Should they have kicked onside or OOB? (merged) - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***He Ban Me*** · 12-04-2007, 12:25 PM

Since the rule is in place to benefit the receiving team, I would assume worse case is that they would have gotten at the 20, OR, made NE re-kick, as suggested. I assume the NFL has that based covered in the rulebook as it currently reads.

mdhprime · 12-04-2007, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric5280

On the last kick off where they got to kick off at the Ravens' 35 yard, it appears that the correct play would have been to kick the ball out of bounds rather than kick it out of the endzone. Why? Well according to the NFL rulebook, when the ball is kicked out of bounds, it is not necessarily placed on the 40yard line like we normally assume, but rather the rule reads:

"When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.

By rule, a ball kicked from the 35 yard line should be placed at the 5 yard line. Am I missing something?

NFL Rules regarding kickoffs

I've been hearing this argument from a couple different places now and it still seems crazy. The Patriots had a surefire way to prevent a return with less than a minute left on the clock. There was really no decision other than to drill it through the end zone and have the Ravens start at the 20 (with only one timeout if I remember correctly.)

eric5280 · 12-04-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTPatsFan

Hmm. That's certainly the way I read it. I assume that's the way it would be enforced. It's got to be such a rare occurence that I wonder if it's ever happened before?

Yeah I don't think I've ever seen a kickoff beyond midfield.

eric5280 · 12-04-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdhprime

I've been hearing this argument from a couple different places now and it still seems crazy. The Patriots had a surefire way to prevent a return with less than a minute left on the clock. There was really no decision other than to drill it through the end zone and have the Ravens start at the 20 (with only one timeout if I remember correctly.)

Right but based on this rule, it appears that kicking it out of bounds would have also been a surefire way to prevent a return AND have the ball placed at the 5 yard line instead of the 20 yard line.

***patchick*** · 12-04-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by He Ban Me

Since the rule is in place to benefit the receiving team, I would assume worse case is that they would have gotten at the 20, OR, made NE re-kick, as suggested. I assume the NFL has that based covered in the rulebook as it currently reads.

It looks like a loophole, based on sheer lack of imagination (nobody stopping to ask "what if there are 35 yds of penalties before the KO"?) Nothing in the rule gives the receiving team the option to pretend that the kick went into the endzone.

Fanfrom1960 · 12-04-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eric5280

Right but based on this rule, it appears that kicking it out of bounds would have also been a surefire way to prevent a return AND have the ball placed at the 5 yard line instead of the 20 yard line.

Three things:

1. Gostkowski kicking a football is not as precise a thing as Larry Bird shooting a free throw or Tiger Woods hitting a 50 yard pitch shot. Especially with the wind, he could have kicked it out of bounds at the 15, not worth the risk of 2, below.

2. I've seen onside kicks returned for touchdowns. Haven't you (not just you, but all proposing the onside kick)?

3. If the Patriots can't stop the Ravens from their own 20 with 44 seconds left and only one time out, we're all in trouble.

chris_in_sunnyvale · 12-04-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

They were talking about this on WEEI. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether a kickoff out of bounds is considered a penalty which the receiving team can decline and make them kick over of whether they have to take it. If it's the latter it's an oversight that Belichick won't let slip by again.

I think the receiving team can decline and force a re-kick. In 99.9% of the cases, there's no reason for the receiving team to decline such a penalty so it seems like it's an automatic penalty.

Regards,
Chris

bakes781 · 12-04-2007, 01:30 PM

Couldn't they also decline it & take the ball from the spot it went out on?

***patchick*** · 12-04-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris_in_sunnyvale

I think the receiving team can decline and force a re-kick. In 99.9% of the cases, there's no reason for the receiving team to decline such a penalty so it seems like it's an automatic penalty.

Regards,
Chris

That's where the game clock comes in. Forcing a re-kick wastes precious seconds!

chris_in_sunnyvale · 12-04-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

That's where the game clock comes in. Forcing a re-kick wastes precious seconds!

No, the clock doesn't start until someone (other than the kicker, obviously) touches the ball. On Gosts' kickoff through the endzone, the clock never started. A kick OOB would not have started the clock.

Regards,
Chris