Return Rule Question

[NDSUSR]

Sooo MN vs MI. MN punts, MI return man steps out of bounds then runs into the endzone and is tackled after picking up the ball after it bounced in the endzone.

Whats the call?

[aces1180]

Sooo MN vs MI. MN punts, MI return man steps out of bounds then runs into the endzone and is tackled after picking up the ball after it bounced in the endzone.

Whats the call?

Only if they catch it and run it into the end zone is it a safety...Otherwise, its a touchback.

[Hammersmith]

Sooo MN vs MI. MN punts, MI return man steps out of bounds then runs into the endzone and is tackled after picking up the ball after it bounced in the endzone.

Whats the call?

You need to be a lot more specific if you want people to have any chance of guessing correctly.

Return man backpedals to get ball. Stretches out to grab ball while feet still in play. Ball brushes tips of hands, hits ground in play at the two, then bounces into the endzone. Return man turns to pursue ball, a foot touches the sideline, then the return man runs into the endzone to pick up ball and run with it. Within a few steps, the return man is tackled in the endzone.

[NorthernBison]

I don't know the rule. I'd guess touchback. Only a guess.

[NDSUSR]

You need to be a lot more specific if you want people to have any chance of guessing correctly.

Return man backpedals to get ball. Stretches out to grab ball while feet still in play. Ball brushes tips of hands, hits ground in play at the two, then bounces into the endzone. Return man turns to pursue ball, a foot touches the sideline, then the return man runs into the endzone to pick up ball and run with it. Within a few steps, the return man is tackled in the endzone.

Ok your version wins. I thought even on kicks, if you went out of bounds it was an issue.
I didnt think the ball touched his fingers tho.

Did you see Rudock get crushed? That was a scarey hit.

[1998braves64]

You need to be a lot more specific if you want people to have any chance of guessing correctly.

Return man backpedals to get ball. Stretches out to grab ball while feet still in play. Ball brushes tips of hands, hits ground in play at the two, then bounces into the endzone. Return man turns to pursue ball, a foot touches the sideline, then the return man runs into the endzone to pick up ball and run with it. Within a few steps, the return man is tackled in the endzone.


With this version has to be a safety no? Is it a violation for him to touch the ball first after going out of bounds??

[Hammersmith]

With this version has to be a safety no? Is it a violation for him to touch the ball first after going out of bounds??

No. If I'm reading the rules correctly, members of the receiving team can touch the ball after going out of bounds, but members of the kicking team cannot.


Out-of-Bounds Player
ARTICLE 12. No Team A player who goes out of bounds during a scrimmage
kick down may return inbounds during the down (Exception: This does not
apply to a Team A player who is blocked out of bounds and attempts to return
inbounds immediately).

[Bisonwinagn]

Claeys might of just got fired after the embarrassing debacle to end the game. Complete failure that lost what was a great game. That was worse than the Michigan dropped punt last week.

[FFBison]

No. If I'm reading the rules correctly, members of the receiving team can touch the ball after going out of bounds, but members of the kicking team cannot.

And the touching doesn't matter either...would have to be possessed by the player (not just touched) and then taken into the endzone before it would be a safety.

[IndyBison]

I like watching you guys try to explain and interpret rules. It's definitely an honest attempt.

On a free kick, the kicking team is team A and the receiving team is team B. Team A may not go out of bounds and return during the down unless blocked out and return immediately. Touching would only become a factor if he touches it while out of bounds or before touching in bounds. If a kicked ball touches the ground in the end zone untouched by B in the field of play it would be a touchback. If team B did touch it in the field of play (sounds like it based on this discussion) then it is still live if it touched the ground in the end zone. A is still responsible for it being there so B can recover and knee for a touchback. If B recovers in the field of play and carries it in the end zone where it becomes dead then you have a safety. The momentum exception to the safety rule though says if B recovers the kick inside the 5 and his original momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball becomes dead, then it is not a safety, but B gets the ball at the spot of recovery.

There are several different rules at play there as there are on several plays.

[NDSUSR]

I like watching you guys try to explain and interpret rules. It's definitely an honest attempt.

On a free kick, the kicking team is team A and the receiving team is team B. Team A may not go out of bounds and return during the down unless blocked out and return immediately. Touching would only become a factor if he touches it while out of bounds or before touching in bounds. If a kicked ball touches the ground in the end zone untouched by B in the field of play it would be a touchback. If team B did touch it in the field of play (sounds like it based on this discussion) then it is still live if it touched the ground in the end zone. A is still responsible for it being there so B can recover and knee for a touchback. If B recovers in the field of play and carries it in the end zone where it becomes dead then you have a safety. The momentum exception to the safety rule though says if B recovers the kick inside the 5 and his original momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball becomes dead, then it is not a safety, but B gets the ball at the spot of recovery.

There are several different rules at play there as there are on several plays.

It appears that you didnt see the play. Whats even funnier to me is your attempt to explain something that you didnt see. :)
Ahhh referees.....

[JMB]

On a related note, I do give the networks credit for having rules officials available these days for NFL and major college games to help provide rules interpretations.

[NorthernBison]

It appears that you didnt see the play. Whats even funnier to me is your attempt to explain something that you didnt see. :)
Ahhh referees.....

I think you got your answer. What don't you like about it?

[MNLonghorn10]

I noticed the guy stepped out of bounds too, nobody said anything.



Maybe the B1G has the same pud rule the valley has where the home team selects if replay will be used or not

[IndyBison]

It appears that you didnt see the play. Whats even funnier to me is your attempt to explain something that you didnt see. :)
Ahhh referees.....

I was just explaining the rules around what you were discussing. I have no idea what happened in the actual play so I have no idea if they got it right or wrong.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[NorthernBison]

I noticed the guy stepped out of bounds too, nobody said anything.



Maybe the B1G has the same pud rule the valley has where the home team selects if replay will be used or not

I don't think it matters if a member of the receiving team stepped out of bounds. See Hammersmith above

[Hammersmith]

I was just explaining the rules around what you were discussing. I have no idea what happened in the actual play so I have no idea if they got it right or wrong.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

The officials got it right; it was called a touchback. The announcers got part of it wrong(surprise). The announcers thought that even if it touched his fingers, it still would have been a dead ball once it entered the endzone. Heads up play by the returner to go after the ball in the endzone, though he probably should have just taken a knee once he had possession of the ball rather than running around with it. There was a better than even chance that the ball would have bounced out the back of the endzone before a kicking team player could have gotten to it, but why take the chance?


And I could be wrong about the touching since I didn't look that close on the replay, but why else would the return man go rushing after the ball if he didn't feel it touch his fingertips?

[kab1one]

The officials got it right; it was called a touchback. The announcers got part of it wrong(surprise). The announcers thought that even if it touched his fingers, it still would have been a dead ball once it entered the endzone. Heads up play by the returner to go after the ball in the endzone, though he probably should have just taken a knee once he had possession of the ball rather than running around with it. There was a better than even chance that the ball would have bounced out the back of the endzone before a kicking team player could have gotten to it, but why take the chance?


And I could be wrong about the touching since I didn't look that close on the replay, but why else would the return man go rushing after the ball if he didn't feel it touch his fingertips?

I get the fact this punt was muffed and went into the end zone. That point is pretty clear, if he falls on it, touchback, start at the twenty. But the Michigan player after the muff, went into the end zone, picked the ball up, made a lateral football move to avoid some would be tacklers in the end zone, advanced the ball inside of the end zone being tackled in the end zone.

Thus the question, does the attempt or making a football move (or multiple moves in this case) change the answer?

This aspect was not discussed with the referee analysis during the game.

[Bisonwinagn]

I get the fact this punt was muffed and went into the end zone. That point is pretty clear, if he falls on it, touchback, start at the twenty. But the Michigan player after the muff, went into the end zone, picked the ball up, made a lateral football move to avoid some would be tacklers in the end zone, advanced the ball inside of the end zone being tackled in the end zone.

Thus the question, does the attempt or making a football move (or multiple moves in this case) change the answer?

This aspect was not discussed with the referee analysis during the game.

This is my same question? The player ran with the ball trying to get out of the endzone and was tackled which I thought resulted in a safety. If he takes a knee then fine.

[IndyBison]

I get the fact this punt was muffed and went into the end zone. That point is pretty clear, if he falls on it, touchback, start at the twenty. But the Michigan player after the muff, went into the end zone, picked the ball up, made a lateral football move to avoid some would be tacklers in the end zone, advanced the ball inside of the end zone being tackled in the end zone.

Thus the question, does the attempt or making a football move (or multiple moves in this case) change the answer?

This aspect was not discussed with the referee analysis during the game.

Unless he runs out of the end zone and then returns, it doesn't matter if he takes an immediate knee or runs around before being tackled or taking a knee. The kick was still the impetus that put the ball in the end zone. Impetus is the key rule that determines safety/touchdown/touchback.

[Hammersmith]

This is my same question? The player ran with the ball trying to get out of the endzone and was tackled which I thought resulted in a safety. If he takes a knee then fine.

If the player takes possession of the ball outside the end zone, then enters the end zone and is tackled, then it's a safety(unless the ball was caught inside the 5 and the momentum of the catch takes the player into the end zone). But if possession begins inside the end zone, then the outcome is a touchback no matter how much the player moves around inside the end zone. I think the only way it might become a safety is if the player takes possession within the end zone, then steps out of bounds beyond the goal line. I'm not sure if that would be a safety or a touchback.

Think of it like an interception in the end zone(both are changes of possession inside the end zone). Player runs around, gets tackled. Touchback, not safety. I believe a safety requires possession to be established in the field of play, followed by entry into the end zone. The muffed punt did not establish possession, it only created a live ball situation.

But I'm probably wrong about all the philosophy(but not the application).




edit: started post before indy's; yep, wrong about philosophy, right about application

[IndyBison]

If the player takes possession of the ball outside the end zone, then enters the end zone and is tackled, then it's a safety(unless the ball was caught inside the 5 and the momentum of the catch takes the player into the end zone). But if possession begins inside the end zone, then the outcome is a touchback no matter how much the player moves around inside the end zone. I think the only way it might become a safety is if the player takes possession within the end zone, then steps out of bounds beyond the goal line. I'm not sure if that would be a safety or a touchback.

Think of it like an interception in the end zone(both are changes of possession inside the end zone). Player runs around, gets tackled. Touchback, not safety. I believe a safety requires possession to be established in the field of play, followed by entry into the end zone. The muffed punt did not establish possession, it only created a live ball situation.

But I'm probably wrong about all the philosophy(but not the application).

edit: started post before indy's; yep, wrong about philosophy, right about application
Pretty good understanding and explanation though. You would make a good official! The muffed punt did not create a "live ball situation" either. Semantics and definitions are critical when discussing rules. I know what you meant though. The touching by the receiving team just means if the kicking team recovers it they will be awarded a new series.

[NDSUSR]

Refs are generally idiots. Thus the career path. Proof?

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-announces-11-01-2015

GREENSBORO, N.C. – The Atlantic Coast Conference has announced the suspension of the on-field officiating crew as well as the replay official and communicator following the Miami at Duke game on Saturday, October 31.

The announcement follows the league’s weekly review of game footage, as well as reports and interviews with officials and administrators.

The series of errors during the final play of the game will result in the suspension of the entire crew for two ACC games.

The errors that occurred during the last play of the game are:

The replay official erred in not overturning the ruling on the field that the Miami player had released the ball prior to his knee being down. If called, this would have ended the game.
The on-field officials erred by failing to penalize Miami for an illegal block in the back at the Miami 16-yard line. If called, the ball would have been placed at the Miami 8-yard line and the game would have been extended for an untimed down.
A block in the back foul was called at the Duke 26-yard line. After the officials conferred, which is appropriate, they correctly determined that the block was from the side, which resulted in the flag being picked up. The replay official was not involved in the decision to pick up the flag; however, the referee did not effectively manage communication and properly explain why the flag was picked up.
In addition, the on-field crew failed to penalize a Miami player for leaving the bench area and entering the field prior to the end of the play. This foul would not have negated the touchdown because it would have been enforced as a dead ball foul.
“The quality of our officiating program is of the highest importance to the league and its schools, and the last play of the game was not handled appropriately,” said ACC Commissioner John Swofford. “Officiating is an extraordinarily difficult job but our players, coaches, programs and fans deserve the best that can be offered. We will continue to strive to meet that standard.”

[Bison"FANatic"]

It appears that you didnt see the play. Whats even funnier to me is your attempt to explain something that you didnt see. :)
Ahhh referees.....


Refs are generally idiots. Thus I]


In my experience when people call professionals idiots they usually have just enough knowledge of something to be dangerous but they themselves are the ones who need more educating . Your attacking Indy for trying to educate us and you make you look like a fool

[NDSUSR]

In my experience when people call professionals idiots they usually have just enough knowledge of something to be dangerous but they themselves are the ones who need more educating . Your attacking Indy for trying to educate us and you make you look like a fool

Im not attacking anyone. I just found it hilarious that he tried to explain what happened without seeing the play. Calm down.

[NorthernBison]

Im not attacking anyone. I just found it hilarious that he tried to explain what happened without seeing the play. Calm down.

I didn't get that from his post.. He explained how the rules are interpreted. The answer was there for anybody who saw the play.

So, did you think they got it wrong? I've not seen an opinion.

[NDSUSR]

I didn't get that from his post.. He explained how the rules are interpreted. The answer was there for anybody who saw the play.

So, did you think they got it wrong? I've not seen an opinion.

No, I think they got it right, but the rule is flawed.

[RonMexico]

No, I think they got it right, but the rule is flawed.

flawed how?

[NDSUSR]

flawed how?

The return team is allowed to go out of bounds, then return and be the first player to touch the ball.

[IzzyFlexion]

I like watching you guys try to explain and interpret rules. It's definitely an honest attempt.

and.............I like it when referees think that they are bigger than the game.


http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ref-scared-by-bal-1.gif

[Mayville Bison]

Im not attacking anyone. I just found it hilarious that he tried to explain what happened without seeing the play. Calm down.

I find it hilarious that you asked for a ruling on a play, didn't explain it to the fullest, and expected to get an answer from someone knowledgeable of a complicated rule book that saw the play live.

I personally like when Indy, mn7, and others weigh in with official rulings whether they saw the play or not because from their explanations I can figure out the play I saw. From Indy's explanation above, I know the touchback call was 100% correct.