Arkansas-Florida Muffed Punt

[BoomerSooner]

I'm sure all of our SEC fans saw the punt that was muffed by Arkansas and subsequently recovered for a TD by Florida. What got me to thinking about that play was the FoxSports message boards (more of a fan-board as the games are in progress), where a guy actually asked if the play should have been called a touchback.

I know that the play was called correctly according to NCAA as the ball is only ruled an immediate TB if the ball is untouched by R and enters the endzone, however had this been NF how many would have ruled a TB? The one thing that really sparked my interest in the play in question is that in trying to recover the muffed punt, R batted the ball around and somewhat toward the goal line. At this point I asked myself is this a new force outside of the punt that would cause this not to be a TB in NF?

Can anyone imagine a coach accepting the call without a huge fuss? I use the word "imagine" because I think it will take alot of imagination to invision a coach not blowing up.

[MJT]

I didn't see the play, but in NF, it is really easy, a kick, is a kick, is a kick, which means you have a TB if the kick is muffed and crosses the goal line.

[grantsrc]

One thing to keep in mind that with the muff, in NCAA if R recovers the ball in the end zone, it would've been ruled a TB.

But for Fed, like MJT said, no matter how the ball would've gotten there, it would still be a TB.

[Texas Aggie]

In the NCAA code, its only an automatic TB if the kick is untouched and hits the goal line or end zone area. As stated, its still a kick, though, so if the R team recovers in the end zone, its a TB as well.

I don't quite understand how Fed can say a muffed kick is a live ball when between the goal lines, but a TB if it goes into the EZ. If it goes out of the EZ, yes, that makes sense. But if its in the EZ and touched by R, it should be a live ball.

R batted the ball around and somewhat toward the goal line.

That would be a foul (NCAA; basic spot, foul behind GL), which would result in a safety if R recovered, or, of course, a TD (and declined penalty) if K recovered.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

If R is, as you say, batting the ball around, then we have a flag for illegal batting. More likely, it was just a bunch of muffs.

But in either case it would be a touchback. Force is not a factor on kicks entering R's end zone, and it remains a kick until possessed or ruled dead.

[kd0254]

Fed Rules that is a Touchback, no questions. A muff does not change the status of a kick, it is still and will be a kick regardless.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

In NF, any kick that crosses the plane of the goal line is a touchback. You can't have a live "kick" in the end zone (other than a scoring attempt).

[BoomerSooner]

I guess using the phrase "batted the ball" was a bit misleading because it was more like a big continuous muff, and I would have likely called a TB had it been HS. Like I said though it sparked some thought in my mind and wanted to get some other perspectives on this type of play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I know that the play was called correctly according to NCAA as the ball is only ruled an immediate TB if the ball is untouched by R and enters the endzone, however had this been NF how many would have ruled a TB?

All of us, I hope.

Wouldn't you have?

[Texas Aggie]

Is a blocked kick (punt, primarily) still a kick in Fed (prior to recovery)? If so, and a kick is blocked from the field of play into the EZ, is it a TB?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Is a blocked kick (punt, primarily) still a kick in Fed (prior to recovery)? If so, and a kick is blocked from the field of play into the EZ, is it a TB?

REPLY: Answer to your first question--Yes it's still a kick. Answer to second question. If a blocked kick goes backwards into A's endzone and becomes dead there, it's a safety, unless of course it becomes dead in B's possession which would result in a TD. Just like NCAA. If it's blocked and still manages to go forward into B's endzone, it is a TB as soon as it penetrates the plane of the goal line.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I guess using the phrase "batted the ball" was a bit misleading because it was more like a big continuous muff, and I would have likely called a TB had it been HS. Like I said though it sparked some thought in my mind and wanted to get some other perspectives on this type of play.

... and you would have been correct as well under NF rules.
Now if you had ruled there was a bat, the result would still be the same.
However, you would also have a flag to deal with.