Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is a kick-off a dead ball?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is a kick-off a dead ball?

    In the seahag KC game, at the 4:36 mark of the fourth qtr, the ball bounces in the endzone and isn't touch by the hags. A KC player (#19) picks up the ball just as the officials is blowing the play dead. Again, no one from the Hags touched the ball and took a knee.

    Why was the whistle blown and the TD not awarded to KC? Did the rule change? I thought the ball was live on kick-offs and only punts were a dead ball when the kicking team touched it.


    gap

  • #2
    Thanks to Massimo, I have my answer. New rule change for 2018. I guess it is their attempt to make the kicking part of the game safer. SMH

    From operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2018-rules-changes-and-points-of-emphasis/
    The ball is dead if it is not touched by the receiving team and touches the ground in the end zone (touchback).


    gap

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gap View Post
      Thanks to Massimo, I have my answer. New rule change for 2018. I guess it is their attempt to make the kicking part of the game safer. SMH

      From operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2018-rules-changes-and-points-of-emphasis/
      The ball is dead if it is not touched by the receiving team and touches the ground in the end zone (touchback).


      gap
      I actually though about same earlier the year but as you say it is now a dead ball.

      I see no reason in still having the (traditional) kick off. Just start at the 25th yard line. Only issue is the missing chance for onside kick which is now almost impossible as kick-off team can't get a running start.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MrBagIndgang View Post

        I actually though about same earlier the year but as you say it is now a dead ball.

        I see no reason in still having the (traditional) kick off. Just start at the 25th yard line. Only issue is the missing chance for onside kick which is now almost impossible as kick-off team can't get a running start.
        I read an article a month or two ago about another possible rule change that could change the kickoff to 4th and 15 from the 35. The team would then punt instead of a kick-off. This would also give the team an "onside kick" option if they chose to go for it.


        gap

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah that Hawks punter really has changed the way of punting it seems. Guess punters of people too. In drop kicking.
          Carolina Panthers @ Denver Broncos 2/7/2016 CBS 6:30PM EST Santa Clara CA!

          Comment

          Related Topics

          Collapse

          • renrawtruk
            Kickoffs
            by renrawtruk
            It seems to me that teams, especially the Rams, should never return a kickoff from the end zone.

            1. The Rams rarely get to the 25. Usually close, but typically short.

            2. Penalties. When you factor in the risk that blocking leads to holding penalties on the return team and puts you back on the 5 yard line, not to mention that idiotic offsetting penalties fiasco that put us on the 2 yard line, does not seem worth it.

            3. Fumbles. Already one fumble this year to me is almost enough to outweigh the occasional 40 yard return, or score.

            I just re-read the study that said it was worth it to return the ball, but was written back when the ball was placed on the 20. It said average return was to the 23. But this did not factor in penalties, or fumbles.

            In the comments, they stated that fumbles were about equal to TD's, so of course if you're down 3 scores you might roll the dice, but in any close game, I don't see a benefit.

            And now that It's the 25 yard line, and Tavon and Cooper have both already fumbled returns, I say we take a knee....
            -09-24-2017, 08:29 PM
          • Barry Waller
            The Immaculate Reception and Bert Emmanuel Play Complaints Don't Hold Water
            by Barry Waller
            Watching this show about the most unbelievable play in NFL history, that started t alk of replay and changed the rule book. Of course every RAider and Raider fan is screaming bloody murder to t his day, about what they say are t hree no calls on that play.

            They claim the NFL wanted them to lose and they got cheated, but as I look at this play, after so many years, so many times, some t hings sem clear.

            1. The Steelers did nothing intentionally deceptive or illegal, on that 4th and 10 play, they just got very very lucky, as lucky as anyone ever, especially since Franco Haris HAD to score on that play or time runs out. Now the Raiders? They actually DID intentionally cheat to win a game, with the fumbleroosky play, They Changed the rule on that deal too so it CAN'T happen again, as they did the rule on a touched ball, so one like the Immaculate reception would ALWAYS be good.

            2. Conspriracy theory One, that Frenchy Fuqua touched the ball.
            Fact: The film is unclear who touche the ball, and the way it went backwards t hat far, shows that the impetus was caused by Jack Tatum trying to make a knockout hit, rather t han just stop the reception, or even just tackle Fuqua after t he catch.
            If he does that, game over time runs out.

            Fact, even if Fuqua and Tatum both touched the ball, under old rule, still good, play continues. If called good by Referee with instant replay, video is clearly incomclusive. AND now under new rule, doesn't matter who touched the ball.

            3. Villapiano wasn't clipped. The video does clearly show a hit from the side, at most a very borderline foul, one that would be roundly criticized if it were to decide a game. You must have a clear cut clip to make tht call.

            Also with the ball going every which way, the greatest officials in the world would have a hard time having just the right view of that block, especially the umpire, who would have been the guy making that call from the middle of the field.

            It was no more a clip that Az Hakim on the Ike Bruce TD play in the SB win.

            And also, there is no assurance that the 6-2 220lb Villipiano, no doubt exhausted, so much that a weak block knocked him sideways, would have tackled the 6-2 230lb Harris, no doubt a much fresher player at that point.

            It would have taken a Mike Jones effort.

            4. "Harris trapped the ball" Again a very tough call for officials on such a play, and no evidence exists that it was a trap, or at least t hat the tip of t he ball touched t he ground. Once again that rule has been changed, the Bert Emmanual rule they call it. If ruled a catch, still a catch with replay, unless todays replays would show at least one clearer view.

            Again, the refs have a split second to be looking in the right direction, and once the ball flies backwards, I doubt if anyone but Harris even sees it....
            -03-23-2013, 08:35 AM
          • Rambunctious
            Mistake or the better odds?
            by Rambunctious
            This is where my football knowledge is lacking.

            I think it was a mistake for Danny to bring the ball out of the end zone on the last kick off. Take the touch back and gain 20 yards without losing any time.

            Instead he gained 3 more yards but burned valuable seconds.

            But no one as brought that up so maybe it was the right call. Maybe the odds are better he can break one for a td then we can get two plays off in 10 seconds to set up the field goal.

            I know both our based in desperation but I was curious what others thought.
            -10-25-2010, 01:48 PM
          • r8rh8rmike
            Burwell: Rams' Defensive Players Deserve Better
            by r8rh8rmike
            Burwell: Rams' defensive players deserve better

            BY BRYAN BURWELL, Post-Dispatch Sports Columnist
            Monday, December 19, 2011

            The Rams just shouldn't be this bad. Yet after 14 games, 12 losses and this disturbing sense that they've wedged themselves firmly into this gawdawful rut that's somewhere between shoulder-shrugging resignation and kick-the-wall irritation, it's indisputably clear they really are.

            They've become the sort of bad that takes you well beyond the point of simple frustration. It's frustrating because of how hard they play, irritating because every week they fool you into feeling like they're always just one play from winning, and ultimately so hopeless because you understand that failure is as inevitable as breathing.

            But most of all, when they lose the way they always lose — with the full-of-heart defense ultimately unable to hold up under the strain of the weekly failures on offense and special teams — it makes you feel sorry for the guys on the defensive side of the ball.

            On Sunday in the Edward Jones Dome, the Rams suffered another maddening loss — this one a 20-13 decision to the Cincinnati Bengals — that just didn't seem fair to the defense. The Rams' defense played absolutely lights out for most of the game. They closed down every conceivable running lane for Cedric Benson for the better part of three quarters, chased rookie quarterback Andy Dalton around all game, kept Cincinnati out of the end zone and provided the Rams with two drives that started in Bengals territory.

            But with this stagnant offense, that's never enough. When you have an offense that scores less than one touchdown a game, when the game plan is based on a strategy that demands almost zero defensive margin for error, you know what's going to happen.

            One breakdown — this one a 56-yard punt return by the Bengals —turned a 6-6 tie into a 13-6 Cincy lead. And when you're dealing with an anemic Rams offense that had only been in the end zone 13 times all season, seven-point deficits become mighty mountains to climb.

            "The margin (for error) is slim," Rams coach Steve Spagnuolo said. "It's hard for us to manufacture points right now."

            Blowing the slim margin for error creates the most unfair conditions for the Rams' defense, which holds its ground as long as it can. But every week you see the Rams' offense go out there with head-scratching play calls and mental or physical breakdowns, and the special teams make repeated failures, and tight, competitive game turn into systematic losses.

            A lot of attention has been drawn to the failures on offense, but it's time to zero in on the strange adventures on special teams, too.

            Let me see if I can offer up a little unscientific advice to Tom McMahon's unit.

            Stop punting the ball down the middle of the field....
            -12-19-2011, 10:38 PM
          • general counsel
            carroll blames kicker for mi**** on onside kick
            by general counsel
            Per espn, the whining horrible bench coach pete carroll, who cost his team a super bowl with the stupidest play call in nfl history, went public post game blaming his kicker for a mi**** on the onside kick in ot. He claims that the kicker was supposed to kick it short down the right side line because "we saw something there in the rams coverage."

            Two reasons at least this is a moronic statement. First, why would a coach publicly call out a player on something like that? He still called an onside kick, albeit a different one. If it doesnt work, the rams are still going to get the ball around their own 40 in a situation where he had no reason at all to take that kind of risk given his vaunted defense and how their offense was moving the ball in the fourth quarter.

            Second, and more importantly, if he really thinks he found a weakness in the rams kickoff return alignment, why say it publicly? Why not save it for another time.

            Carroll has been a phenomenal evaluator of talent in the draft. They have been a terrific team defensively and pulled a very very good (albeit overated) qb out of the middle rounds of the draft. However, his game day bench skills leave a ton to be desired and i think this is the year that his poor offensive line bits him a bit. I think fisher has repeatedly outcoached him in head to head competition.

            I think seattle is likely the team to beat in the nfc if they stay healthy and get chancellor back, but i dont think they are quite as good as they have been and i think carroll hurts them more then helps them on the sideline on game day. You cant minimize what he did to them in the superbowl, if that happened to us, none of us would ever get over it coaching wise.

            Ramming speed to all

            general counsel
            -09-13-2015, 04:36 PM
          Working...
          X