BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

where to watch

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: muffed punt = safety?

Topic: muffed punt = safety?

Author

Message

Columbus_Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 11/23/2012
Post Count: 412

Status: Offline

muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 8:42:15 PM

I apologize if this was determined earlier, but how was the muffed punt not a safety? If an opposing team touches the ball and goes back into their own endzone and is tackled isn't that classified as a safety? I remember watching a football game a few years ago where a player returned a kick from his endzone went past the marker into the field and then went back into the endzone and took a knee and it was classified a safety.

I truly believed we should have won and we got two terrible calls on special teams.

Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,273

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 8:47:39 PM

Basically if the inertia of the kick is what caused it to make to the the endzone then it is a touchback. If the muff itself caused it to go in the endzone then it would be a safety.

oubobcat70
General User

Member Since: 10/11/2012
Location: Marana, AZ
Post Count: 32

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 8:54:36 PM

The foot of the Gopher that touched the ball was clearly on the goal line when he touched. Since he never had position on the field of play, I believe that makes it a touch back. Make sense?

Jughead
General User

Member Since: 7/6/2010
Location: Chillicothe, OH
Post Count: 478

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 9:08:04 PM

Not really. At best for Minnesota, that guy recovered the ball at the one before falling into the end zone. In no way, shape, or form should they have started that drive at the 20.

Rooting for Akron is like cheering on the Taliban.

Pataskala
General User

Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,346

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 9:27:13 PM

It's the same logic that doesn't allow muffed punts to be advanced by the kicking team; the receiver didn't make a "football move" with the ball, so there was no possession. It was just a free ball that would belong to whoever falls on it and controls it. As I recall no one fell on it in the field of play, but even if someone had and it's determined that their momentum took them into the endzone, it would be recovered there -- a TD if the kicking recovers and a touchback if the receiving team does. It's where the ball is when the recovering player's knee touches.

We will get by.
We will get by.
We will get by.
We will survive.

oubobcat70
General User

Member Since: 10/11/2012
Location: Marana, AZ
Post Count: 32

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 9:28:10 PM

The ball was not "redovered at the one". The Gopher touched it with one hand while technically standing in the end zone. Never had possession. The enertia of the ball carried it into the end zone. Victory is correct.

MonroeClassmate
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 2,102

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/26/2015 9:35:43 PM

Doesn't inertia change when an object impacts it? The ball clearly made its way to the endzone by physical force of Minnesota players.

Nobody was "standing" in the endzone. It looked pretty clear that it was recovered inside the one and his momentum of trying to get to the ball took him and the ball into the endzone--no inertia from the kick.

UpSan Bobcat
General User

Member Since: 8/30/2005
Location: Upper Sandusky, OH
Post Count: 3,802

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/27/2015 1:01:52 AM

I really don't think it has anything to do with what caused it to go into the end zone. Minnesota never actually possessed the ball until it was in the end zone, so it's a touchback. (Although as someone else pointed out, you could make a case that he actually fell on it at the 1 and his momentum carried him into the end zone.

DXer
General User

Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Mobile, AL
Post Count: 135

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/27/2015 4:22:24 AM

I saw it when it happened, then saw several replays afterwards. To me the Minnesota player clearly fell on the ball on the one yard line and then his momentum took him into the end zone.

OhioCatFan
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,411

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/27/2015 11:36:08 AM

DXer wrote:

I saw it when it happened, then saw several replays afterwards. To me the Minnesota player clearly fell on the ball on the one yard line and then his momentum took him into the end zone.

And, isn't that the definition of a safety in terms of the impetus of the ball going into the end zone on the team defending the goal? Or, is it not a safety because he never had possession of the ball? Corollary: Would it have been a safety if the same thing had happened at the other end of the field to an OHIO player?

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,273

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/27/2015 11:49:59 AM

OhioCatFan wrote:

DXer wrote:

I saw it when it happened, then saw several replays afterwards. To me the Minnesota player clearly fell on the ball on the one yard line and then his momentum took him into the end zone.

This is sort of the same thing as the inertia call on a muffed ball going in to the endzone. Upon gaining possession after a muff, or a fumble recovery, or interception, if the momentum you had upon gaining possession takes you into the endzone before you are down it is a touchback. If you propel yourself into the endzone then it is a safety.

That's the rule. I have always thought that in the latter case you should get the ball where you gained possession. But I also have several other issues with the touchback rules that I think should be changed.

Last Edited: 9/27/2015 12:20:09 PM by Victory

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,076

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/27/2015 11:59:41 AM

The call has everything to do with "force", what caused the kick to go into the EZ. A muff cannot be a new force, a fumble, bat, kick, throw would be new forces. So the kick its self was deemed by rule to be put into the EZ by the kicking team and would hence be a touchback if recovered by the return team and not a safety. Would however be a TD if recovered by Ohio

MonroeClassmate
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2010
Post Count: 2,102

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 8:58:24 AM

Just curious: what would the proper call be if the ball had squirted out of the back of the endzone before control was established?

Seems a ridiculous rule that a team on the 7 yard line signals a fair catch--content to start from there, muffs it and the ball is recovered in the end zone and the ball comes out to the 20--screwing the punter over who placed one perfectly only to have his kick ruled to have gone into the endzone. If not a safety, the ball should be placed where the last guy on the receiving end touched it before having gone into the endzone or the twenty which is ever worse.

Speaking of stupid rules. A defender clearly lines up or jumps offsides and is zoning in on killing your QB. A flag was thrown for the offsides but another, a holding flag is thrown on the running back who tackles the offside culprit to avoid the smear on the QB. Both penalties offset--if it isn't already, that should be a judgement call with only the first offender penalized.

C Money
General User

Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 9:27:37 AM

MonroeClassmate wrote:

Compare to the kickoff-out-of-bounds rule (which we benefited from Saturday): if the returning player touches it, regardless of momentum/control/whatever, the ball is placed where it went out of bounds.

It does seem inconsistent. It makes more sense to me to consider the ball "dead" on a punt wherever it stops rolling, unless touched by a returning player, at which point it is "live". Out of the endzone would be a safety if the ball was last touched by a returning player, or a touchback if last touched by a kicking player.

But what do I know? I just watch this game...

1stInConvo
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 44

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 3:57:29 PM

My favorite rule "punishment"....

Tailback Smith is trying to score so he extends the ball out towards the pylon. It gets knocked out of his hand before it cross the goal line:

Based on how the ball bounces it could be either a touchback or Smith may be running again on the next play. Or if his team is really luck, they may score on that one.

Then there is always the safety on an extra point attempt, on the defending team. They may have tried to get that out of the rulebook but I think it can still happen. Can you imagine losing in overtime on that one?

Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,273

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 8:24:42 PM

1stInConvo wrote:

If you fumble the ball forward out of bounds or your team recovers there should be a very simple rule. The ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. It shouldn't matter if its the last 5 minutes of the game or if it goes out at the 1 yard line or in the endzone. The Spot of the ball should be the spot of the fumble. I love how if you fumble out at the 1 you keep the ball but if it hits the pylon you not only somehow lose the ball but if that isn't enough the defense is given 20 free yards. That's one of the dumbest rules in sports.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,076

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 10:08:58 PM

If you don't like that rule, don't fumble the ball.

Victory
General User

Member Since: 3/10/2012
Post Count: 2,273

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 10:44:02 PM

Fine, if the rule is meant to a heavy punishment for fumbling then the other team needs to get the ball every time you fumble out of bounds.

If the rule was that if you fumbled into the endzone that the defense got 50 points and it was pointed out that this was inconsistent with the way the the rest of the fumbling rules effect the game you could still defend it by saying f you don't like the end result then don't do it. Obviously, you shoudn't fumble but the fact that you shouldn't has no bearing either way on the argument.

BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,076

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/29/2015 11:01:32 PM

Victory that makes no sense, the entire game is set up with the goaline being the object, and "how" the ball gets to the goaline is the reason for every scoring rule or force rule.

.
General User

Member Since: 2/3/2005
Post Count: 2,999

Status: Offline

RE: muffed punt = safety?

Posted: 9/30/2015 4:40:10 PM

How would the officials from that Buffalo game back in 2013 have ruled on this?

"The punting team touched the ball at the 13 yard line, which means Ohio will be assessed negative 13 points on the play and Minnesota will receive the ball for four straight possessions and get to use Tom Brady as its quarterback. The play is not reviewable and our ruling is final. Anyone caught arguing the call will be executed. First Down, Minnesota."

Showing Replies:	1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Jump to Page:	1

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 354 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

353 Guests
1 Registered User:
	doubledribble

There are no other users looking at this page.