Muffed Punt - TD?
 

This happened in an NFL game (I think Min-Chi)

K punts. R, at his own 5, goes to block a defender and is touched with the punt in the back. He goes to recover the ball but muffs it at the 2. The ball rolls into the end zone where it is recovered by K.

The ruling was a TD.

My question: why would this not be a touchback and R retains possession? A kick became dead in the endzone and R was not responsible for the force (since I believe a muff is not a force).

Thanks!

So then R can try to recover risk-free if the subsequent muff goes into the EZ? Hardly seems fair. It does seem fair that K gets the TD.

It was the Bears Vikings game.

What happened was the MIN punter missed the kick and the Bears recovered in MIN EZ. R recovered not K. Thus the reason the Bears were rewarded with a TD.

Because the attacking team possessed the ball in the end zone, and was entitled to "keep" it (1st touching by R on its side of the ENZ).

w_sohl

original post refers to a differnt play in Vikes\Bears game--where Viking returner was blocking and a bouncing kick hit him--bounced into the end zone and recovered by the Bears.

Lots of special team errors for the Vikes in this game.

I think the play he is talking about is when MIN Punt Returner(R) tried to block the CHI gunner(K). Punt landed at the 5 and touched the MIN Punt Returner's hand and then went into the endzone where it was recovered by CHI.

Under NFHS rules, this is a touchback. Under NCAA and NFL, this is a touchdown for K because the ball was touched in the field of play by R.

Ah, ok... that's what I was looking for.

Thanks!

You talking about a different play...and the play you are describing you are describing incorrectly.

In your play K5 mishandled the snap, there was a scrum for the ball, K5 intentionally kicked the ball towards the LOS as it lay on the ground, and R25 picked up the ball and ran for a touchdown.

In the NFL Gamebook Chicago was credited with a block punt for a TD.