A Bizarre Play Last week In VMI @ Samford Game

[SU DOG]

Bizarre may not be the right word, but VERY unusual. In all my years of watching college football(probably more than most posters on here have been alive), I don't recall ever seeing this exact thing happen.

Samford punted and a Bulldog Player tried to down the ball at the 3 yard line before it went into the end zone. He touched it, but a VMI player knocked it out of his hands and into the end zone, where another SU player recovered it. TD Samford right? NOPE the refs called illegal touching(by Samford), and gave VMI the ball at their own 3 yard line.

Turns out, I think the SoCon refs actually got it right. After some research, I found that "illegal touching" does not result in a stepped off penalty. Technically, it WAS a Samford touchdown, but seems the rule actually says that the receiving team has the option of accepting the ball where it was illegally touched OR the result of the play. VMI takes the ball on the 3.

Some of y'all may have seen this before, but I learned something new.xcoffeex

[walliver]

Did the Samford player have possession of the ball before it was knocked out. If so the play would have been dead. I'm not clear about the details of "illegal touching", although it seems to have caused Trump some issues.
The real question is why would a VMI player try to knock the ball out of his hands? Or had he called for a fair catch (in which case the ball would have to hit the ground before Samford could touch it)?

[kdinva]

Bizarre may not be the right word, but VERY unusual. In all my years of watching college football(probably more than most posters on here have been alive), I don't recall ever seeing this exact thing happen.

Samford punted and a Bulldog Player tried to down the ball at the 3 yard line before it went into the end zone. He touched it, but a VMI player knocked it out of his hands and into the end zone, where another SU player recovered it. TD Samford right? NOPE the refs called illegal touching(by Samford), and gave VMI the ball at their own 3 yard line.

Turns out, I think the SoCon refs actually got it right. After some research, I found that "illegal touching" does not result in a stepped off penalty. Technically, it WAS a Samford touchdown, but seems the rule actually says that the receiving team has the option of accepting the ball where it was illegally touched OR the result of the play. VMI takes the ball on the 3.

Some of y'all may have seen this before, but I learned something new.xcoffeex

I think the refs got it right, too.......once the punting team touches the "bouncing" ball, then that is the spot of the ball.......if the Sammy player did not have full possession, the VMI player would have been smart to let the ball bounce/roll, and come what may.

[MacThor]

Illegal touching happens on lots of punts. There's literally no risk to the receiving team once the kicking team touches the ball.
I'm surprised more teams don't try wacky kamikaze missions with their punt returner picking up the ball after an illegal touch.

[BEAR]

I'm still confused about the "fair catch" rule. I have seen multiple times a player wave for a fair catch and once he catches it acts like he is going to run then the kicking team grabs him which draws a flag on the kicking team. WTF?!

Also the targeting rule. McNeese fans can explain that one after that game saturday. xlolx

[SU DOG]

Did the Samford player have possession of the ball before it was knocked out. If so the play would have been dead. I'm not clear about the details of "illegal touching", although it seems to have caused Trump some issues.
The real question is why would a VMI player try to knock the ball out of his hands? Or had he called for a fair catch (in which case the ball would have to hit the ground before Samford could touch it)?

The Samford did NOT have possession. The VMI player did not call for a fair catch. Why the Keydet player tried to knock the ball away from the SU guy, I have NO idea.

- - - Updated - - -


Illegal touching happens on lots of punts. There's literally no risk to the receiving team once the kicking team touches the ball.
I'm surprised more teams don't try wacky kamikaze missions with their punt returner picking up the ball after an illegal touch.

I've wondered this same thing since Saturday.

[Sycamore62]

I think the term is "first touching"(don't hold me to this in NCAA). If kicking team touches the ball without downing it the receiving team can go back to that spot unless the receivers POSSESS the ball THEN fumble it away or something like that. So if after the ball being touched by K, the R runs over and tries to grab it and rum but never gets possession (called a muff) even if K recovers it it can go back to the first touching spot.

[Sycamore62]

Illegal touching happens when a lineman purposly tries to touch a pass or a receiver goes out of bounds without being forced and then touches a pass.

[MacThor]

The Samford did NOT have possession. The VMI player did not call for a fair catch. Why the Keydet player tried to knock the ball away from the SU guy, I have NO idea.

Perhaps he was trying to get the ball to advance it and it bounced the wrong way. Otherwise, maybe he didn't know the rule and was trying to force a touchback instead of the ball at the 3?

[MacThor]

I think the term is "first touching"(don't hold me to this in NCAA). If kicking team touches the ball without downing it the receiving team can go back to that spot unless the receivers POSSESS the ball THEN fumble it away or something like that. So if after the ball being touched by K, the R runs over and tries to grab it and rum but never gets possession (called a muff) even if K recovers it it can go back to the first touching spot.

No - after K touches the ball, R can grab it, take possession, run 80 yards, fumble it back to K, and R still gets the ball where K touched it. It's basically a free play for R.

[SU DOG]

No - after K touches the ball, R can grab it, take possession, run 80 yards, fumble it back to K, and R still gets the ball where K touched it. It's basically a free play for R.

That is exactly the way I understand it. It IS a free play for the receiving team. And the rule book term is "illegal touching" by the kicking team. I really think the VMI guy was trying to get a touchback. None of us around me knew this rule, and I still don't recall ever seeing this before. What about those SoCon officials that actually got it right. WOW! LOL

[Sycamore62]

That is exactly the way I understand it. It IS a free play for the receiving team. And the rule book term is "illegal touching" by the kicking team. I really think the VMI guy was trying to get a touchback. None of us around me knew this rule, and I still don't recall ever seeing this before. What about those SoCon officials that actually got it right. WOW! LOL

Once possession happens a fumble recovered by K goes to 1st and 10 for K. I'm pretty confiddent on this one

[JayJ79]

I'm fairly sure that once a scrimmage kick (that has crossed beyond the neutral zone) is touched by a member of the kicking team, prior to it having been touched by a member of the receiving team, the ball is dead and it doesn't matter what happens after that.

So it isn't a "free play" for the receiving team. The receiving team gets the ball where it was touched by the kicking team (unless such touching occured at or beyond the goal line, in which case they get possession at the 20)

[Sycamore62]

I'm fairly sure that once a scrimmage kick (that has crossed beyond the neutral zone) is touched by a member of the kicking team, prior to it having been touched by a member of the receiving team, the ball is dead and it doesn't matter what happens after that.

So it isn't a "free play" for the receiving team. The receiving team gets the ball where it was touched by the kicking team (unless such touching occured at or beyond the goal line, in which case they get possession at the 20)
Downed yes.....touched no

[Milktruck74]

It also matters which direction you bat the ball. The K team can bat the ball away from the endzone, but not toward it.

[PAllen]

Once possession happens a fumble recovered by K goes to 1st and 10 for K. I'm pretty confiddent on this one

Nope. 1st touching by K gives R (assuming clean hands) the option of receiving the ball at the spot of first touching regardless of the outcome of the play. The play in the OP was a touchdown for K, however, R elected to exercise their right to the ball at the spot of first touching, thus negating the td. I've officiated games where the gunner on the punt team comes down and taps the rolling punt as he runs by. The returner alertly picks up the ball and starts running, usually for a big return. A "downed" punt is not dead until it is possessed by K or abandoned by all players (is, ball rolls to a stop at the four and all of the players run off the field.

[Milktruck74]

Nope. 1st touching by K gives R (assuming clean hands) the option of receiving the ball at the spot of first touching regardless of the outcome of the play. The play in the OP was a touchdown for K, however, R elected to exercise their right to the ball at the spot of first touching, thus negating the td. I've officiated games where the gunner on the punt team comes down and taps the rolling punt as he runs by. The returner alertly picks up the ball and starts running, usually for a big return. A "downed" punt is not dead until it is possessed by K or abandoned by all players (is, ball rolls to a stop at the four and all of the players run off the field.

So possession is the key...you can't advance a Muff...you can advance ON A Muff....you can grab a Muff, if you are a star, they will let you!!!

[Sycamore62]

im wrong on the recovery....disregard my input. prolly why I dont do NCAA games

[Go Green]

I'm still confused about the "fair catch" rule.

Against Towson, Dartmouth had a potentially long punt return blown dead because the ref called a fair catch. The Dartmouth returner protested that he was just trying to shield his eyes from the sun as he was watching the ball in the air, but the ref held firm.

Oh well.

[Milktruck74]

Against Towson, Dartmouth had a potentially long punt return blown dead because the ref called a fair catch. The Dartmouth returner protested that he was just trying to shield his eyes from the sun as he was watching the ball in the air, but the ref held firm.

Oh well.

If you raise a hand above your shoulders it is considered an signal for fair catch. Ther is zero "interpretation" on this one.

[Libertine]

If you raise a hand above your shoulders it is considered an signal for fair catch. Ther is zero "interpretation" on this one.

There is a little bit of interpretation actually. The fair catch signal is supposed to be at least one back-and-forth motion. Most officials will blow it dead, thought, if the player's arm goes up at all just to err on the side of safety. Then they'll say something to the player about giving a proper signal.

There's always that one guy, though, who doesn't mind seeing the returner give a lazy fair catch signal and then get trucked.

[Milktruck74]

A good back judge will remind the player before the play to give a good one...I actually like it when they give an illegal one and get blasted by the kicking team....a half hearted motion means you are not allowed to move forward AND you get zero protection. hahaha... the lesson here is listen to your officials, kids!!!!!!

[PAllen]

If you raise a hand above your shoulders it is considered an signal for fair catch. Ther is zero "interpretation" on this one.

This. When in doubt, it's a fair catch signal. Ivy/PL/CAA officials are instructed that anything above the waist is a fair catch. Or at least they were 10 years ago when I was going through the process.