Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KC Fish
The moment before the catch, both Hester and the ball are inbounds.
The moment he catches the ball, both Hester and the ball are still inbounds, and neither have established any contact with OoB yet.
But yet, he's still considered OoB when neither Hester nor the ball had yet touched OoB.
That really seems contradictory. How can the kicking team be assessed a penalty when the flight of the ball is affected by the opposing team?
He hasn't put both feet down yet. Therefore he hasn't technically established possession. It's the same as a receiver catching a pass and putting both feet down before he goes OoB.
What if it would have been the same exact situation, but Hester muffed the catch and the ball lands inbounds and stays inbounds? How could they possibly justify that? Would Hester still have been considered OoB?
If his foot was on the line when he dropped the ball, then he is OoB and the ball is OoB. If has yet to touch the Oob marker before he drops the ball, then it is a live ball.
A more interesting scenario is if he muffed the catch before he came down OoB and the ball landed OoB. My guess is that it is ruled a live ball fumbled OoB. The offense takes over from that spot.
The point is that the player(Hester) affected the outcome of a rule that shouldn't have had anything to do with the guy catching the ball. If the player touches the ball before going OoB, logic would dictate that there couldn't be a penalty on the kicking team because the ball has already been affected by the opposing team.
|
This is why it is dangerous to kick near the sideline and, from a returner's perspective, to field a kick near the sideline. Any number of game changing plays can happen just by accidient.