Moorman Run, Penalty, Challenge & In-Bounds Kickoff

[SouthernMan]

Don't know if this has been covered already, but can anyone explain why the Jets were allowed to benefit from the Bills challenge?

 

On the fake punt, the officials rule that Moorman was short of the first down marker. THEN, Jets decline the holding penalty.

 

AFTER they decline the penalty, Jauron challenges the spot.

 

Following review, the ball is spotted after the first down marker, giving the Bills a first down - except that there was a holding penalty - that had already been declined by the Jets.

 

Seems to me, if the Jets thought it was a first down and wanted to decline the penalty, THEY should have challenged the spot.

Why should they benefit from the Bills challenge? They declined the penalty, Bills challenge spot, win challenge. Should be first down, Bills.

 

It may seem unfair to the Jets, but certainly more fair than the play where a kicker places a kickoff in-bounds, but because the receiving team player can (deliberately) touch his toe out of bounds and still reach the ball, it's a penalty that costs the kicking team around 25 yards when placed at the 40 yard line. What kind of F'd up rule is that? They get a penalty for the ball being CLOSE to the sideline? Someone please explain. I guess we can now say "Close Only Counts" in horseshoes and kickoffs.

[stuckincincy]

Don't know if this has been covered already, but can anyone explain why the Jets were allowed to benefit from the Bills challenge?

 

On the fake punt, the officials rule that Moorman was short of the first down marker. THEN, Jets decline the holding penalty.

 

AFTER they decline the penalty, Jauron challenges the spot.

 

Following review, the ball is spotted after the first down marker, giving the Bills a first down - except that there was a holding penalty - that had already been declined by the Jets.

 

Seems to me, if the Jets thought it was a first down and wanted to decline the penalty, THEY should have challenged the spot.

Why should they benefit from the Bills challenge? They declined the penalty, Bills challenge spot, win challenge. Should be first down, Bills.

 

It may seem unfair to the Jets, but certainly more fair than the play where a kicker places a kickoff in-bounds, but because the receiving team player can (deliberately) touch his toe out of bounds and still reach the ball, it's a penalty that costs the kicking team around 25 yards when placed at the 40 yard line. What kind of F'd up rule is that? They get a penalty for the ball being CLOSE to the sideline? Someone please explain. I guess we can now say "Close Only Counts" in horseshoes and kickoffs.

 

Based on the initial spot, the Bills turned the ball over on downs- so the Jets declined the penalty.

 

Bills challenged the spot. Bills were given a 1st down, so then with the re-spot, the Jets accepted the penalty.

 

If BUF didn't challenge (and win), it's Jets ball on the Bills' 27. They won the challenge...Jets took the 10 yards from the original LOS...Bills punted from their 14 to the Jets' 47.

 

I didn't see the game. Was Moorman's run because of a botched punt? If it was a deliberate fake...not to swift a thing to do from one's own 24...

[SouthernMan]

Based on the initial spot, the Bills turned the ball over on downs- so the Jets declined the penalty.

 

Bills challenged the spot. Bills were given a 1st down, so then with the re-spot, the Jets accepted the penalty.

 

If BUF didn't challenge (and win), it's Jets ball on the Bills' 27. They won the challenge...Jets took the 10 yards from the original LOS...Bills punted from their 14 to the Jets' 47.

 

 

Yeah, I got all that.

 

My point was in the sequence of events, the challenge came AFTER the penalty was already declined. Why should the Jets get a mulligan for not challenging the spot themselves. Would it be fair? No. But neither was the stupid "near-sideline" kickoff rule.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Yeah, I got all that.

 

 

 

My point was in the sequence of events, the challenge came AFTER the penalty was already declined. Why should the Jets get a mulligan for not challenging the spot themselves. Would it be fair? No. But neither was the stupid "near-sideline" kickoff rule.

 

Why would the Jets have challenged the spot themselves, the initial ruling was in their favor.

 

The Moorman play was definitely fair. The refs told the Jets they had gained the ball through turnover on downs, so they naturally declined the penalty. They weren't given the benefit of correct information to make their decision. Once the spotting was overturned, they had to be given the chance to change their minds with the new, correct information in hand.

 

The out of bounds kickoff rule was just weird, and I'm still trying to decide if I think it's fair. Either way, incredibly heads up play by the Jets special teamer.

[dib]

on a similar note- How does a jets player intentionaly stepping out of bounds, and taking the football with him constitute a kick out of bounds.

 

I'm so confused.

[Tcali]

Don't know if this has been covered already, but can anyone explain why the Jets were allowed to benefit from the Bills challenge?

 

On the fake punt, the officials rule that Moorman was short of the first down marker. THEN, Jets decline the holding penalty.

 

AFTER they decline the penalty, Jauron challenges the spot.

 

Following review, the ball is spotted after the first down marker, giving the Bills a first down - except that there was a holding penalty - that had already been declined by the Jets.

 

Seems to me, if the Jets thought it was a first down and wanted to decline the penalty, THEY should have challenged the spot.

Why should they benefit from the Bills challenge? They declined the penalty, Bills challenge spot, win challenge. Should be first down, Bills.

 

It may seem unfair to the Jets, but certainly more fair than the play where a kicker places a kickoff in-bounds, but because the receiving team player can (deliberately) touch his toe out of bounds and still reach the ball, it's a penalty that costs the kicking team around 25 yards when placed at the 40 yard line. What kind of F'd up rule is that? They get a penalty for the ball being CLOSE to the sideline? Someone please explain. I guess we can now say "Close Only Counts" in horseshoes and kickoffs.

yeah i brought up the same issue in the gamethread

[stuckincincy]

Yeah, I got all that.

 

My point was in the sequence of events, the challenge came AFTER the penalty was already declined. Why should the Jets get a mulligan for not challenging the spot themselves. Would it be fair? No. But neither was the stupid "near-sideline" kickoff rule.

Why would the Jets challenge the initial spot? That spot gave them the ball on the Bills' 27. Are you saying that the Jets (if it is possible) should have challenged the re-spot of the ball by the officials?

 

The Bills had no choice but to challenge. If they win they get assessed 10 yards and get to punt.

 

There's no controversy about the Jets accepting the penalty. A team has the right to the know where the ball is finally spotted before deciding to accept or decline a penalty.

[Tcali]

They weren't given the benefit of correct information to make their decision

 

 

 

 

yeah good point

[stuckincincy]

on a similar note- How does a jets player intentionaly stepping out of bounds, and taking the football with him constitute a kick out of bounds.

 

I'm so confused.

 

 

He didn't take the ball out of bounds. He was out of bounds when he reached back and touched the ball.

 

Bad luck for the kicking team - but everybody gets a copy of the rules.

[BuffaloWings]

He didn't take the ball out of bounds. He was out of bounds when he reached back and touched the ball.

 

Bad luck for the kicking team - but everybody gets a copy of the rules.

And it's a rule that should be changed...just say that the kick is illegal if the BALL goes out of bounds. If the player picks it up while he's standing out of bounds, it should be a dead ball right there.

[SouthernMan]

And it's a rule that should be changed...just say that the kick is illegal if the BALL goes out of bounds. If the player picks it up while he's standing out of bounds, it should be a dead ball right there.

 

It's stupid rule.

 

A team could have Stretch Armstrong, Gumby, or Robert Wadlow as a special team kick receiver specialist who keeps one foot on the white line and can reach for the ball well inside the out-of-bounds lines, getting the ball at the 40 on a regular basis.

 

The only way it makes any sense is if a kick returner has no other choice but to step out of bounds in order to get the ball. That wasn't the case. The ball was rolling dead IN BOUNDS and the Jet player very deliberately stepped out of bounds unnecessarily for the sole purpose of having a penalty called. It wasn't in the spirit of the rule.

 

Is there any other action in the game in which an opposing player can get a penalty called by their action rather than that of the penalized team? In other words, it required the Jet player to step out of bounds and touch the ball in order to be a penalty. If he simply downs the ball where it went dead - no penalty. Talk about unsportsmanlike conduct.

 

Yep, it was heads up on the part of the Jet, but that doesn't diminish the stupidity of the rule as it's written.

[Dr. Fong]

And it's a rule that should be changed...just say that the kick is illegal if the BALL goes out of bounds. If the player picks it up while he's standing out of bounds, it should be a dead ball right there.

 

 

I agree. To me the rule just seems inconsistent with the other rules in football. I doubt it will ever be changed, however, since it's so rarely seen. Heads up play by Washington.

[BillsFanInTexas]

And it's a rule that should be changed...just say that the kick is illegal if the BALL goes out of bounds. If the player picks it up while he's standing out of bounds, it should be a dead ball right there.

 

I have a feeling that rule will change. The ball should be dead as well as an "illegal touching" rule. Same as a gunner running out of bounds and being the first to down a punt.

[bills44]

What irritated the hell out of me was the official who ruled Moorman out of bounds WAS STANDING ABOUT 2 FEET AWAY FROM MOORMAN! It wasn't even close -- how this this clown blow such an easy call?

 

I have no issue with the Jets accepting the penalty after the reversal, or with the OOB kickoff, though. Rules are rules (unless you play for the Pats**)....

[TC in St. Louis]

In the Bills bar in St. Louis, we were all a bit tickled by the irony.....the Bills finally win a challenge, and the fruits of that victory were THE RIGHT TO PUNT FROM 10 YARDS FURTHER BACK. Hip hip friggin hooray.

[Golden Wheels]

What irritated the hell out of me was the official who ruled Moorman out of bounds WAS STANDING ABOUT 2 FEET AWAY FROM MOORMAN! It wasn't even close -- how this this clown blow such an easy call?

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was flabbergasted by that. He had to be blind or crooked.

[Boatdrinks]

I agree. To me the rule just seems inconsistent with the other rules in football. I doubt it will ever be changed, however, since it's so rarely seen. Heads up play by Washington.

 

 

It's a dumb rule. It is designed to discourage kicking toward the sideline and therefore promoting more kickoff returns.

[truth on hold]

Official made a bad initial call (surprising since he was right on top of it.) They gave Jets information that subsequently was over turned, which gave Jets chance to reassess their waiver of the penalty. I have no problem with any of that.

 

BUT I DO QUESTION THE HOLDING CALL. I saw the Jets get away with a lot worse during the game and also the alleged penalty was way behind Moorman and had nothing to do with the play's outcome. That could have been a huge play in our favor effecting the outcome of the game.

[stuckincincy]

It's a dumb rule. It is designed to discourage kicking toward the sideline and therefore promoting more kickoff returns.

 

The NFL has taken pains to make KO returns exciting, as you mention.

 

So, it's not a dumb rule. Make it a special case, exempt it from the general set of out-of-bounds rules, and watch teams scheming to direct KOs to the sidelines, with coverage biased towards that direction.

 

It's not a common thing, a kick close to the sideline and a player in position and with the presence of mind to make that play. The Jet made a smart move...what's wrong with that?

 

I'd leave the rule as is and hope that a team stung by it learns. Perhaps uses it to their advantage in the future.

[SouthernMan]

The NFL has taken pains to make KO returns exciting, as you mention.

 

So, it's not a dumb rule. Make it a special case, exempt it from the general set of out-of-bounds rules, and watch teams scheming to direct KOs to the sidelines, with coverage biased towards that direction.

 

It's not a common thing, a kick close to the sideline and a player in position and with the presence of mind to make that play. The Jet made a smart move...what's wrong with that?

 

I'd leave the rule as is and hope that a team stung by it learns. Perhaps uses it to their advantage in the future.

 

 

In a nutshell, the Bills were effectively penalized 25 yards for placing a kickoff "kinda close" to the sideline. By that logic, the Bills should be awarded a victory in Superbowl XXV.