ozskin Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Like many of us during the wildcard game against Seattle, i went absolutely ape **** when Mix ran in the on-side kick for a TD. Then the realisation that you cant advance an on-side kick came, and i took my seat. My problem isn't with that play. The rule is in place and was called correctly. My problem is with that rule. Why can't you advance an on-side kick? What's the rationale behind that rule? It seems to me that it is similar to recovering a fumble and therefor should be able to be advanced. Anyone agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slacky McSlackAss Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 But its not a fumble since no team has possession of the ball at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terpcap24 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Than why can the receiving team return a kick? I agree there is no reason that I can think of for why you cannot pick up the ball and run. I have always thought this, not just because it hurt us the other day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinky Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 what if the ball was untouched prior to going into the endzone and then recovered by Mix in the endzone? it would have been a touchdown right? EVEN IF the ball never was controlled by the Seahawks? i think that rule should be looked at... it is the responsibility of the receiving team to gain control of the ball and prevent the kicking team from getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSk1nsfan Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I cant remb did we score after that? Or was that the one where we missed the FG? I cant remb if it was after one of the int's that we did not score to go up by 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozskin Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 I cant remb did we score after that? Or was that the one where we missed the FG? I cant remb if it was after one of the int's that we did not score to go up by 8 It was that damn missed FG drive.....I use the word 'drive' loosely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I don't really like the rule either...do they actually have to touch it or have full possession of the ball? Because on punts it's just touching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozskin Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 what if the ball was untouched prior to going into the endzone and then recovered by Mix in the endzone? it would have been a touchdown right? EVEN IF the ball never was controlled by the Seahawks?i think that rule should be looked at... it is the responsibility of the receiving team to gain control of the ball and prevent the kicking team from getting it. Spot on. That's exactly right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggins77 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It's the freaking rule. Period. You could disguise onside kicks so easy, that it would be recovered by the kicking team all the time. You have to have some balance. You already get the fact that the team missed it, so you recover in their territory, why be pissed you can't run it back for a TD. You can run it back for a TD if the receiving team touches the ball and muffs or fumbles. Also, if you kick it into the endzone and the receiving team doesn't get it and you fall on it, it's a TD. Pretty fair and simple rules if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSk1nsfan Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It was that damn missed FG drive.....I use the word 'drive' loosely. ahh crap thats what I thought. That sucks cause if we scored a TD there we could have won the game cause we would not have been throwing bombs down field to get picked off for TD's. That rule sucks!!!! Ohh well new season next year with a new coach. Glad 2007 is over, it was a hard year to be a skins fan :logo: :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skin'Em84 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It's the freaking rule. Period. You could disguise onside kicks so easy, that it would be recovered by the kicking team all the time. You have to have some balance. You already get the fact that the team missed it, so you recover in their territory, why be pissed you can't run it back for a TD. You can run it back for a TD if the receiving team touches the ball and muffs or fumbles. Also, if you kick it into the endzone and the receiving team doesn't get it and you fall on it, it's a TD. Pretty fair and simple rules if you ask me. If they can disguise them so easily and recover them, then they'd kick them anyways and get the ball back. If you suck enough to let the other team get the ball back and let them score, you deserve 7 points scored on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveWarrior Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 what if the ball was untouched prior to going into the endzone and then recovered by Mix in the endzone? it would have been a touchdown right? EVEN IF the ball never was controlled by the Seahawks? Correct. But in that case, they wouldn't be advancing it. It would already be in the end zone, so they'd be taking possession of it in the endzone, resulting in 6 points. SInce we're talking about rules that people think should be looked at, I would like to suggest getting rid of some of the automatic first downs on defensive penalties. If it's 3rd and 15, and the defense gets a 5 or 10 yard penalty, why should that give the offense an automatic 1st down? Just move the ball up the appropriate yardage and replay the previous down. I wouldn't apply this to pass interference, where the ball gets spotted where the foul occured and the offense is given a 1st down. I'd leave that as the only one that comes with an automatic 1st down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byner21 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I'd like to know the rationale behind that rule too. Doesn't make sense to me. I think the kicking team should be able to advance the ball...until I hear a good reason why they shouldn't be able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d0ublestr0ker0ll Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 It's the freaking rule. Period. You could disguise onside kicks so easy, that it would be recovered by the kicking team all the time. You have to have some balance. You already get the fact that the team missed it, so you recover in their territory, why be pissed you can't run it back for a TD. You can run it back for a TD if the receiving team touches the ball and muffs or fumbles. Also, if you kick it into the endzone and the receiving team doesn't get it and you fall on it, it's a TD. Pretty fair and simple rules if you ask me. This would do nothing to change the "disguise" of onside kicks. If the kicking team could run with an untouched ball, new strategies would be made to kick it 10 yards to pick it up and run with it? Onside kicks are almost ALWAYS recovered by diving on the ball, and it'd be the same with this rule in place. It'd be a scramble for the ball any way you shake it. Why is the rule fair and simple? Seems pretty complex with an unjust punishment. Touching the ball and fumbling it is at LEAST more of an effort shown than not touching it at all. A kicking team that can get to the ball without the recieving team touching it should be rewarded with the same benefit as a fumble. It's just as impressive, if not more, than recovering a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsDukes Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I had the exact same reaction during the game, and had this exact same discussion with a friend at work on Monday. I don't see the rationale for not being able to advance it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d805de9b9 NFL Official Review...right from the big mans mouth himself on the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozskin Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share Posted January 10, 2008 http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d805de9b9NFL Official Review...right from the big mans mouth himself on the rule. Good find Blue. I just dont buy that as a reasonable rationale for this rule. The ball should always be live and always advancable. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Yeah when I watched it myself it was kind of puzzling trying to find the rationality of the rule. Being a Giants fan I've had my fare share of bad calls and odd rulings, but this one was a head scratcher. I guess a rules is a rule though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.