I was rewatching the game and thought this play should have been reviewed. It looked like it hit the ground, bounced up, hit the A&M guy in the facemask, then hit Graham. I was surprised this play was not reviewed.
Graham's muffed punt return
- Thread starter UpTheMiddlex3Punt
- Start date
The ball isn't dead until the punting team stops the progress of the ball. If Graham had picked it up after it hit the A&M player's facemask and taken it to the end zone, it would have been a touchdown. But he touched it and they recovered, so it was their ball. It was a good call.
That's not quite how the rule works. Yeah if he picked it up and ran it back it would have been a TD. But if they did touch it first, we would have had the option of taking the ball where they first touched it. That's why on punts of they touch the ball at the 5 and it rolls dead on the 1 you get it on the 5 but if it goes into the end zone it's a touchback.
Agree with UpTheMiddle...
However I don't know the rules. But if the defense can touch it and it still be live, why would defenses not just push the ball intentional into the punt returner every time?
However I don't know the rules. But if the defense can touch it and it still be live, why would defenses not just push the ball intentional into the punt returner every time?
Nah not how it works. Not a good call if in fact the A&M player touched it first. But what do I know I'm 2/3 deep in jager.
Watching it again I realized they probably did not have enough good camera angles to overturn the call on the field.
Since we only ever saw one angle, I can't comment on that particular portion. However, had the refs ruled that A&M touched the ball first, the Aggies couldn't be awarded possession on that play (unless we then picked it up, controlled the ball, fumbled it away, and A&M recovered the fumble ).
I don't know the rules, but feel confident in my ability to comment on them anyway.
My first thought on that particular play was that the defender was entirely too close to the receiver.... like heavy breathing on the phone too close. They could have been accused of being lovers, not that there's anything wrong with that, except on the football field. The ball bounced off of the defender and then off of the receiver.
In the end though, it worked itself out when sumlen refused to accept the points and went for it on 4-2. Greedy bastich.
My first thought on that particular play was that the defender was entirely too close to the receiver.... like heavy breathing on the phone too close. They could have been accused of being lovers, not that there's anything wrong with that, except on the football field. The ball bounced off of the defender and then off of the receiver.
In the end though, it worked itself out when sumlen refused to accept the points and went for it on 4-2. Greedy bastich.
You're probably right, but it should have 110% been reviewed at the least. Thank goodness the game didn't come down to one or two plays because the zebras were just not very good last weekend. I will still maintain that if we're going by the NCAA rulebook, the JRob fumble should have been ruled incomplete as well.
Graham came up and tried to act like he didn't touch it at first, but then he hung his head on the sideline. If you watch the replay angle from behind him, you don't see the ball hit his hand, but you can see his left hand moving downward as if the ball had hit it. But there didn't seem to be a definitive angle either way.
I thought the JRob fumble was crap too. Same play that Nederhofer made earlier, but both calls went the wrong way.
I thought the JRob fumble was crap too. Same play that Nederhofer made earlier, but both calls went the wrong way.
The defender looked like he was close enough to whisper sweet nothings to Graham.
Didn't we get penalized for a defender being too close to a punt returner multiple times two or three seasons ago. I remember looking into the rule, just because I had never seen it before. There was supposed to be a one yard "halo" around which no defender could come within the punt returner. We were penalized for it and I've never seen it thrown on another team since.
Didn't we get penalized for a defender being too close to a punt returner multiple times two or three seasons ago. I remember looking into the rule, just because I had never seen it before. There was supposed to be a one yard "halo" around which no defender could come within the punt returner. We were penalized for it and I've never seen it thrown on another team since.
Nope, even in that situation we always reserve the right to take possession where they first touched it. It's kind of like a free play on an offside penalty.
I disagree on this too. Niederhofer never possessed the ball. Robinson did. Both were very close though.
Yeah, it may very well have been a legit muff. It just bugged me that they didn't even find it worthy of a review. It was highly questionable at the least while also being a possible game changing play, so I have a hard time understanding why the officials' office did not think it qualified for a review.
I could be wrong about what happened here, but the other strange thing was that I distinctly remember seeing one of our coaches(I think Mullen) flying down the sideline in order to talk to an official, and I swear it looked like he was told something along the lines of that it couldn't be challenged. I just know that he quickly went from jumping up and down the sidelines to somewhat calmly turning around with a frustrated look.
I could be wrong about what happened here, but the other strange thing was that I distinctly remember seeing one of our coaches(I think Mullen) flying down the sideline in order to talk to an official, and I swear it looked like he was told something along the lines of that it couldn't be challenged. I just know that he quickly went from jumping up and down the sidelines to somewhat calmly turning around with a frustrated look.
Had graham made a decent effort to catch the ball he would have gotten the call, but he looked somewhere between thinking about catching it and trying to avoid it.
Also, like others have said, if the defender had touched it first it would have been our ball unless our player possessed it then fumbled it.
If the coverage team on a punt touches the ball, but fails to officially “down” it, the receiving team can try to advance the ball at no risk to themselves. If they make a gain, they take the gain. If they fumble or lose yardage, they can elect to take the ball where it was first touched by the covering team. Once touched by the coverage team, if not downed, it is essentially a free play for the return team.
It really was Graham's fault and I hope the coaches told him that he should try to make the catch and if their guy is in the way then run into him and take the hit. It's interference and free yardage.
That wording makes no sense at all. I'd like to see a link to the complete rule and not just a portion of it if you could. But from my watching of the play, the ball was secured (not just "seemed" secured) before it was knocked out. Hell, from a strict reading of that, how could you say that any ball has been secured and not just "seemed" secured. He held it for 30 seconds, it sure "seemed" secure to me, but the rule says if it seems secure, it's a fumble?
In Possession
ARTICLE 1. “In possession’’ is an abbreviation meaning the holding or
controlling of a live ball or a ball to be free-kicked. It may refer either to player
possession or team possession.
a. A player “gains possession’’ when he secures the ball firmly by holding
or controlling it while contacting the ground inbounds. The ball is then in
player possession.
b. A team has team possession:
1. When one of its players is in possession, including when he is attempting
a punt, drop kick or place kick;
2. While a forward pass thrown by one of its players is in flight; or
3. During a loose ball if one of its players was last in possession.
c. A team is in legal possession if it has team possession when its players are
eligible to catch or recover the ball.
Belongs To
ARTICLE 2. “Belongs to,’’ as contrasted with “in possession,’’ denotes custody
of a dead ball. Such custody may be temporary, because the ball must next be
put in play in accordance with rules governing the existing situation.
Catch, Interception, Recovery
ARTICLE 3. a. To catch a ball means that a player:
1. Secures control of a live ball in flight with his hands or arms before
the ball touches the ground, and
2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform
an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball,
advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
b. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without
contact by an opponent) he must maintain complete and continuous control
of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the
field of play or in the end zone. This is also required for a player attempting
to make a catch at the sideline and going to the ground out of bounds. If
he loses control of the ball which then touches the ground before he regains
control, it is not a catch. If he regains control inbounds prior to the ball
touching the ground it is a catch.
c. If the player loses control of the ball while simultaneously touching the
ground with any part of his body, or if there is doubt that the acts were
simultaneous, it is not a catch. If a player has control of the ball, a slight
movement of the ball, even if it touches the ground, will not be considered
loss of possession; he must lose control of the ball in order for there to be
a loss of possession.
d. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control and continues
to maintain control, and the elements above are satisfied, it is a catch.
ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines
attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free
kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an RULE 6 / KICKS FR-69
unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and
IX).
b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team
A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders
and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul.(A.R.
6-4-1-X-XIII)
c. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground (Exception:
Free kick, par. f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a
scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team
B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone
(Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).
d. I
attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free
kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an RULE 6 / KICKS FR-69
unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and
IX).
b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team
A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders
and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul.(A.R.
6-4-1-X-XIII)
c. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground (Exception:
Free kick, par. f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a
scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team
B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone
(Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).
d. I