What sort of thread have you made for us? A Wentz thread, if you can keep it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THEsocalledfan

Even the crazy squirt fumble was influenced by the rain, but it is true that play probably goes bad whatever the heck he was trying to do. that was the one play I though he really screwed up on. The conditions were so poor.......

---

It looked like he was trying to shovel pass it directly to the defender but on replay you could see how the guy tackling him tipped the ball out of this hand and he was trying to reach forward and knock it down. Have to admit, it made Wentz looks completely lost but it was just a really awkward strip sack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

It looked like he was trying to shovel pass it directly to the defender but on replay you could see how the guy tackling him tipped the ball out of this hand and he was trying to reach forward and knock it down. Have to admit, it made Wentz looks completely lost but it was just a really awkward strip sack.

---

I was initially really disappointed in him with that play, then like you said, it was not nearly as bad as it looked in real time. Granted, he was still trying to do too much and he just needs to eat that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THEsocalledfan

I was initially really disappointed in him with that play, then like you said, it was not nearly as bad as it looked in real time. Granted, he was still trying to do too much and he just needs to eat that one.

---

Bingo. He's still struggling with when to press and when to just eat it. Wasn't third down, he should have just tossed that one away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelbison

We understand the rule. But it is a really stupid one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

How do you propose they change it? I guarantee you will create unintended consequences no matter how you try to do it.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THEsocalledfan

Tough to change, however, unless you are also going to allow muffed punts to be advanced. You'd need to also do away with that rule.

---

This is where coaches and fans get in trouble listening to announcers for their rules knowledge. There is nothing in the rules preventing a player from advancing a muffed kick. The rule is that the kicking team can't advance a scrimmage kick (i.e. punt or FG) that has crossed the neutral zone or any free kick. The fact it has been muffed has no bearing on that. It does impact who is awarded a new series at the end of the down, but no impact on advancement of the ball as a result of the muff. If the kicking team possesses a kick it becomes dead immediately. The new series is awarded based on whether the receiving team touched the ball beyond the neutral zone on a scrimmage kick.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Chapo

no Trey & Carson pic?
no Trey OR Carson pic with NDSU fans after game?

Weak as fuck if true

---

Did you ask Trey’s grandma what was up with that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Chapo

oh man, pucknut can you handle this one?

ps- watching eagles fans twitter eating crow and wanting Wentz back is "Chef's Kiss" HAHAHA

---

I also enjoyed the subtle jab at the Eagles, intended or not, when after the game he was asked something along the lines of how well he is playing right now and he repiled "well, look at the weapons around me.."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2011BisonAlumni

Did you ask Trey’s grandma what was up with that ?

---

the rain was a bitch after game, they slapped hands, then Carson got grabbed by NBC & that was it. thanks 2001alumni

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

Bingo. He's still struggling with when to press and when to just eat it. Wasn't third down, he should have just tossed that one away.

---

He is very much like his favorite player in Favre except for the health aspect. I grew up an massive Elway fan and he was the same way. I don't think you want to change a guy like that you just live with it. They tend to get a little better as they age. Although as a Vikings fan as well I wish Favre hadn't thrown that pass in New Orleans. Although to be honest the kicker most likely would have missed it anyway as the Vikings never finish an important game.

QBs with the highest rating in the AFC
1.Joe Burrow 108.9
2.Josh Allen 103.6
3. Carson Wentz 102.8
4. Derek Carr 101.2
5 Justin Herbert 98.8
6 Lamar JaCkson 97.9
7. Patrick Mahomes 97.9
8. Ryan Tannehill 89.0

Bought tickets to see the Titans Colts game on Sunday!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndyBison

Bought tickets to see the Titans Colts game on Sunday!

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

---

awesome. Radunz vs Wentz

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/...elphia-qb-jets

Eagles News: Only a matter of time before Jalen Hurts is benched for Gardner Minshew?

Bwahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/...elphia-qb-jets

Eagles News: Only a matter of time before Jalen Hurts is benched for Gardner Minshew?

Bwahaha

---

Boy some of those people are completely delusion. I am so glad he left especially after what the Vikings fans had to endure during the NFC Championship game. Terrible fans.

Wentz is playing just like he did in 2019-20 when he threw for over 4,000 yards with 27 Tds and 7 int but Philly fans completely forgot that he had one bad year. By the way he is having a great year this year and the line was pretty banged up to the start the year but are coming together now. I really think if he stays healthy his numbers will be almost exactly like 2019-20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndyBison

This is where coaches and fans get in trouble listening to announcers for their rules knowledge. There is nothing in the rules preventing a player from advancing a muffed kick. The rule is that the kicking team can't advance a scrimmage kick (i.e. punt or FG) that has crossed the neutral zone or any free kick. The fact it has been muffed has no bearing on that. It does impact who is awarded a new series at the end of the down, but no impact on advancement of the ball as a result of the muff. If the kicking team possesses a kick it becomes dead immediately. The new series is awarded based on whether the receiving team touched the ball beyond the neutral zone on a scrimmage kick.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

---

So the player who muffs the punt reception is free to do what he wants, including attempting to secure the ball and run with it in the back of the endzone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAS4127

So the player who muffs the punt reception is free to do what he wants, including attempting to secure the ball and run with it in the back of the endzone?

---

Its a really dumb rule. In my opinion if the offensive player touches it outside the end zone it should be a safety if it goes into the end zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/...elphia-qb-jets

Eagles News: Only a matter of time before Jalen Hurts is benched for Gardner Minshew?

Bwahaha

---

I love being able to hate the Eagles again!

After Carson throws 1 pass they are like "see."

Now they want to bench Hurts for a no name player with a mustache only Gene Roebuck could love!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAS4127

So the player who muffs the punt reception is free to do what he wants, including attempting to secure the ball and run with it in the back of the endzone?

---

Yes, anything he wants to do legally. He can't throw a forward pass. If he fumbles and the kicking team recovers in the end zone they get a TD. If he runs to the 2 and gets tackled, he no longer gets the touchback. It's no different than if he caught the ball in the end zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowgoose

Its a really dumb rule. In my opinion if the offensive player touches it outside the end zone it should be a safety if it goes into the end zone.

---

If you don't understand the rule of force or impetus (not sure which word NFL uses) then I understand your confusion and frustration. But across all aspects of the game (runs, passes, interceptions, fumble recoveries, scrimmage kicks, free kicks, etc.) it's an important concept to understand when learning about this rule.

The ball is not round so it can bounce and move in strange ways. This is why the original force (pass, fumble, kick, run) applies unless a new force is applied to a ball at rest. If he muffed this at the one and it was obvious the ball was going into the end zone you likely wouldn't have noticed. This happens fairly frequently. In this case the muff happened much further away from the goal line so it doesn't seem as obvious, but from a rules perspective they are treated the same.

This rule has existed at all levels as long I'm aware and it's not uncommon for the receiving team to muff the ball either while airborne or grounded and it to go in the end zone and result in a touchback. That has never been an issue and you probably never noticed it. This only caught your attention because of the distance involved. There is no conversation or interest that I've heard to add some kind of distance factor to the rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HerdBot

I love being able to hate the Eagles again!

After Carson throws 1 pass they are like "see."

Now they want to bench Hurts for a no name player with a mustache only Gene Roebuck could love!

---

Nick Siriani is the problem.
He tried a silly onside kick, accepted a penalty instead of accepting a punt, had to burn a timeout on the first play of a series, and failed to make an obvious challenge.

Scratch that, Howie Roseman is the biggest cancer in that organization, he needs to go for a series of debacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HerdBot

I love being able to hate the Eagles again!

After Carson throws 1 pass they are like "see."

Now they want to bench Hurts for a no name player with a mustache only Gene Roebuck could love!

---

Nobody forced you to like the Eagles just because Carson was a part of the team. It's more than reasonable to wish Carson well and be indifferent to the team he plays for. Or even wish them ill will.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Everything is designed to protect the muff. It seems like they are putting the muff on a pedestal. Everyone seems to like the muff, no one wants to touch it. That muff is not not right, this whole muff thing smells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndyBison

Yes, anything he wants to do legally. He can't throw a forward pass. If he fumbles and the kicking team recovers in the end zone they get a TD. If he runs to the 2 and gets tackled, he no longer gets the touchback. It's no different than if he caught the ball in the end zone.


If you don't understand the rule of force or impetus (not sure which word NFL uses) then I understand your confusion and frustration. But across all aspects of the game (runs, passes, interceptions, fumble recoveries, scrimmage kicks, free kicks, etc.) it's an important concept to understand when learning about this rule.

The ball is not round so it can bounce and move in strange ways. This is why the original force (pass, fumble, kick, run) applies unless a new force is applied to a ball at rest. If he muffed this at the one and it was obvious the ball was going into the end zone you likely wouldn't have noticed. This happens fairly frequently. In this case the muff happened much further away from the goal line so it doesn't seem as obvious, but from a rules perspective they are treated the same.

This rule has existed at all levels as long I'm aware and it's not uncommon for the receiving team to muff the ball either while airborne or grounded and it to go in the end zone and result in a touchback. That has never been an issue and you probably never noticed it. This only caught your attention because of the distance involved. There is no conversation or interest that I've heard to add some kind of distance factor to the rule.

---

Must spread rep.....love Indy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndyBison

Yes, anything he wants to do legally. He can't throw a forward pass. If he fumbles and the kicking team recovers in the end zone they get a TD. If he runs to the 2 and gets tackled, he no longer gets the touchback. It's no different than if he caught the ball in the end zone.


If you don't understand the rule of force or impetus (not sure which word NFL uses) then I understand your confusion and frustration. But across all aspects of the game (runs, passes, interceptions, fumble recoveries, scrimmage kicks, free kicks, etc.) it's an important concept to understand when learning about this rule.

The ball is not round so it can bounce and move in strange ways. This is why the original force (pass, fumble, kick, run) applies unless a new force is applied to a ball at rest. If he muffed this at the one and it was obvious the ball was going into the end zone you likely wouldn't have noticed. This happens fairly frequently. In this case the muff happened much further away from the goal line so it doesn't seem as obvious, but from a rules perspective they are treated the same.

This rule has existed at all levels as long I'm aware and it's not uncommon for the receiving team to muff the ball either while airborne or grounded and it to go in the end zone and result in a touchback. That has never been an issue and you probably never noticed it. This only caught your attention because of the distance involved. There is no conversation or interest that I've heard to add some kind of distance factor to the rule.

---

Indy, question.... we know that a fumble and a muff are two different situations (in order to fumble a player must have had., first, , possession of the ball and attempted a football move ; where as a muff is a situation where a player has touched the ball but no actual control of the ball was attained. So, if a receiving team player muffs the ball in the endzone and then falls on the ball in the endzone, it is a touchback, (kickoffs and punts) If the receiving team player controls the ball, makes a move to leave the endzone, then fumbles it while in the endzone, recovers it, and is tackled in the endzone, it is a safety.......correct? This scenario occurred in a playoff football game that I was officiating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southcliffbison

Indy, question.... we know that a fumble and a muff are two different situations (in order to fumble a player must have had., first, , possession of the ball and attempted a football move ; where as a muff is a situation where a player has touched the ball but no actual control of the ball was attained. So, if a receiving team player muffs the ball in the endzone and then falls on the ball in the endzone, it is a touchback, (kickoffs and punts) If the receiving team player controls the ball, makes a move to leave the endzone, then fumbles it while in the endzone, recovers it, and is tackled in the endzone, it is a safety.......correct? This scenario occurred in a playoff football game that I was officiating.

---

And I’m confused as to how a kick returner can muff the catch outside of endzone, ball goes into endzone, returner follows ball into endzone, secures it, tries to juke a couple of defenders (makes several football move?) gets tackled in the endzone (contested tackle—-meaning returner attempted to fight it off) and it’s still just a touchback. Really? After all of that? Makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldmantutters

Nobody forced you to like the Eagles just because Carson was a part of the team. It's more than reasonable to wish Carson well and be indifferent to the team he plays for. Or even wish them ill will.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

---

Meh, I'm in Gabe's camp on this, albeit reluctantly so. I've been a Cowboys fan since the 70's. (Yeah, I know.) It is embedded in my core to hate the Eagles, the 49ers, and the Steelers. In the late 90's, however, my NFL interest has wained. I still watch games, although certainly fewer, but I tend to follow players rather than teams. As a Bison fan, a Michigan Wolverines fan, and an Oregon Ducks fan, I followed guys like Jim Harbaugh, Tim Biakabutuka, Charles Woodson, Brian Griese, Akili Smith, Haloti Ngata, Joey Harrington (that's where "Orygun" came from), Tom Brady, and Marcus Mariota as they were drafted and then their time in the league. When Bison players have made teams, I've been able to take note and keep track of them but given most of their smaller part on their respective teams, it has always been harder to start liking their team. Phil really got me liking the Bills so in spite of absolutely no connection to the team, I began following them his rookie year.

Then the unthinkable happened. A #2 overall draft pick from NDSU gets drafted by a team that I've always hated. I found that it made no difference to me. I began to see all of the good in Philly and was able to look past the bad. Bison goggles at work, I guess. Like Gabe, I'm glad to be able to hate those fuckers again.

Trey being in SF has me particularly surprised. I still haven't gotten over "The Catch". Some of my long term friends occasionally still troll me with that image of Dwight Clark stretched to his limit in the back of the end zone. I've been given a T-shirt, a coffee mug, and a coffee table book with that image. During a party that my wife and I hosted, someone even slipped a framed picture of it and set it neatly on our mantle. It took me a couple of months to notice. (My blood pressure just rose thinking about The Catch...) Yet, HERE I AM, now a 49ers fan blindly loving everything about the team.

Bison goggles, indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAS4127

And I’m confused as to how a kick returner can muff the catch outside of endzone, ball goes into endzone, returner follows ball into endzone, secures it, tries to juke a couple of defenders (makes several football move?) gets tackled in the endzone (contested tackle—-meaning returner attempted to fight it off) and it’s still just a touchback. Really? After all of that? Makes no sense.

---

From a rules perspective, it is the same as if a returner were to catch it in the endzone without giving the fair catch signal. If he runs around but doesn't make it out of the box before getting tackled, it is a touch back. Probably a better example is where there's an interception in the endzone and the defender gets tackled before leaving it.

Kick returns are like the wild west of football rules. Shit gets so weird it hard for even engaged fans to understand all the intricacies of the rules. That muffed punt touchback in the endzone is a prime example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

Kick returns are like the wild west of football rules. Shit gets so weird it hard for even engaged fans to understand all the intricacies of the rules. That muffed punt touchback in the endzone is a prime example.

---

It's not weird at all when you look at the core rules at play. Just because it looks funny occasionally doesn't mean the rule is wrong. "Fixing" it for that occasional aesthetically pleasing experience would surely screw up several other things that we need the rules for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southcliffbison

Indy, question.... we know that a fumble and a muff are two different situations (in order to fumble a player must have had., first, , possession of the ball and attempted a football move ; where as a muff is a situation where a player has touched the ball but no actual control of the ball was attained. So, if a receiving team player muffs the ball in the endzone and then falls on the ball in the endzone, it is a touchback, (kickoffs and punts) If the receiving team player controls the ball, makes a move to leave the endzone, then fumbles it while in the endzone, recovers it, and is tackled in the endzone, it is a safety.......correct? This scenario occurred in a playoff football game that I was officiating.

---

Possession of a dead ball on your end zone (the one you defend) is either a safety or touchback. The ruling is based on who is responsible for the ball being in the end zone. Force or impetus is the movement of the ball from the field of play into the end zone so that is the main question you have to answer. In your example the kick was the force so the kicking team was responsible for the ball being there and thus it results in a touchback.

If the returner leaves the end zone with possession and then retreats back into the end zone he is now responsible for the ball being there and getting tackled will result in a safety. Same if he fumbles it in the end zone after catching the kick and it leaves the end zone where is muffed by the kicking team back into the end zone and recovered by the receiving team. In this example the fumble is the force that caused the ball to go from the field to the end zone. The muff isn't considered a new force just like in the Colts game.

These examples are all NCAA rules, but I believe the NFL rules are generally similar.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAS4127

And I’m confused as to how a kick returner can muff the catch outside of endzone, ball goes into endzone, returner follows ball into endzone, secures it, tries to juke a couple of defenders (makes several football move?) gets tackled in the endzone (contested tackle—-meaning returner attempted to fight it off) and it’s still just a touchback. Really? After all of that? Makes no sense.

---

If you understand force or impetus it makes perfect sense. There are definitely complexities to the rule especially if you don't study the rules as deep as an official site. Like many rules it will create situations that seem odd but they are consistent applications.

I get why you and others feel this doesn't seem right, but it is a good rule.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrygunBison

It's not weird at all when you look at the core rules at play. Just because it looks funny occasionally doesn't mean the rule is wrong. "Fixing" it for that occasional aesthetically pleasing experience would surely screw up several other things that we need the rules for.

---

I don't doubt that. Just creates some counter intuitive situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EC8CH

I don't doubt that. Just creates some counter intuitive situations.

---

The suggested changes would be even worse. Let's say a runner fumbles deep in the defense's territory. The ball bounces off a defender and is recovered by the defense in the end zone. Since the defense touched it like others have suggested this would be a safety. By applying the definition of force and impetus, the fumble is what put the ball into the end zone and thus is the initial force. Just like the play that started this conversation the result is a touchback.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndyBison

If you understand force or impetus it makes perfect sense. There are definitely complexities to the rule especially if you don't study the rules as deep as an official site. Like many rules it will create situations that seem odd but they are consistent applications.

I get why you and others feel this doesn't seem right, but it is a good rule.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

---

No, I don’t understand force or impetus!/dark purple. Good God already.

Also, I wouldn’t go so for as calling it a “good rule.” It’s a rule, yeah, I get that, but it provides advantages to, in this scenario, the receiving team over the defending team.

Also, what if there is a holding penalty by the receiving team in the endzone that prevents one defender from tackling the returner in the endzone, but another defender is able to? Still a touch back? Safety (like it should be)? Or is penalty enforced after ball is set at 25? How about a holding in endzone that allows returner to get out of endzone but he’s tackled at 10? Safety (like it should be) or is penalty enforce to the 5 (half distance)?

For the love of my fantasy team please do not bench Hurts!

Imagine thinking a team muffing the ball and recovering in the endzone should not be a safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CAS4127

No, I don’t understand force or impetus!/dark purple. Good God already.

Also, I wouldn’t go so for as calling it a “good rule.” It’s a rule, yeah, I get that, but it provides advantages to, in this scenario, the receiving team over the defending team.

Also, what if there is a holding penalty by the receiving team in the endzone that prevents one defender from tackling the returner in the endzone, but another defender is able to? Still a touch back? Safety (like it should be)? Or is penalty enforced after ball is set at 25? How about a holding in endzone that allows returner to get out of endzone but he’s tackled at 10? Safety (like it should be) or is penalty enforce to the 5 (half distance)?

---

The result of the play is still a touchback but now you have to deal with the foul. The basic spot (defined term used to determine the initial enforcement spot) would be the 20 (succeeding spot on a touchback other than a free kick) but the foul occurs behind the basic spot. This means the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul. The fact it happened in the end zone would result in a safety. The result of the play in the second example is the receiving team's ball at the 10. The foul occurred during the run so the end of the run is the basic spot. The foul occurred behind the basic spot so this is the enforcement spot. Since it's in the end zone the result of the penalty is again a safety.

Back to your original point, it's very rare for the receiving team to benefit from this. Let's say he tried to recover it at the 30 but muffed it back to the 5. Now they have first and 10 at the 5 rather than the 30 where he tried to possess it. In almost all instances where the receiving team muffs it or it touches the receiving team and then goes into the end zone it would have gone into the end zone without this touching. The rules already account for the situation where the receiving team intentionally bat or kick the ball into their own end zone. If they touch or muff it and it goes into the end zone the original force (kick, pass, or fumble) still applies.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndsubison1

Imagine thinking a team muffing the ball and the other team recovers and not thinking they should be rewarded the ball.

---

They generally are unless the kicking team touched a scrimmage kick first. That's called illegal touching in NCAA and in most cases the receiving team can take the ball at the spot of illegal touching. That's why the back judge drops a bean bag at that spot. And technically the kicking team downing a punt is called illegal touching. It's not a foul, but it's a violation that gives the receiving team options.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

There seems to be a lot of controversy and argumentation about officiating these kicking plays that would simply go away if teams stopped kicking so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

There seems to be a lot of controversy and argumentation about officiating these kicking plays that would simply go away if teams stopped kicking so much.

---

All the strange stuff happens on kick plays. This is the dead ball routine by the back judge on every punt.

1. Count 11 on the receiving
2. Confirm count with other deep wings
3. Remind return guy to give a clear, legal signal
4. Position yourself 5 yards behind and 7 yards to the field side of the returner
5. Pray for a blocked punt

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I think I understand the muff and touchback stuff. But if a receiver catches a ball clean and then runs backward into the endzone to avoid a defender and then is tackled, that is a safety right? Because the 'impetus' was the runner and not the original kick.