Bucs Postgame

To to mention that it did hit the TB player and it should have been our ball.

Exactly!!!

The ball hit his fanny pack, or whatever that little bag on his back is. Replay clearly showed it. It is a part of his uniform and the refs blew it. WFT ball as soon as we controlled it. We can't advance it, as it is considered a muff. Huge game-changing play blown by the WWE officials.

Exactly!!!

The ball hit his fanny pack, or whatever that little bag on his back is. Replay clearly showed it. It is a part of his uniform and the refs blew it. WFT ball as soon as we controlled it. We can't advance it, as it is considered a muff. Huge game-changing play blown by the WWE officials.

Nah I watched it 20 times and I really don't think it did.

But when Apke catches the ball at the 9 by rule the ball is dead, anything that happened after that shouldn't count.

But that's the point, the ball is NOT dead, as he's still an active runner. If the ball had touched the ground while in his possession before he went into the end zone or his knee etc. had touched down beforehand then yes it would be a downed ball. But he caught it in mid air and ran straight into the EZ. There have been other examples in the past where a runners momentum carried him into the EZ and it was ruled a TB. Arguably the ref should have assessed it wasn't his momentum that carried him into the EZ, but you are asking the official to make a judgement call on whether a player deliberately ran over the goal line or not, and they are going to err on the side of caution.

NB I thought it hit his hand warmer on the replay but I only saw it from the one angle where it moved as the ball gets near him. That could easily be simultaneous movement and an optical illusion. I was a bit narked that we didn't get any other angles (at least I don't recall any) to confirm that. And the studio didn't seem keen on looking at it more closely so I can only assume it wasn't challenged because someone had an angle that confirmed it didn't hit.

But that's the point, the ball is NOT dead, as he's still an active runner. If the ball had touched the ground while in his possession before he went into the end zone or his knee etc. had touched down beforehand then yes it would be a downed ball. But he caught it in mid air and ran straight into the EZ. There have been other examples in the past where a runners momentum carried him into the EZ and it was ruled a TB. Arguably the ref should have assessed it wasn't his momentum that carried him into the EZ, but you are asking the official to make a judgement call on whether a player deliberately ran over the goal line or not, and they are going to err on the side of caution.

NB I thought it hit his hand warmer on the replay but I only saw it from the one angle where it moved as the ball gets near him. That could easily be simultaneous movement and an optical illusion. I was a bit narked that we didn't get any other angles (at least I don't recall any) to confirm that. And the studio didn't seem keen on looking at it more closely so I can only assume it wasn't challenged because someone had an angle that confirmed it didn't hit.

Yes it is. You're not allowed to run back a punt as a member of the kicking team, the ball is dead when you catch it, he was absolutely NOT an active runner.

"The game clock operator shall stop the game clock (timeout) upon a signal by any official or upon the operator’s own positive knowledge:

b) when the kicking team recovers a scrimmage kick beyond the line of scrimmage;"

And then:

"When the kickers catch or recover a kick beyond the line of scrimmage, the ball is dead at the spot of recovery, even if a member of the receiving team has first touched the ball."

This is why I say the rule is badly written: on one hand the ball is dead when caught by a player of the kicking team... but on the other hand if he crosses the goal line it's a touchback.

Again, I think this rule was written for bang bang few centimeters of the goal line situations. I see how if you read it litteraly it could apply here, but I don't think it's the spirit of this rule.

This is an example of NFL rules differing from NCAA/IFAF rules and creating a rule bug.

Under NCAA/IFAF rules there's no such thing, because if a ball is touched/batted above the goal line the result is a touch back regardless of whether the kicking team's player touches the goal line or not (it's an illegal touch, not a foul, resulting in a touchback). On the other hand, if the ball is caught by a player of the kicking team the ball is dead and it's 1st down at the spot of recovery, regardless of what happens after that.

Makes it way clearer than the NFL rule IMO. But they must have tweaked the rule in order to allow this exciting play where a player can batt the ball above the goal line an avoid the touchback. But they should've specified the time element of this rule. Because having something that happened 5seconds + 10 yards after the ball was dead impact the play doesn't make much sense IMO.

Envoyé de mon SM-J320FN en utilisant Tapatalk

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/12_Rule9_Scrimmage_Kick.pdf

Section 2, article 2 - "First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead."

Ball is not dead until the carrier downs it/himself or crosses the goal line. Had he dropped it after catching it, Tampa would have still been entitled to return it. By carrying it over the line Apke gave the Buccs the option to take the TB.

It is badly written/explained, and as I said, usually it's intended for occurrences where momentum carries the runner over the line, not a deliberate act. But you can't blame the officials for an interpretation of momentum when it's not defined in the rules (i.e. "Unless the player deliberately advances the ball" or the like).

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/12_Rule9_Scrimmage_Kick.pdf

Section 2, article 2 - "First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead."

Ball is not dead until the carrier downs it/himself or crosses the goal line. Had he dropped it after catching it, Tampa would have still been entitled to return it. By carrying it over the line Apke gave the Buccs the option to take the TB.

It is badly written/explained, and as I said, usually it's intended for occurrences where momentum carries the runner over the line, not a deliberate act. But you can't blame the officials for an interpretation of momentum when it's not defined in the rules (i.e. "Unless the player deliberately advances the ball" or the like).


Sorry pal, you're just wrong on that one. You're confusing an illegal touching of the ball and recovering the ball. There's absolutely no way you can run back a punt as a member of the kicking team, the ball is dead as soon as you recover it. I don't want to pull out the "I'm a ref" card because the NFL rule slightly differs from the ones I've studied, but you're confusing 2 different situations, first touching, and recovering.

Here's ESPN analysis on why it was a mistake. (https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30656411/questionable-nfl-playoff-officiating-decisions-happened-which-were-right)

"The ball should have been marked where Apke first gained possession, and not a touchback. By rule, a kick that goes past the line of scrimmage is dead as soon as a member of the kicking team downs it. The ball can't be advanced. There are many judgment calls over the course of a game that can be debated. This one was a matter of rule application. Washington should have been able to pin the Buccaneers deeper than it did."

Sorry pal, you're just wrong on that one. You're confusing an illegal touching of the ball and recovering the ball. There's absolutely no way you can run back a punt as a member of the kicking team, the ball is dead as soon as you recover it. I don't want to pull out the "I'm a ref" card because the NFL rule slightly differs from the ones I've studied, but you're confusing 2 different situations, first touching, and recovering.



Here's ESPN analysis on why it was a mistake. (https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/30656411/questionable-nfl-playoff-officiating-decisions-happened-which-were-right)



"The ball should have been marked where Apke first gained possession, and not a touchback. By rule, a kick that goes past the line of scrimmage is dead as soon as a member of the kicking team downs it. The ball can't be advanced. There are many judgment calls over the course of a game that can be debated. This one was a matter of rule application. Washington should have been able to pin the Buccaneers deeper than it did."



Right and Apke should have known this. Zero skill plus zero brains = see ya later.

Nah I watched it 20 times and I really don't think it did.



Definitely right again. It somehow did not touch any of the Bucs players. Just our luck. Lol. So many little things that could have swung this game. The big one is that squib kick. That was just absolutely nonsense. Turning point imo. We had momentum for a brief moment until our coaching staff out thought themselves. A little bit of a bad habit if you ask me.

Right and Apke should have known this. Zero skill plus zero brains = see ya later.He should have known this. .. but it shouldn't have made a difference because the refs should've known it too...

Envoyé de mon SM-J320FN en utilisant Tapatalk