Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Romo's botched hold? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter swifty
- Start date
diesel7982
Footballguy
It was an offensive play in which Tony Romo ran for no yardage.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Why would it be ruled a blocked FG?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
You can't get credit for blocking a kick unless the ball is kicked. The Seattle defense should not get credit for anything. The only way they COULD have earned something was if Romo picked up the ball, dropped back to pass, and was sacked. But in this case, there was no kick, no loss of possession on a fumble or interception, and no sack so they get nothing.
diesel7982
Footballguy
This type of mistake is very common amongst people new to the game on the board each year.Dont think of "special teams" in terms of what personnel is on the field. If the ball is snapped and kicked, the teams on the field are "Special" teams. If the ball is snapped and not kicked, its an offensive play. The kicker being on the field, or the offense lining up in FG or punt formation does not make the personnel on the field the "special teams".Obviously not the way its written in the rule book, but its the easiest way to look at it.
Jack Burton
Footballguy
should be ruled a sack
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
he may have gotten back to the line of scrimmage.but anyway, no way it's a blocked FG. there was never a kick.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
IIRC, Romo picked up the ball and never once looked to pass, so IMO this is a running play. if Michael Vick runs the ball and does not get back to the LOS, it's not a sack it's a rushing attempt for a loss.
diesel7982
Footballguy
correct
sainttillidie
Footballguy
get the #### over it please
