touchback?

Muff makes it a free ball, but it's not down until it is controlled by a player, if in the endzone it is a touchback. If one of the receiving players controlled it before going into the endzone, it would have been a safety.
 
QuadF said:
Refs said he never had possession so it's a touchback
Click to expand...
So the receiving team can kick it into the end zone and it would be a touchback? Seems like a terrible rule.
 
It would be pretty easy to change the rule so that the ball goes back to the spot of the muff, but for whatever reason NCAA and NFL have just accepted the occasional instances of teams muffing their way into better field position.
 
gtfan088 said:
It would be pretty easy to change the rule so that the ball goes back to the spot of the muff, but for whatever reason NCAA and NFL have just accepted the occasional instances of teams muffing their way into better field position.
Click to expand...
Yeah the call on the field was right but you're on point as this rule needs some tweaking. I mean if you can't fumble for a gain why would you be able to fumble for favorable field position?
 
Old-Fashioned UGA Hater said:
Yeah the call on the field was right but you're on point as this rule needs some tweaking. I mean if you can't fumble for a gain why would you be able to fumble for favorable field position?
Click to expand...
Don't forget about Favorable field position and no points for the opposing Team (2 pt safety) and they also lose a possession.

Because of the gap in the rule book, I think the FB Gods touched us on that last drive , with Gibbs fumble and then the 2 long pass plays, what did we do - go 95 yards in 1 minute- 30 seconds leaving them about 50 seconds?

After the way we played all day?
 
Correct call, a muff is,an attempt to possess a kick. A muff that goes into the end zone before it is possessed is a touchback, as strange as it may appear - the cesspool had a couple of muffs against us in 2007
 
I get that rule, but only to a point. A muffed kick that goes into the end zone should be a touchback, unless, the receiving team touches the ball in such a way that pushes the ball into the end zone. I realize you cannot kick or swat at the ball or illegal touching gets called. But a muffed ball rolling inside the five that a player falls on, and carries or propels into the end zone, should result in the ball being placed where they made that last touch at the very last. The rule needs some tweaking.
 
I'd have a bigger problem with this if I thought the Duke player intentionally put it on the goal line

It is possible to do it intentionally though and that seems like a problem with the rules
 
It was the right call.

I way beyond drunk in November of 2007. But remember getting fudged on this same rule in Chan's finale. A few goofy momenets in that game
 
77GTFan said:
I get that rule, but only to a point. A muffed kick that goes into the end zone should be a touchback, unless, the receiving team touches the ball in such a way that pushes the ball into the end zone.
Click to expand...

My rule would be if the ball is touched by the receiving team in bounds then is downed in the end zone, it is a safety.
 
The funny thing is that the guy corralled it and fell on it on the 1 but he bobbled it AGAIN and it crossed the plane. It was the luckiest thing I've seen in a long time.
 
Architorture23 said:
The funny thing is that the guy corralled it and fell on it on the 1 but he bobbled it AGAIN and it crossed the plane. It was the luckiest thing I've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Duke player was cradling the ball on the 1, then our guy hit him and the Duke guy rolled a little. Then the ref got there and saw the ball bobble on the goal line and ruled a touchback. The rule make sense, but the Duke player definitely possessed the ball on the 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top