Bucs Postgame

[AnonEmouse]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

I'm not. Touching the ball, whether caught or just touched does not make it dead. It's dead when the play is over and the ref blows up. If he carries the ball over the line before the ref blows, it's still live. That's why they ruled a touchback. That's why kicking teams try to bat the ball back into play before they make contact with the end zone; it's still live until it's blown dead. If it was dead at the point of touching, all they would have to do was make contact and not care where it ends up.

Here we go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agkHw7phYII

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

Here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agkHw7phYII

Yeah, exactly my point. This one is a bang bang play. I get the feeling you're not reading my posts.

Envoyé de mon SM-J320FN en utilisant Tapatalk

[AnonEmouse]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah, exactly my point. This one is a bang bang play. I get the feeling you're not reading my posts.

Envoyé de mon SM-J320FN en utilisant Tapatalk

It's not bang bang. In that case Freeney caught it at the 4 (in the air) landed at the 3 then took 3 steps and stepped on the line. Had it been dead where he touched it/established the catch, the official would have blown up and given possession at the 4. His movement/momentum carried him into the endzone, just like Apke on Saturday. The play is not dead until the official whistles that the ball has been downed (ball or knee etc. touches the ground in possession) or the player in possession has stopped moving and given himself up.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

It's not bang bang. In that case Freeney caught it at the 4 (in the air) landed at the 3 then took 3 steps and stepped on the line. Had it been dead where he touched it/established the catch, the official would have blown up and given possession at the 4. His movement/momentum carried him into the endzone, just like Apke on Saturday. The play is not dead until the official whistles that the ball has been downed (ball or knee etc. touches the ground in possession) or the player in possession has stopped moving and given himself up.

One last time, because it was only funny the first five.

From the NFL rule book.

"If the kickers catch or recover a kick beyond the line that has not been touched beyond the line by the receiving team, the ball is dead, and it is first-and-10 for the receivers at the spot of catch or recovery"

This is very basic. Player of the kicking team recovers the ball, ball is dead, play is over.

Now, because of the NFL rule tweak to allow a player to batt the ball back across the goal line and down it without it being a touchback (which isn't possible with NCAA/IFAF rules), they had to specify which one is and isn't a touchback in this situation, hence the rule you're referring to:

"If a player of the kicking team illegally catches or recovers a scrimmage kick, other than a field-goal attempt from beyond the 20-yard line, and touches the goal line with any part of his body while in possession of the ball, the ball is dead, and the result of the play is a touchback".

But please note that they precise "the ball is dead", which highlights they're referring to bang bang situations, otherwise the ball is already dead when it's caught.

This is why IMO this rule is not well written... and this is why it got refs confused on Sunday. Not only according to me, whose legitimacy isn't sufficient, but to ESPN writer :

"The ball should have been marked where Apke first gained possession, and not a touchback. By rule, a kick that goes past the line of scrimmage is dead as soon as a member of the kicking team downs it. The ball can't be advanced. There are many judgment calls over the course of a game that can be debated. This one was a matter of rule application. Washington should have been able to pin the Buccaneers deeper than it did."

And also according to NBC's rules analyst during the game, listen to what he said "it's common sense that tells you it shouldn't have been applied on this play [...] I think the play was over and had nothing to do with why the rule is there".