Explain This

[Chief Chief]

KC @ Chicago, less than 2 minutes in the 1st half:

We kick-off and the Bears return man catches the ball on the bounce near the sideline with one foot in and then his other foot lands out.

The ref calls a penalty on KC for kicking the ball out of bounds and gives the Bears the ball at the 40.

WTF?

Also, there was another play inside 2 minutes of the first half which I thought was worthy of a review but it didn't happen.

Anyone recall that one?

[kc rush]

Originally Posted by donkhater

That would be illegal batting of the ball out of bounds and be a penalty. Selvin Young (Broncos) was called for that last week on a dropped lateral he batted OoB. A heads up play on his part, but still a penalty.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by donkhater

No. Because he is OoB when he touches the ball. If he goes out of bounds THEN re-establishes himself inbounds and touches the ball first it is illegal touching of the ball.

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?

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?

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.

[donkhater]

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.

[Bugeater]

I have a headache from reading this thread.

[shyguyms]

it's just like baseball it's where the ball is going out of bounds when he touches, the officials blew this call. A few plays in this game should of been reviewed we also got a few bad spots off by over a yard.

[Mecca]

This rule has been in place forever, I remember seeing it in another game a few years ago.

In the grand scheme it didn't lead to anything so it didn't matter.

[Rain Man]

Post #32 pretty much summarizes my opinion on this. It's ludicrous. I'm sure there's some legitimate reason why this rule was created, but I'm hard-put to figure out what it was.

I guess they're treating fielding a kick to be the same as catching a pass, but I would posit that they're two very different things. A kick is a live ball and a pass isn't. A kicking play doesn't stop once the ball hits the ground.

[JohnnyV13]

I think this rule exists to be consistent with the sideline catch rules. Second, it also discourages teams from kicking to the sidelines. The league wants to ENCOURAGE kick returns because they are exciting plays.

That's why we have K balls to reduce the length of kickoffs and have moved the kickoff point to the 30. Heck, if kickers start putting it into the end zone from the 30, they'll move it back to the 25.