In the Giants-Redskins game the other night early in the game the Redskins punted
to the Giants. The ball bounced around the 7-yard line where it was picked up by a
Redskin who in his enthusiasm ran it into the end zone. It was ruled a touchback.
Why was that so? Isn't the ball dead where he first touches it? Had he run in the other
direction could he have scored (I'm sure not). So what is the logic in making it a touchback?
ridiculous rules
-
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2016 8:53 am
Re: ridiculous rules
John Grasso wrote:In the Giants-Redskins game the other night early in the game the Redskins punted
to the Giants. The ball bounced around the 7-yard line where it was picked up by a
Redskin who in his enthusiasm ran it into the end zone. It was ruled a touchback.
Why was that so? Isn't the ball dead where he first touches it? Had he run in the other
direction could he have scored (I'm sure not). So what is the logic in making it a touchback?
I think it's smarter to keep the old rule, and easier for the refs to spot the ball as well. The last thing we need is more interruptions(or delays), and I can easily see the refs needing to check replay in order to spot the ball precisely. Another issue is if an receiving team player is nearby, we don't want anymore injuries if a tackle(or attempted tackle) is involved.
-
- Posts: 1514
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am
Re: ridiculous rules
No, the ball is not dead when a member of the kicking team touches it. However, it's an infraction and the receiving can choose to take the ball at that spot when the play ends. If a member of the member of the punting team touches the ball, somebody on the receiving can pick it up and return it without fear of fumbling; if he returns it all the way, it's a TD; if he loses a fumble, his team can choose simply to take the ball at the 7, where it was touched.John Grasso wrote:In the Giants-Redskins game the other night early in the game the Redskins punted
to the Giants. The ball bounced around the 7-yard line where it was picked up by a
Redskin who in his enthusiasm ran it into the end zone. It was ruled a touchback.
Why was that so? Isn't the ball dead where he first touches it? Had he run in the other
direction could he have scored (I'm sure not). So what is the logic in making it a touchback?
In this case, the punting team provided the impetus that put the ball in the end zone, so it was properly ruled a touchback. However, if he had run the other way and been tackled in his end zone, it would have been a safety.