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

[Herd]

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.

[THEsocalledfan]

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.

[southcliffbison]

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.

[CAS4127]

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.

[OrygunBison]

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.

[OrygunBison]

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.

[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.

[OrygunBison]

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.

[IndyBison]

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

[IndyBison]

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