Can teams actually do this on kickoffs in the playoffs?

[ausbacker]

Kick the ball through the end zone and this play is redundant. Simple solution to a simple problem.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

An interesting note: the rule actually gives the opposing team the ball 25 yards from the original KO spot.

When the KO was at the 30, the rule gave the opposing team the ball 30 yards from the original KO spot—that is, still at their own 40.

This is actually related to the Ratbirds meltdown of 2007—when Gostkowski kicked from BAL 35, if he had kicked out of bounds it would have given them the ball at the BAL 5.

 

[Betterthanmost]

An interesting note: the rule actually gives the opposing team the ball 25 yards from the original KO spot.

When the KO was at the 30, the rule gave the opposing team the ball 30 yards from the original KO spot—that is, still at their own 40.

This is actually related to the Ratbirds meltdown of 2007—when Gostkowski kicked from BAL 35, if he had kicked out of bounds it would have given them the ball at the BAL 5.

I think you may not be reading the rule in its entirety. There is an 'or' part which states that the ball can be placed at the out of bounds point, so unless Gost had kicked it out of bounds 5 or less yds, then we would have had this advantage. But we could have gotten them under 20 though since I am sure he could have aimed that much out. I hope it makes sense. Not going to read what I have written.

 

[VrabelJr]

Leon Washington did this same thing a few years ago when he was on the Jets. It's a legit rule.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think you may not be reading the rule in its entirety. There is an 'or' part which states that the ball can be placed at the out of bounds point, so unless Gost had kicked it out of bounds 5 or less yds, then we would have had this advantage. But we could have gotten them under 20 though since I am sure he could have aimed that much out. I hope it makes sense. Not going to read what I have written.

Yeah, that's true: it is (now) 25 yards or the actual spot the ball went out.

I just went with the simpler version. I still think the Pats should have gone for the onside kick.

 

[Lansdowne]

The key to this is that the player is already out of bounds when he makes first contact. He couldn't pick it up inbounds and make a dash for it out of bounds and have the rule apply.

 

[Calhoun44]

I wonder why this isn't considered an illegal touch? First to touch after being out of bounds.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

I wonder why this isn't considered an illegal touch? First to touch after being out of bounds.

If he had stepped out and then came back in-bounds to field the ball, it would have been. The key was to still be out of bounds while controlling the ball.

 

[serifyn]

The Patriots have done this before, i can remember at least one occasion where a smart patriots special teamer did this and i remember it from then.

Plays like this is why you invest in a good gunner, if you can get there, or nearly there before the balls drops, it forces the punt returner to either fair catch it or let it go.

It would be an incredibly risky play to touch the ball so close to the goal line with a gunner barreling down at you, it could potentially result in a touchdown for the kicking team. If you remember the 49ers playoff game in the NFC championship last year, the 49ers punt returner muffed the punt twice in the same game and ended up essentially costing the 49ers the game, Plays like this is why Belichick stresses the importance of field position and special teams.

If Matthew Slater was right on top of Cobb on this play, Cobb would have likely been forced to back off and let Slater down it at the 4, which is obviously a huge difference.

 

[jcdavey]

Wow, surprised nobody has ever done that before. I wonder if they would consider a rule change if this became popular.

it's been done before, and it was praised last time too

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If Matthew Slater was right on top of Cobb on this play, Cobb would have likely been forced to back off and let Slater down it at the 4, which is obviously a huge difference.

This is about kickoffs, so no, Cobb couldn't let Slater down the ball, because if he did it would be NE ball.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

This is about kickoffs, so no, Cobb couldn't let Slater down the ball, because if he did it would be NE ball.

Which, effectively, is why the OOB rule is there in the first place (not necessarily this specific part of the rule).

IMO, though, the rule should be changed so that if you have one foot OOB before you make contact with the ball, it's effectively a catch for no return.

 

[Lansdowne]

In a similar vein, I remember in 2001, Pats at Buffalo, David Patten caught a ball and then got knocked out, fumbled, Buffalo recovered. But it was ruled Pats ball because Patten's helmet was touching out of bounds at the same time Patten's leg touched the football.

Niagara Falls Reporter

 

[bresna]

If he had stepped out and then came back in-bounds to field the ball, it would have been. The key was to still be out of bounds while controlling the ball.

Look at that video clip above. His right foot clearly gets some air while his left foot remains on the ground in-bounds. This *is* illegal touching by the Packer return man and he's lucky it didn't get called.

 

[captain stone]

I still think the Pats should have gone for the onside kick.

I am in complete, 100% agreement. I remember very well thinking that there would be no safer
opportunity to onsides kick than right there, right then. I was extremely disappointed that Bill
didn't bother to attempt it.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Look at that video clip above. His right foot clearly gets some air while his left foot remains on the ground in-bounds. This *is* illegal touching by the Packer return man and he's lucky it didn't get called.

You are out-of-bounds until both feet are established in-bounds, so it doesn't really matter if his right foot is in the air or not. FWIW, it looks like he shuffles his feet but it's down anyway by the time he grabs the ball.

 

[brdmaverick]

Wow, surprised nobody has ever done that before. I wonder if they would consider a rule change if this became popular.

I recall a Denver player doing this in the past (Champ Bailey I believe).

 

[brdmaverick]

I think you may not be reading the rule in its entirety. There is an 'or' part which states that the ball can be placed at the out of bounds point, so unless Gost had kicked it out of bounds 5 or less yds, then we would have had this advantage. But we could have gotten them under 20 though since I am sure he could have aimed that much out. I hope it makes sense. Not going to read what I have written.

Correct, the 'or' part really just relates to 'declining the penalty'.

 

[JMC00]

If a Special Teams coach hasn't drilled this into their kickoff return teams brain then they are not a good Special Teams coach.

 

[brdmaverick]

The Patriots have done this before, i can remember at least one occasion where a smart patriots special teamer did this and i remember it from then.

Plays like this is why you invest in a good gunner, if you can get there, or nearly there before the balls drops, it forces the punt returner to either fair catch it or let it go.

It would be an incredibly risky play to touch the ball so close to the goal line with a gunner barreling down at you, it could potentially result in a touchdown for the kicking team. If you remember the 49ers playoff game in the NFC championship last year, the 49ers punt returner muffed the punt twice in the same game and ended up essentially costing the 49ers the game, Plays like this is why Belichick stresses the importance of field position and special teams.

If Matthew Slater was right on top of Cobb on this play, Cobb would have likely been forced to back off and let Slater down it at the 4, which is obviously a huge difference.

Except this play was kickoff, live ball for both teams. Slater would have gained possession for this team.