Guys, I feel a need for a rules change. Let me know if you agree.

Situation: R muffs a punt @ his own 7 yd line. The kick rolls into the End Zone where K "recovers". To all in attendance as well as the coaching staff, this appears to be a touchdown for K. HOWEVER, we know it's a touchback and the ball will belong to R on the 20.

I find this to be an unfair rule in need of review.

Your thoughts?

Sounds like someone wanted a TD but didn't get it.

My thoughts? There are 40 things that actually do need to be changed... and not this one.

If our motivation for changing rules is to meet the expectations of the casual fan, whose rules knowledge comes from sitting down with alcohol to watch football on Sundays, then why don't we just use the NFL rulebook?

No need for a change. You should have to carry the ball over the goal line in your possession to get a TD, or have your opponent have the ball in their possession and lose it in the EZ. You can't advance a muff in the field of play, so why award a score because the muff goes into the EZ?

While it might be a noble cause to push for this specific change, all you will be doing is adding another exception to the NF rules and they do not like exceptions. :rolleyes:

It doesn't have to be an exception. The rule could be changed to "a kick untouched by R that enters the EZ is a touch back." You shouldn't be rewarding R by attempting but failing to catch a kick. If they muff a kick and the ball stops at the 1, K can get an easy score or R is going to be really backed up. If the K muffs the ball closer to the EZ and it goes in, now they get the ball at the 20? Perhaps a rule change makes sense.

That being said. Usually, a good back judge can keep the coaches and fans from wanting a TD by shutting this play down before it is "recovered." As such, this is certainly a low priority for a rule change, but not necessarily a bad idea.

Surprise... you just defined an exception to the kick rules.

Remember, it is the kick that put the ball in the end zone, not the muff. B muffing the ball does not put a new force onto the ball, therefore it is a touchback.

Surprise... you just defined an exception to the kick rules.


Kind of like a free kick untouched by R that goes out of bounds is an exception to the kick rules?

I understand the current rule. I understand the force that put the ball in the endzone is the kick, not the muff. But I also think that R's failure to cleanly catch the kick had something to do with it being in the endzone. Just like their failure to catch a free kick that goes out of bounds contributes to it going out of bounds - therefore making it not an illegal kick.

Again, I don't think this should be a high priority for a rule change, but I do think it would be a fair change.

REPLY: No one ever claimed that the Federation doesn't already have exceptions, but this would truly be another one. Let's just hypothesize that we did get it changed. How would you want it ruled if R ran back into his endzone and then recovered it there on the ground?

Not that this would necessarily be a bad rule change, but I just don't understand what the big deal is here. When a kick goes into R's endzone it is always a touchback. Period. The rule, IMHO, is clear, consise (sp?), and fair.

Give it UP.. what you quoted IS part of the kick rule and has no bearing on a kick into the EZ.

I, as well as other officials I know, can come up with piles of rules that don't look to be fair. I just enforce them, not write them.

Generally, I don't see a lot that needs to be changed, rules-wise.

My intent was not to allow for K to get a TD, but rather to prevent R from getting a free pass to the 20 after botching an attempt to receive and advance.

I think a bean bag at the muff is perfect. If R or K gains possession in the EZ, R gets the ball at the bean bag.

Just didn't think muffing a punt should be rewarded with yardage.

Thanks for the discussion.

I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse on this.

When I consider rules that I think should be changed because I think they are unfair, this would rank way below most of the rest of them. As I said before, I don't really think this would be a bad change, just looking at the rule itself, but everything considered (is it important? how it would effect us officials, etc.), it is not really necessary.

No need to change this rule. However, I do look forward to the Fed fixing the illegal substitution and illegal participation wording/interpretations.