Was that a safety?

Hazy said:

whats stopping the receiving team from knocking the ball out of bounds on a kickoff and getting a penalty on the kicking team?

Click to expand...

Wow. It would have to be exactly the right situation -- say, a kick falling toward the KR at the 5-yard line, just a yard from the sideline with no opponent in position to recover it before it went out of bounds. But in that situation, it does seem like knocking it out could be the smart play.

I've learned plenty from this thread.

nabwong said:

Definitely a safety. It even looked like all the players on the field thought so.

Click to expand...

Safe-ty, n., A safety is a player in American football that is embedded in an NBC sideline video camera (e.g., Sergio Brown circa November 16, 2014)

http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/gronkowski-i-took-him-and-threw-him-out-club

DaBruinz said:

Muff or not, once the Colts player touched it, it's a live ball with their possession. It would be no different than a player who touched the ball for an on side kick and doesn't keep it..

That's should have been a safety..

Click to expand...

This is what I thought. It's a kickoff. Once the player touches it, it's a live ball and if you run it backwards into your own endzone, it's a safety. Has anyone at the NFL come out & said the ruling was wrong?

I hope someone talks to an official about this. This ruling is one of the most bizarre I have ever seen. If the ball is at rest inside the 5 you can apparently just kick it into the endzone and fall on it for a touchback? What? Because they didn't pick it up they hadn't gained possession so what is to stop teams from doing this all the time? Just missed opportunity?

PatsDeb said:

This is what I thought. It's a kickoff. Once the player touches it, it's a live ball and if you run it backwards into your own endzone, it's a safety. Has anyone at the NFL come out & said the ruling was wrong?

Click to expand...

There are so many rules and exceptions to every rule that it is tough to comprehend the rulings sometimes. The ball being touched in the field of play doesn't indicate the end of the kick (which is the most important part of the ruling in this situation) for which the end of the kick was possessed in the endzone for a touchback. Now in your scenario that I quoted above if the player possesses the ball and runs back into the endzone then yes it would be a safety.

With that said for the people that are talking about hitting or kicking the ball into the endzone for a touchback instead of fielding it and avoiding terrible field position there is a rule for that. If the officials think that the batting or kicking was intentional then they can flag the receiving team.

It was outside of end zone, muffed by a Colt, went into end zone I thought it would be a live ball for a TD or Safety.

bigcountry75 said:

With that said for the people that are talking about hitting or kicking the ball into the endzone for a touchback instead of fielding it and avoiding terrible field position there is a rule for that. If the officials think that the batting or kicking was intentional then they can flag the receiving team.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why the rule is bad. Officials should not be tasked with deciding intent. It should be black and white. If the receiving team on a punt or kickoff touches the ball outside the end zone in such a way that it ends up in the end zone it should be a safety, whether it is intentional or accidental. Causing both a point and possession swing based on divining intent is absolutely wrong.

Sounds to me like the right call on a bad rule that needs to be changed.

At the very least, the Colts should have (common sense, not the rule book) gotten the ball at the two-yard line, where they had advanced it before kicking it back. I think the rule as posted by the OP is regarding illegal kicking, and I don't think the kicking was intentional last night. The ruling was counterintuitive and competitively unjust- I think fans of any team would agree with that.

The rules committee needs to take a look at this one. Fortunately, the odds are unlikely that it will happen again before the end of the season.

Good explanation by big country.

It should be a safety though. That rule needs to be looked at.

PatsDeb said:

This is what I thought. It's a kickoff. Once the player touches it, it's a live ball

Click to expand...

It's a kickoff. It's a live ball once it's ten yards downfield of the spot of the kick, whether or not anyone at all touches it.

PatsDeb said:

This is what I thought. It's a kickoff. Once the player touches it, it's a live ball and if you run it backwards into your own endzone, it's a safety. Has anyone at the NFL come out & said the ruling was wrong?

Click to expand...

Yep.
IMHO a rule that makes last night's play a touchback is the result of a competition committee way over thinking the situation. IMHO you should not be able to kick it, advertently or inadvenertently, into your own endzone and be rewarded with a touchback. The COlt player didn't realize this but he should have just given the ball a full boot to the back of the endzone.

With that said, it appears the rules as they are make last night's play a touchback -- meaning the right call was made. If that is the case, oh well, move on.....

TheBostonStraggler said:

The COlt player didn't realize this but he should have just given the ball a full boot to the back of the endzone.

Click to expand...

If he did that he would have been penalized for illegal batting.

rlcarr said:

If he did that he would have been penalized for illegal batting.

Click to expand...

So he can kick it just not so hard it goes into the back of the endzone?
I thought I read a post that said as long as the ball is not in possession yet, the ball can go any which way.

rlcarr said:

Here's the quote from the actual rulebook (my emphasis):



So I'm now thinking the refs inexplicably missed that the ball had stopped and were thinking it was still moving from the kick. Especially because the ref started off his explanation with "By rule..." which leads me to think he thought the ball was still moving from the kick, contacted a Colt, then went into the endzone before being covered by the Colts -- which would in fact be a touchback.

Click to expand...

The ref's explanation word for word: "...the receiving team never had complete control of the ball. By rule the impetus is still by the kick. It is a touchback." Whether it was touched or not didn't affect their decision. They clearly missed the point that you just made through the rule, which collinsworth quickly pointed to as well. The ball was at rest or "nearly at rest. " The receiving team provided the impetus.

stinebot said:

That's exactly why the rule is bad. Officials should not be tasked with deciding intent. It should be black and white. If the receiving team on a punt or kickoff touches the ball outside the end zone in such a way that it ends up in the end zone it should be a safety, whether it is intentional or accidental. Causing both a point and possession swing based on divining intent is absolutely wrong.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Referees struggle enough as it is with black and white calls like.. did two feet touch the ground first, did someone grab the facemask. The problem is that the rulebook will always prefer to be subjective because it's better for the referees. If everything is subjective it means that rules are based on referees opinion, which can never be wrong by definition. It's great for job security and avoiding scrutiny. In the end the referees can make calls, not make calls, unless they get the wrong side of a black and white rule, they're always right! I'd like to be an NFL ref

Belichick was discussing this today on Dale & Holley. He said the call was correct, it was a touchback. If the ball had stopped (which he originally thought but was wrong) it would have been a safety but since it did not stop, the refs made the right call. He said it is a rare situation and an old rule that doesn't come into play very often. It sounded like he would advocate a review of this rule but stopped short of saying so.

TL;DR Belichick thought it was a touchback.

I'd love to see amendola "dive" for a kickoff next week and "accidentally" knock it out of bounds, just to see if the refs stay consistent, or if they job reverse course and job the patriots again.

Haley said:

Belichick was discussing this today on Dale & Holley. He said the call was correct, it was a touchback. If the ball had stopped (which he originally thought but was wrong) it would have been a safety but since it did not stop, the refs made the right call. He said it is a rare situation and an old rule that doesn't come into play very often. It sounded like he would advocate a review of this rule but stopped short of saying so.

TL;DR Belichick thought it was a touchback.

Click to expand...

Yup! I heard him also on WEEI. I thought it was a live ball for a TD or Safety.

bigcountry75 said:

There are so many rules and exceptions to every rule that it is tough to comprehend the rulings sometimes. The ball being touched in the field of play doesn't indicate the end of the kick (which is the most important part of the ruling in this situation) for which the end of the kick was possessed in the endzone for a touchback. Now in your scenario that I quoted above if the player possesses the ball and runs back into the endzone then yes it would be a safety.

With that said for the people that are talking about hitting or kicking the ball into the endzone for a touchback instead of fielding it and avoiding terrible field position there is a rule for that. If the officials think that the batting or kicking was intentional then they can flag the receiving team.

Click to expand...

I don't see anything in your explanation or the NFL rule book about intentions. I see impetus, but not intent.

Haley said:

Belichick was discussing this today on Dale & Holley. He said the call was correct, it was a touchback. If the ball had stopped (which he originally thought but was wrong) it would have been a safety but since it did not stop, the refs made the right call. He said it is a rare situation and an old rule that doesn't come into play very often. It sounded like he would advocate a review of this rule but stopped short of saying so.

TL;DR Belichick thought it was a touchback.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to confuse people anymore but the bolded part is correct. The call is based upon the initial force that put the ball into the endzone. The initial force is the kickoff and even though I know people will say that the Colts player kicking the ball into the endzone put the ball in the endzone, the ball was never completely at rest so by rule the Colts player kicking the ball didn't put a new force on the ball. If the ball was completely at rest and kicked into the endzone whether accidentally or purposely then the new force putting the ball into the endzone would cause it to be a safety. Trust me being an official I wish they would take the decision making out of our hands and make more things black and white.