Muff

[jeremy24175]

Ok, I saw this today, just wanted to clarify...

A punts to B, B muffs the ball at his 30 yard line and the ball is then recovered by B.

Officials rule that since A muffed it, he never possessed the ball, therefore it was "A's" ball 1 & 10 at the 30.

The ball should've been awarded to 'B', correct?

Would the 'muff' rule apply here. I can't see how it would.

[insatty]

Something is out of whack with your description of this play. If B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, A may recover the ball and get a new series at the spot of the recovery. But if B recovers, it's B's ball 1st and 10 at the end of the run.

[jeremy24175]

Originally Posted by insatty

Something is out of whack with your description of this play. If B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, A may recover the ball and get a new series at the spot of the recovery. But if B recovers, it's B's ball 1st and 10 at the end of the run.

B attempted to catch the punt and dropped it. A recovers.

B is awarded the ball, they called it a 'muff'.

[dvasques]

As far as I know, a muff gives A the oportunity to recover the kick

[wisref2]

You've kind of messed up the team labels here. Remember, when describing a play - the designations at the beginning of the down continue throughout the down. On a kick play - the kicking team is K (not A) and the receivers are R, not B.

After R touches the kick, whoever is in possession at the end of the down gets a new series.

A muff is touching (without possessing), so K gets to the keep the ball in your play. But they couldn't advance it (K can't advance a muff).

So let's restate your question because you it seems you've switched some A and Bs around:
K punts to R, R muffs the ball at his 30 yard line and the ball is then recovered by K.

Officials rule that since R muffed it, he never possessed the ball, therefore it was "R's" ball 1 & 10 at the 30.

The ball should've been awarded to 'K', correct?

Would the 'muff' rule apply here. I can't see how it would.

Yes, - the muff rules applies because the ball was muffed. K can recover and they get a new series but they can't advance. If R would have caught the kick, then fumbled, K could recover and advance.

[waltjp]

We seem to be missing a part of this puzzle - or, the refs blew it.

[dvasques]

Only way I can see the play as it was happening would be (and I'm not even sure if that would be like I'm writing) for R's muff to send the ball behind the necessary line and K recovering it. This was there could be argument for K getting the ball behind the necessary line and, therefore, not having the first down.
But even that sounds wrong to me.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by wisref2

You've kind of messed up the team labels here. Remember, when describing a play - the designations at the beginning of the down continue throughout the down. On a kick play - the kicking team is K (not A) and the receivers are R, not B.

No, they're still A & B, but in addition, they're K & R.

There are circumstances in which the ball's "belonging to" B after the play described in the post at 3:16 would be correct. The initial poster didn't state where the previous spot was, nor the down & line to gain.

Presumably the punt was a kick from scrimmage. If B's/R's touching of the ball occurred on A's/K's side of the neutral zone, and then A's/K's recovery of the ball occurred there too, and the 30 yard line where it became dead was not beyond the line to gain, and it was last down, then in all North American codes the next series would be awarded to B on downs. It would be material that the touching of the ball was a mere muff (or in Canadian football, a blocked kick) rather than possession and a fumble. So maybe this was the scenario.

ISTR that in one code (Fed?), it wouldn't matter where R's touching of the ball occurred, if K recovered in or behind the expanded neutral zone. Or am I just imagining that difference?

Robert

[parepat]

Is it possible that we have first touching by K(A) and as a result B will still get the ball. This is the only way the original's post makes any sense to me.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Jeremy...there is obviously a lot of confusion and speculation as to what you were actually describing. May I suggest this: Restate the play using "blue" and "white" rather than A, B, K, or R. Also, give us the down and distance and where all the pertinent 'touches' of the ball took place. Then, we can be sure to help you understand what might have happened or if the officials might possibly just have messed it up.

[jeremy24175]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Jeremy...there is obviously a lot of confusion and speculation as to what you were actually describing. May I suggest this: Restate the play using "blue" and "white" rather than A, B, K, or R. Also, give us the down and distance and where all the pertinent 'touches' of the ball took place. Then, we can be sure to help you understand what might have happened or if the officials might possibly just have messed it up.

I've watched the tape and I think I've got it. They missed the call but they didn't communicate well obviously.

Blue (kicking team) punts the ball to White (receiving team). Whites PR has the ball bounce off his shoulder pads in an attempt to catch the punt. Blue gunner recovers the ball. The officials rule that it was a muff and that it is White ball at the spot.

It should've been Blue ball where it was recovered.

[jeremy24175]

Originally Posted by waltjp

We seem to be missing a part of this puzzle - or, the refs blew it.

No, the puzzle is all there. They got it wrong.

I'm pretty sure they all feel as rotten as my son does.