There are 88 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Osgood Punt Block & Illegal Advance of Ball

Originally posted by monsterzero789:
osgood is dat doot

This is what it's all about. Whether a ref blew the call or not Kassim Osgood made one hell of a special teams play.
Originally posted by SofaKing:
I see. Thanks for the explanations, because now this s**t is getting really confusing lol.

In that case, would it make sense to enforce it from the LOS instead? I understand most accepted offensive penalties result in a replay of the down, but illegal batting should be an exception similar to intentional grounding. Intentional grounding is an offensive penalty that results in a loss of a down, 10 yards from the LOS.

This I don't have a problem with if it's an intentional batting of the ball, I don't think it should be called if it's unintentional though.
And there are plenty of "from the spot of the foul" rules in the NFL.... rules about holding in the end zone, etc... seems it wouldn't be that hard to say that once a punters foot hits the ball. it is change of possession
Originally posted by linkboy:
Originally posted by SofaKing:
I see. Thanks for the explanations, because now this s**t is getting really confusing lol.

In that case, would it make sense to enforce it from the LOS instead? I understand most accepted offensive penalties result in a replay of the down, but illegal batting should be an exception similar to intentional grounding. Intentional grounding is an offensive penalty that results in a loss of a down, 10 yards from the LOS.

This I don't have a problem with if it's an intentional batting of the ball, I don't think it should be called if it's unintentional though.

Cool. I think something like this would be a sensible solution. Hopefully the competition committee reviews this play in the off-season and makes the necessary adjustments.
It wasn't our ball. Just blocking the punt didn't make it our ball. The seahawks were still the offensive team. so it was their ball, not our ball. The penalty was that they moved the ball illegally on their possession. so we declined that and took it where it went out of bounds at the end of the play which was 4th down.

If they had gotten possession of the ball downfield for an apparent 1st down, then we would have accepted the penalty and made them kick again.

It wasn't our ball when the seashawk guy hit it forward.
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
It wasn't our ball. Just blocking the punt didn't make it our ball. The seahawks were still the offensive team. so it was their ball, not our ball. The penalty was that they moved the ball illegally on their possession. so we declined that and took it where it went out of bounds at the end of the play which was 4th down.

If they had gotten possession of the ball downfield for an apparent 1st down, then we would have accepted the penalty and made them kick again.

It wasn't our ball when the seashawk guy hit it forward.

Which makes it a bad rule.

Again, the solution is simple. Illegal batting of the ball = 10 yard penalty from the LOS and loss of down.
Originally posted by ubaisore:
And there are plenty of "from the spot of the foul" rules in the NFL.... rules about holding in the end zone, etc... seems it wouldn't be that hard to say that once a punters foot hits the ball. it is change of possession

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

A change of possession doesn't occur until the receiving team physically has the ball in one of their players hands.

When a punt is blocked, the ball is treated as if its a fumble (it's no different than if Kyle Williams were to fumble a return). It's a live ball and both teams are eligible to recover the ball and advance it.

By making it a change of possession when it hits the punters foot, you know prevent the kicking team from having the right to pick up an fumble and advance it for a first down.
Originally posted by linkboy:
Originally posted by ubaisore:
And there are plenty of "from the spot of the foul" rules in the NFL.... rules about holding in the end zone, etc... seems it wouldn't be that hard to say that once a punters foot hits the ball. it is change of possession

That's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard.

A change of possession doesn't occur until the receiving team physically has the ball in one of their players hands.

When a punt is blocked, the ball is treated as if its a fumble (it's no different than if Kyle Williams were to fumble a return). It's a live ball and both teams are eligible to recover the ball and advance it.

By making it a change of possession when it hits the punters foot, you know prevent the kicking team from having the right to pick up an fumble and advance it for a first down.


Thank you for your kind words. Change only happens when ideas start to flow and people that stifle any other discussion by calling an idea "the dumbest they ever heard" is not only rude, but outrightly inflammatory. I will not respond in kind, though you should really take a look in the mirror.
[ Edited by ubaisore on Dec 8, 2013 at 9:19 PM ]
Originally posted by ubaisore:
Thank you for your kind words. Change only happens when ideas start to flow and people that stifle any other discussion by calling an idea "the dumbest they ever heard" is not only rude, but outrightly inflammatory. I will not respond in kind, though you should really take a look in the mirror.

The reason I responded the way I did was because I've spent the last two hours trying to explain to people why that play was called the way it was, and it feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.

I apologize for saying that, it was out of frustration.
linkboy - your reasoning here is not correct. On punts and kickoffs, even though possession doesn't begin until the team fields/touches the ball, penalties are still assessed and often enforced from the end of the run. In many situations, the receiving team even has the option of re-kicking or tacking the penalty on to the end of the run. This play could be no different, should the league wish to adjust the rule. It wouldn't completely remove the issue - a 20 yard bat-forward followed by a 10 yard enforcement from the end of the play still results in a net +10 for the offending team. But it would make more sense than the current rule. Alternatively, the league could simply tack on a loss of down to an illegally batted ball, similar to an illegal forward pass. This would allow the acceptance of the penalty from the spot of the foul, with 10 yards and loss of down creating the turnover. In no way would this affect other rules or penalties, except in other (rare) illegally batted ball scenarios.
  • AmpLee
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 16,030
Originally posted by linkboy:
Originally posted by ubaisore:
Thank you for your kind words. Change only happens when ideas start to flow and people that stifle any other discussion by calling an idea "the dumbest they ever heard" is not only rude, but outrightly inflammatory. I will not respond in kind, though you should really take a look in the mirror.

The reason I responded the way I did was because I've spent the last two hours trying to explain to people why that play was called the way it was, and it feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.

I apologize for saying that, it was out of frustration.

You should be aware that people aren't disagreeing with the call as much as disagreeing with what the outcome ought to be. No need to beat your head against a wall.
Originally posted by DarkKnight1680: linkboy - your reasoning here is not correct. On punts and kickoffs, even though possession doesn't begin until the team fields/touches the ball, penalties are still assessed and often enforced from the end of the run. In many situations, the receiving team even has the option of re-kicking or tacking the penalty on to the end of the run. This play could be no different, should the league wish to adjust the rule. It wouldn't completely remove the issue - a 20 yard bat-forward followed by a 10 yard enforcement from the end of the play still results in a net +10 for the offending team. But it would make more sense than the current rule. Alternatively, the league could simply tack on a loss of down to an illegally batted ball, similar to an illegal forward pass. This would allow the acceptance of the penalty from the spot of the foul, with 10 yards and loss of down creating the turnover. In no way would this affect other rules or penalties, except in other (rare) illegally batted ball scenarios.
What you're not mentioning is that there was no change of possession. No 49ers player gained possession of the ball in the field of play.

The Seahawks, up until that ball went out of bounds, were the offensive team.

The play wasn't treated like a punt return because it wasn't one. It was treated as if it was a fumble, because that's what it was, a live ball on the field that can be legally advanced by either team. The minute Osgood touched that ball, it ceased to be a punt play.

Had the 49ers recovered the ball and advanced it after the illegal touching, then yes, you're perfectly correct. However, they didn't and the ball went out of bounds instead.
[ Edited by linkboy on Dec 8, 2013 at 9:47 PM ]
Originally posted by AmpLee:
You should be aware that people aren't disagreeing with the call as much as disagreeing with what the outcome ought to be. No need to beat your head against a wall.

This is the perfect time to "ask" questions... if it was illigal touching shouldnt it have been 49er ball at the place where the "touching" happened?
  • Liono
  • Member
  • Posts: 327
This doesn't make sense. If an offensive player cannot bat the ball forward, then the ball should NOT be placed at the 35 yard line because it's an illigetiment way to move the football according to NFL rules. If a RB throws the ball forward out of bounds the offense would not get the ball where it lands if the defense declined the penalty. Declining the pentalty should result in getting the ball where it was TOUCHED. Either the refs botched this or it's a stupid rule.
Originally posted by sanjo49er:
This is the perfect time to "ask" questions... if it was illigal touching shouldnt it have been 49er ball at the place where the "touching" happened?

No, because a penalty on the offense, which Seattle was at the time as no 49ers player had possession of the ball, is enforced from the line of scrimmage, not the spot of the foul.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home