I just saw the enforcement of the dumbest rule in the NFL in the Steelers/Chargers game on a muffed fair catch.
*** Update ***
Steelers win, barely, but may have lost Ben.
Ugh.
by John Cole| 23 Comments
This post is in: Sports
I just saw the enforcement of the dumbest rule in the NFL in the Steelers/Chargers game on a muffed fair catch.
*** Update ***
Steelers win, barely, but may have lost Ben.
Ugh.
Comments are closed.
Joey
That was some serious, grade-A, high quality bullshit-on-a-stick. The guy had no chance at catching after the muff. Horrible call.
Otto Man
Yeah, that’s one unbelievably stupid rule. As soon as the returner muffs it, both he and the ball should be fair game.
Jim
Not to mention the fact that the ball was muffed into the Steelers player. WTF is he supposed to do?
vnjagvet
No question about it. This was one that they should have checked on. They conferenced and then threw the flag. While conferencing, why not check the tape?
This one should get some fines for the officials.
Jon
Must be pretty damn dumb if it’s dumber than the tuck rule.
I think you could get a pretty good bipartisan effort in DC right now to outlaw the tuck rule…
SomeCallMeTim
LT, baby.
Jim
Jeff Reed baby.
vnjagvet
Poetic justice. Steelers win.
SeesThroughIt
Exactly! That was an absolutely ridiculous call. Anybody can look at that and see that A) there was no interference, and B) it was a fumble. Fortunately, it didn’t end up costing the Black and Gold the game.
The real question, of course, is which rule is dumber: This rule or the “tuck rule?” Both of them are clearly fumbles.
cd6
HOLY CRAP BEN NOOOOOOOOOO
John Cole
SeeThroughIt- It was the right call, but a stupid rule. Or maybe a good rule and just onke of those fluke things.
Regardless, I threw a remote and yelled ‘BULLSHIT’ at the top of my lungs.
ppGaz
The call was correct. The man must be given an unimpeded shot. Whether he “would have succeeded” or not is not part of the clause, nor what the official is to judge.
He wasn’t given the unimpeded shot at the catch. Period. The call was based on that fact.
Anyone but a partisan would see it that way. I have no care about the outcome of the play, or game, whatsoever.
John Cole
And once again, I am looking outside for an eclipse or something, because PPGAZ and I agree.
Although I don’t know what someone is supposed to do when the ball bounces into their hands after the returner muffs the catch- not catch it?
demimondian
Yeah, but Gore conceded Florida in 2000 anwywa…oh. We’re talking about something important, not politics.
I’m sorry, I was working on some code.
ppGaz
The play is over as soon as the kicking player encroaches on the receiving player who has signalled fair catch. Whatever happens after that doesn’t matter.
We agree about once a month … openly. Actually I agree with you about 70% of the time but I don’t like to make a big deal out of it :-)
Vladi G
There was a football game on tonight? Who knew?
Angels Baseball, baby!!
Jeff G
Steelers win and lost Ben. Thanks, Steelers!
Incidentally, the tuck rule is our friend here in Denver. Ashley Lelei? Not so much.
SoCalJustice
…waiting for news of the MRI. (*please be nothing more than a hyperextension*)
Jeff Reed has ice in his veins, though.
Just a great game.
joshua
The only rule clarification I can find for this is from the NFL.com rule digest, which is an abridged version of the rules for dummies.
Fumble:
1. The distinction between a fumble and a muff should be kept in mind in considering rules about fumbles. A fumble is the loss of player possession of the ball. A muff is the touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession.
Fair Catch Rules:
2. No opponent may interfere with the fair catcher, the ball, or his path to the ball. Penalty: 15 yards from spot of foul and fair catch is awarded.
4. If ball hits ground or is touched by member of kicking team in flight, fair catch signal is off and all rules for a kicked ball apply.
The only muff specified in the rules digest to be a fumble is the snap from center. The returner muffed the punt on his own and it touched a member of the kicking team (Iwuoma) before Iwuoma touched the returner, so I don’t see how that wasn’t a fumble. The ball probably wouldn’t be considered “in flight” when Iwuoma grabbed it, although if it was fair catch is off, but fair catch can’t possibly give the returner an unimpeded chance at recovering a punt he already muffed. This call seems to be a gray area that should be clarified with rule changes during the offseason.
I want this book: 2006 Official Rules of the NFL
Mithrandir
Actually, I don’t think the rule is at fault here. The referees, maybe. I don’t think they properly applied the rule. Unfortunately, a penalty is not something that is reviewable by instant replay. They “reviewed” it the only way they could. It just happens that they’ll review it later this week and see that they came to the wrong conclusion. :(
ppGaz
I doubt that it can be called a “muff” until it touches the ground. It’s not a muff because it’s in the air off his hands. It’s not a muff because a kicking player happened to be in his space and there to snatch it. If the kicking player can precipitate, and then snatch a muff, then the “fair catch” concept has no meaning. The replay does not convince me that the receiver could not have dived to the turf and saved the catch, had he been free to do so. An outside chance, but still a chance. Only when the chance is gone can you surrender the fair catch protection, and unless I don’t understand the rules at all, that means the ball has to touch the ground. The “touched by member of kicking team in flight” clause seems to refer to the ball in flight before it reaches the receiver, not while being juggled by the receiver. If a juggle is not permissable as part of the fair catch, then the whole fair catch rule is dysfunctional.
IMO..
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, I know. it’s just a very lame rule. I mean, the ball bounced off the receiver (who, it should be noted, had no chance of catching the ball after he initially blew the catch) and into the Steeler’s hands; the Steeler’s momentum then carried him into the receiver. What the hell was the Steeler supposed to do? If the receiver blows the fair catch, why should the punting team be penalized, ya know? Stupid, stupid rule.
Coincidentally enough, TMQ does a little bit about the tuck rule in today’s column. A reader makes the intriguing suggestion that if we’re going to use the tuck rule to claim fumbles as incomplete passes, we should further (and technically correctly) claim that said incomplete passes are also intentional grounding.
joshua
If members of the kicking team can predict a muff, you’re already fucked. Fair catch isn’t an issue.
But that’s the problem: calling fair catch can’t mean you get unlimited, uninhibited access to the punt.
The chance is gone when the ball bounces off your facemask and travels a yard forward into the arms of an opposing player. If that’s not the rule, then when fair catch is called the punt might as well be called dead immediately with the ball spotted at the point which the returner called for the fair catch.
This argument might hold if the kicking team player had snatched the ball out of the hands of the returner, but he didn’t. It bounced off the facemask of the returner and into the hands of an opposing player who reacted and caught the ball at least a yard away from the returner. I don’t think there’s a halo anymore; the interference comes solely from the contact. And if it’s not a muff and it hasn’t touched the ground, then it’s either in flight or a free ball.