A Rules Question

[Oceanviewer1]

During Sunday's game, I thought I heard the announcers mention that if the Pats went for the field goal one 4th and 13 and they missed it, the ball would be placed at the point where the ball was kicked. I was always under the impression that the ball comes back to the line of scrimmage. Which is correct?

 

[TIMEsteelersfan]

During Sunday's game, I thought I heard the announcers mention that if the Pats went for the field goal one 4th and 13 and they missed it, the ball would be placed at the point where the ball was kicked. I was always under the impression that the ball comes back to the line of scrimmage. Which is correct?

Where it was spotted, unless the kick is blocked, then it's where the ball is recovered.

 

[rockthecasbah]

I'm pretty sure it's LOS. I don't know why the annoucers said that.

 

[Fanfrom1960]

During Sunday's game, I thought I heard the announcers mention that if the Pats went for the field goal one 4th and 13 and they missed it, the ball would be placed at the point where the ball was kicked. I was always under the impression that the ball comes back to the line of scrimmage. Which is correct?

It used to be placed at the previous line of scrimmage but that was changed (WAG 10 - 15 years ago) to spot it at the point where the ball was kicked for the new offensive series.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I'm pretty sure it's LOS. I don't know why the annoucers said that.

Actually, to be precise, it's from the spot of the kick, or the 20-yard line, whichever is farther. That's part of the reason why Belichick opted to go for it there--it's 3 points for a FG v. -7 yards on a miss.

 

[JoePats]

It's definately the point of the kick. In college it's the LOS.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Actually, to be precise, it's from the spot of the kick, or the 20-yard line, whichever is farther. That's part of the reason why Belichick opted to go for it there--it's 3 points for a FG v. -7 yards on a miss.

I always thought it was the LOS. I don't know how I didn't notice that. Thanks.

 

[KnoxPatriotFan]

This brings up something that has been bothering me.

While some might argue that the decision to go for it was an assertion of confidence in the offense, I don't buy into that since up until that point, there really wasn't much of the offensive output to base that on. I don't see chasing the points as a major motivation since the Giants hadn't done a heck of a lot offensively. (Please, I beg of you, don't get down on me for not providing more specifics because that would require hitting the official sites, wading through recaps of the game, etc. I'd rather just hang out with people who're feeling as crappy about this as I am)

What I think the decision to go for it was based on is a lack of confidence in Gost. He had the kick off that went out of bounds, which could have been a result of nerves. Not to compare him to the kicker who shall remain nameless, but the ice might not been running through his veins and BB might have felt it best not risk the loss of 7 yards for a FG that was on the longer side, but certainly makeable within a dome.

I still feel like they should have given it a shot since points were not coming easily. I haven't seen any one bring up this point and wanted to run it by those more knowledgeable.

Any thoughts?