Drreef2 Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Can anyone clarify why the Bills were not allowed to advance the ball off the muffed punt in the 4th quarter against Miami? Thanks
sodbuster Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 You can't advance it. Its just the rule, and I have no idea why.
voodoo poonani Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Courtesy of Wikipedia: In American football, a muffed punt is defined as "touching of the ball prior to possessing the ball." A muffed punt occurs when there is an "uncontrolled touch" of the football by a player on the returning team after it is punted. This can occur when: The kicking team interferes with the other team's right to catch the punt A player on the kicking team is struck unaware by the football running down-field to cover the punt. A player attempts to return the ball, makes contact with it but cannot retain the ball in his hands and it comes loose.[1] A muffed punt is not a fumble. To be a fumble, the receiving team must possess the football, then lose control. In the case of a fumble, the ball is live and can be returned by the team that recovers the ball. In the case of a muffed punt, it is possible for the punting team to recover the ball and continue the drive, but at least in NCAA and NFL rules, they cannot advance the ball on that same play. Rules vary by league about how to handle a muffed punt. In the NFL, a muffed punt recovered by the kicking team cannot be challenged by a coach for review.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 You can't advance it. Its just the rule, and I have no idea why. I would be curious as to the origin of the rule. One guess is that it was for safety reasons, but pre-dated the fair catch rule, so it no longer makes sense.
vincec Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 I think it'd be fun for "muffs" to be returnable. What's the harm? It would add some excitement.
NoSaint Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) I would be curious as to the origin of the rule. One guess is that it was for safety reasons, but pre-dated the fair catch rule, so it no longer makes sense. Maybe something to do with it being hard to make a call on if an uncontrolled touch actually happened additionally. Not just a muffed punt but when the ball is bouncing around a crowd of guys is governed by the rule. For the receiving team to advance it wouldn't matter if there was a touch or not from a refs perspective, the kicking team mirrors that essentially with it blowing dead on recovery whether or not there's a touch. Then they sort out if it was downed or recovered. Edited September 20, 2014 by NoSaint
PromoTheRobot Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 I thought it was ruled "down by contact" on that play?
Captain Caveman Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) My understanding was that it was ruled that we possessed the ball and fumbled it again (then recovered) we couldn't advance the ball from where we had fumbled it, didn't have anything to do with it being a muff. Edit: Nevermind, I just rewatched it and nothing that I thought happened actually happened. Edited September 20, 2014 by Captain Caveman
WotAGuy Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Edit: ...........nothing that I thought happened actually happened. I hear you man - that happens to me ALL THE TIME
stevestojan Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Edit: Nevermind, I just rewatched it and nothing that I thought happened actually happened. Hilarious. And true, happens to me all the time. And we wonder how the officials don't get every call perfect.
Captain Caveman Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 A lotta strands in old duder's head.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Maybe something to do with it being hard to make a call on if an uncontrolled touch actually happened additionally. Not just a muffed punt but when the ball is bouncing around a crowd of guys is governed by the rule. For the receiving team to advance it wouldn't matter if there was a touch or not from a refs perspective, the kicking team mirrors that essentially with it blowing dead on recovery whether or not there's a touch. Then they sort out if it was downed or recovered. Yeah, you could be right. I wonder if the rule ought to be a muffed punt or any incidental touch is just dead at the spot of the "muff" (assuming that is a word). Receiving team keeps the ball right at the spot of the muff. This would lead to more certainty and would probably cut down on injuries.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) I think it'd be fun for "muffs" to be returnable. What's the harm? It would add some excitement. If muffs were returnable, you'd have more guys trying to scoop the muff and run, and less guys diving for it. Is that more exciting? Depends on who you ask. Edited September 20, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 If muffs were returnable, you'd have more guys trying to scoop the muff and run, and less guys diving for it. Is that more exciting? Depends on who you ask. OR... Take a twist on say the infield fly rule in baseball. Would players try and bounce it around so somebody could have a better shot at advancing it. Or just simply lateral it off. What happens if they make a player to cause incidental contact with the ball? Of course that could happen now... BUT with the idea that they could set up a scoring play? There is really nobody on the receiving team behind the returner... The kicking team already has a head of steam going in the direction of the advancement. Again, not that the kicking team can't try and make somebody muff... But you would see a lot more of it knowing they could advance down a wide open field. Just a thought... Basically, really unfair balance between sides if they allowed it.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 ... Basically, really unfair balance between sides if they allowed it. So I guess you prefer muff diving on the grounds that it's fair to both teams?
NoSaint Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 OR... Take a twist on say the infield fly rule in baseball. Would players try and bounce it around so somebody could have a better shot at advancing it. Or just simply lateral it off. What happens if they make a player to cause incidental contact with the ball? Of course that could happen now... BUT with the idea that they could set up a scoring play? There is really nobody on the receiving team behind the returner... The kicking team already has a head of steam going in the direction of the advancement. Again, not that the kicking team can't try and make somebody muff... But you would see a lot more of it knowing they could advance down a wide open field. Just a thought... Basically, really unfair balance between sides if they allowed it. While your ideas about the momentum of the play favoring 7 for the kicking team if recovered may be valid.... Do you really think gaining possession of the ball 50 yards down field but not being able to advance it is really any less motivation to get the ball?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 So I guess you prefer muff diving on the grounds that it's fair to both teams? Well played! LMAO! While your ideas about the momentum of the play favoring 7 for the kicking team if recovered may be valid.... Do you really think gaining possession of the ball 50 yards down field but not being able to advance it is really any less motivation to get the ball? Good point. I thought about that. That's complicated. The rule makes them work seriously harder for it. Knowing they can't advance sorta keeps them a bit more "honest", IMO.
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Well played! LMAO! Haha; took a couple times to get that one, huh?
Matt in KC Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 So stupid question: can it not be advanced from where it was muffed, er... touched, or from where it is recovered? If the Bills had only first controlled that muffed punt in the endzone, would it have been a touchdown?
FireChan Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 So stupid question: can it not be advanced from where it was muffed, er... touched, or from where it is recovered? If the Bills had only first controlled that muffed punt in the endzone, would it have been a touchdown? The play is dead wherever the kicking team picks up the ball. In the end zone is a TD.
Recommended Posts