Muffed Fair Catch - Interference rule? (1 Viewer)

[Workhorse]

I'm NOT bringing this up to somehow diminish the Broncos win over the Pats. They won fair and square.

But the Troy Brown muffed punt at 17-6, according to a Steelers buddy of mine, should have been overturned and the Broncos penalized 15 yards.

I guess the rules state that a punt returner who calls for the fair catch and muffs the ball, cannot be inteferred with until the ball hits the ground. I had NEVER heard that before but I guess it happened to the Steelers earlier this year against the Chargers.

Here's the clip from the Pats game:

Troy Brown muffed punt

Can anyone shed some light on this?

 

[nightshift]

he dropped that one. good call.

 

[Buckychudd]

I was wondering the same thing. I saw the earlier game.I think it's a terrible rule by the way.

 

[apalmer]

That was my first reaction when I saw the play. In the Steeler game, the ball bounced much further away from the returner and was caught on the fly by the Steeler, which was ruled to be interference. In this one, it looks to be awfully close as to whether the ball hit the ground before the Denver guy hit Brown. Probably more of a judgment call than a rules interpretation (much like deciding whether or not a defender hits a receiver a split-second too soon or not).

 

[Workhorse]

I agree that it's a terrible rule. Today is the first time I've ever heard of it.

 

[dgreen]

I don't see what's so terrible about the rule. You can't intefere with an attempt to catch the ball. So, now you have to define what it means to attempt to catch the ball. You can't go off just any movement the ball makes in the receivers hand. You'd have players hitting the receiver after any slight bobble. The clearest way to define it would be when the ball touches the ground.

 

[Buckychudd]

I don't see what's so terrible about the rule. You can't intefere with an attempt to catch the ball. So, now you have to define what it means to attempt to catch the ball. You can't go off just any movement the ball makes in the receivers hand. You'd have players hitting the receiver after any slight bobble. The clearest way to define it would be when the ball touches the ground.

In the Steelers/Chargers game the ball bounced 5 feet in the air....pretty apparent he wasn't controlling the ball.

 

[Blick]

In the Steelers/Chargers game the ball bounced 5 feet in the air....pretty apparent he wasn't controlling the ball.

Right, but in the Steeler game there was no way the receiver could have caught the ball. It bounce 5 ft away from him. IMO that was a missed penalty.

 

[cstu]

In the Steelers/Chargers game the ball bounced 5 feet in the air....pretty apparent he wasn't controlling the ball.

Right, but in the Steeler game there was no way the receiver could have caught the ball. It bounce 5 ft away from him. IMO that was a missed penalty.

The rule is in place for a reason - to prevent judgement calls on whether the ball is catchable or not. The returner is to be given a chance to catch the ball until it hits the ground and I see no problem with it.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think the rule sucks. I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game. If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance. Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

 

[cstu]

I think the rule sucks. I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game. If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance. Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

This was discussed in the Sproles thread and it would be illegal to try to advance the ball in that way. I don't see any problem with it because without the rule a tackler could nail a guy who just juggled the ball a little bit. The rule makes it unambiguous and tacklers should know to wait until the ball hits the ground before touching the returner.

 

[dgreen]

I think the rule sucks. I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game.

A muff means you don't have possession. So, the plays we are talking about never actually "leaves your possession."

If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance.

How airborne? That's the point. That would be a tough judgement call as to what is airborne and what isn't. The clearest line is "hits the ground."

Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

Sure, he could be hit or the ball touched. It's just a penalty. So, weigh your decision of committing a penalty or giving up a TD. Not a difficult decision and one that occurs every game in different scenarios.Regardless, I'm guessing you've never seen a football before. Their shape doesn't make your idea very likely. In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible.

 

[Buckychudd]

I think the rule sucks.  I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game.  If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance.  Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

This was discussed in the Sproles thread and it would be illegal to try to advance the ball in that way. I don't see any problem with it because without the rule a tackler could nail a guy who just juggled the ball a little bit. The rule makes it unambiguous and tacklers should know to wait until the ball hits the ground before touching the returner.

I understand what you're saying.....I just feel like the rule is contrary to the nature of football. A player's instinct is going to be to crush the punt returner if they're bobbling the ball around.

I'm all for that instinct.

 

[dgreen]

I think the rule sucks. I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game. If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance. Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

This was discussed in the Sproles thread and it would be illegal to try to advance the ball in that way. I don't see any problem with it because without the rule a tackler could nail a guy who just juggled the ball a little bit. The rule makes it unambiguous and tacklers should know to wait until the ball hits the ground before touching the returner.

I understand what you're saying.....I just feel like the rule is contrary to the nature of football. A player's instinct is going to be to crush the punt returner if they're bobbling the ball around.

I'm all for that instinct.

I'm guessing the fair catch itself was once considered contrary to the nature of football.

 

[Buckychudd]

I think the rule sucks.  I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game.  If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance.  Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

This was discussed in the Sproles thread and it would be illegal to try to advance the ball in that way. I don't see any problem with it because without the rule a tackler could nail a guy who just juggled the ball a little bit. The rule makes it unambiguous and tacklers should know to wait until the ball hits the ground before touching the returner.

I understand what you're saying.....I just feel like the rule is contrary to the nature of football. A player's instinct is going to be to crush the punt returner if they're bobbling the ball around.

I'm all for that instinct.

I'm guessing the fair catch itself was once considered contrary to the nature of football.

True, I'm fine with rules that prevent injury....up to a point. You're given your chance to catch the ball cleanly, the opposition has to give you room to do so, they have to slow down and let you have your halo.....but if you muff it, it's go time.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I think the rule sucks.  I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game.

A muff means you don't have possession. So, the plays we are talking about never actually "leaves your possession."

If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance.

How airborne? That's the point. That would be a tough judgement call as to what is airborne and what isn't. The clearest line is "hits the ground."

Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

Sure, he could be hit or the ball touched. It's just a penalty. So, weigh your decision of committing a penalty or giving up a TD. Not a difficult decision and one that occurs every game in different scenarios.Regardless, I'm guessing you've never seen a football before. Their shape doesn't make your idea very likely. In fact, I'd say it's nearly impossible.

You're right, I've never seen a football before. In fact, I don't even know what you're talking about.In the Sproles incident, the ball richocheted off of him and the Steelers defender (Iwuoma, I think) caught the ball before he even made contact with Sproles. That shouldn't be a turnover?

 

[cstu]

I think the rule sucks. I don't care if you call a fair catch or not, once the ball hits you and then leaves your possession, it should be fair game. If you call for a fair catch, you should be given an unmolested opportunity to make the catch, once the ball touches you and then becomes airborne, you've blown that chance. Under the auspices of this rule, theoretically, a guy could call for a fair catch and then just intentionally bobble the ball all the way up the field... as long as it doesn't touch the ground, he can't be hit, nor the ball touched (unless the rule states that the ball cannot be advanced in this fashion and the spot is made at the point of initial contact... I don't know for sure.)

This was discussed in the Sproles thread and it would be illegal to try to advance the ball in that way. I don't see any problem with it because without the rule a tackler could nail a guy who just juggled the ball a little bit. The rule makes it unambiguous and tacklers should know to wait until the ball hits the ground before touching the returner.

I understand what you're saying.....I just feel like the rule is contrary to the nature of football. A player's instinct is going to be to crush the punt returner if they're bobbling the ball around.

I'm all for that instinct.

I would be fine with getting rid of the fair catch rule altogether, but as long as it exists the rule is the best way to deal with it.