they have seen it hit another cowboy player and know its a live ball.

Seven Costanza said:

---

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

---

There are low-percentage plays.

And then there's this.

Kickoff specialists have a hard enough time doing this to stationary players on kickoffs, let alone a moving target trying to kill you.

It's just an absurd scenario to argue that a touched punt recovered by the punting team short of the line to gain should not result in a new set of downs. No one is ever going to do this (at least not on purpose).

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Seven Costanza said:

---

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

---

There are low-percentage plays.

And then there's this.

Kickoff specialists have a hard enough time doing this to stationary players on kickoffs, let alone a moving target trying to kill you.

---

Every kicker could do this 9/10 tries

Hell I could

MookieBlaylock said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Seven Costanza said:

---

Not that this would ever happen, but it seems ridiculous that a scrambling QB (behind the LOS) on 3rd and 40 could just punt the ball into a defender three yards away (beyond the LOS), recover it, and get a fresh set of downs. It should be "congrats, it's 4th and 37".

---

There are low-percentage plays.

And then there's this.

Kickoff specialists have a hard enough time doing this to stationary players on kickoffs, let alone a moving target trying to kill you.

---

Every kicker could do this 9/10 tries

Hell I could

---

That would probably just count as a blocked punt, and you would be screwed.

Or just add the Canadian rule where they keep it 1 inch past the line of scrimmage and recover for first down

This whole discussion on the last page reminds me of this...



We also are at this stage...

What do you mean too high?

Phantom PI that Chase didn't even feel. But Ole' Troy thinks it was blatant and should have even been a bigger penalty. Then he doesn't see the hold on Cincy.