How is this an NFL Rule??

[AreYouNUTS]

That's GOT to be the WORST rule in all of sports:

Ball is kicked off. Ball headed towards sideline. Player fields ball with one foot out-of-bounds. Ball NEVER goes out-of-bounds. Receiving team rewarded ball on 40-yard line.

How on EARTH is that a rule? Somebody please make this make sense to me! Thanks!

 

[jay_hq]

its a loophole.

players have used it randomly for years.

the player being out of bounds means the ball went out of bounds. its that simple.

 

[Section124]

I agree. Horrible rule. Should be a penalty against the receiving team for touching the ball when out of bounds.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

its a loophole.

players have used it randomly for years.

the player being out of bounds means the ball went out of bounds. its that simple.

Even if the player is literally laying on the ground, inbounds, with ONLY his foot touching out-of-bounds?

 

[AreYouNUTS]

I agree. Horrible rule. Should be a penalty against the receiving team for touching the ball when out of bounds.

THIS! EXACTLY!

 

[formerlyknownasrutgers100]

Even if the player is literally laying on the ground, inbounds, with ONLY his foot touching out-of-bounds?

Yup

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Stunning. How that hasn't gotten changed - with a slew of rule changes on a yearly basis - is mind-boggling to me.

 

[superfan01]

Smart play by Detroit. Forces the kickers to kick closer to middle of field. I like it.

 

[RUfromSoCal?]

I thought the "do over" ruling in the Hou/Jax game was way more curious.........

 

[SkilletHead2]

Actually, I believe the same rule exists in basketball. I know it does in rugby. The idea here is that if part of a player is out of bounds, then he becomes part of out of bounds. Not in baseball, though. You can't stand in foul territory and touch a bunt that is in fair territory and "make it foul."

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Actually, I believe the same rule exists in basketball. I know it does in rugby. The idea here is that if part of a player is out of bounds, then he becomes part of out of bounds. Not in baseball, though. You can't stand in foul territory and touch a bunt that is in fair territory and "make it foul."

If you're foot is OUT in basketball, with the rest of you inbounds along with the ball, it's a turnover.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Smart play by Detroit. Forces the kickers to kick closer to middle of field. I like it.

"smart play," yes, but awful rule IMHO. Bottom line is this:

ANY other play in football and the guy is out-of-bounds. Period. So why not on KO's?

 

[Terry_2426]

The Packers are pretty big users of this rule (and I think have done it against Detroit specifically a few times). Smart play if you're aware of being able to do it on the rare occasion that it happens. I think the rule should be changed so the team kicking the ball isn't penalized--but saying the receiving team should be penalized for doing it is silly.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

The Packers are pretty big users of this rule (and I think have done it against Detroit specifically a few times). Smart play if you're aware of being able to do it on the rare occasion that it happens. I think the rule should be changed so the team kicking the ball isn't penalized--but saying the receiving team should be penalized for doing it is silly.

They should be out-of-bounds at the least. If WR goes out-of-bounds and comes back in, then touches the ball, it's a freakin' penalty, so why not this? Instead it's a penalty on the kicking team? Think about that lol it's nuts!

 

[SkilletHead2]

If you're foot is OUT in basketball, with the rest of you inbounds along with the ball, it's a turnover.

But here's the question on that. Player A is standing out of bounds. Player B, from the other team, tips a rebound and it hits Player A out of bounds. Who's ball? I was saying that Team A would get the ball as Player A was "part of out of bounds". But I've tried to find the rule and haven't, but on some sites, it says that Team B would get the ball. Not definitive, though.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

But here's the question on that. Player A is standing out of bounds. Player B, from the other team, tips a rebound and it hits Player A out of bounds. Who's ball? I was saying that Team A would get the ball as Player A was "part of out of bounds". But I've tried to find the rule and haven't, but on some sites, it says that Team B would get the ball. Not definitive, though.

Complete different scenario. The one I that occurred today, in football, the ball never went out-of-bounds while the guy who grabbed the ball was both in and out. Penalty on kicking team.

In your scenario, IIRC, it's a matter of whether or not the ball has hit anything else out-of-bounds yet, and if you're in the air or established on the ground, to determine who gets the ball.

 

[SkilletHead2]

Complete different scenario. The one I that occurred today, in football, the ball never went out-of-bounds while the guy who grabbed the ball was both in and out. Penalty on kicking team.

In your scenario, IIRC, it's a matter of whether or not the ball has hit anything else out-of-bounds yet, and if you're in the air or established on the ground, to determine who gets the ball.

My bad on not making that clearer (and on hijacking your point! I just got up.).

I think in football the idea is that if part of you is out of bounds, you're part of out of bounds.

In basketball, here is a simple example of what I'm talking about. Imagine a guy throws the ball inbounds to an opposing player who throws it back to him. The first guy has been out of bounds the whole time and catches the ball. Who's ball?

 

[AreYouNUTS]

My bad on not making that clearer (and on hijacking your point! I just got up.).

I think in football the idea is that if part of you is out of bounds, you're part of out of bounds.

In basketball, here is a simple example of what I'm talking about. Imagine a guy throws the ball inbounds to an opposing player who throws it back to him. The first guy has been out of bounds the whole time and catches the ball. Who's ball?

- correct, then WHY is it not as such on a KO? And WHY is there penalty against the kicking team?

- I'm pretty sure, as the inbounder is established as out-of-bounds, it's the other team's ball. I remember the rule if you threw it against a guy's body part, because you couldn't find anybody open, the ball had to hit the ground/be grabbed by the official, before YOU could touch it otherwise they get the ball.

 

[nukem]

This is no different than when a team is recovering a fumble that lays near the sideline and any part of the player's body is touching the sideline. The ball is considered out of bounds. It just happened in the Army vs Navy game. If a player is running with the ball and any part of his body touches the sideline, he is considered out of bounds, regardless of where the ball is, even if it is in the field of play.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

nt

 

[czxqa]

"smart play," yes, but awful rule IMHO. Bottom line is this:

ANY other play in football and the guy is out-of-bounds. Period. So why not on KO's?

What if the receiving team is then awarded the ball at the spot where he caught it? Seems fair- you can take the ball where you catch it or roll the dice that it will go out anyway...

 

[KingHigh]

Isn't it an illegal touching penalty if a player goes oob and is first to touch the ball?

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Isn't it an illegal touching penalty if a player goes oob and is first to touch the ball?

YES!!! Instead, in this instance, the OTHER team gets penalized when you grab the ball while your foot is out of bounds, lol!

 

[czxqa]

Isn't it an illegal touching penalty if a player goes oob and is first to touch the ball?

If you are on offense and you were not forced out of bounds then yes- which I believe is OP's point, why have a different rule for kickoffs that penalizes the kicking team instead...

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

If the player purposefully goes out of bounds and then touches the ball.. that should be illegal participation... illegal touching.

Very stupid loophole.

 

[KingHigh]

YES!!! Instead, in this instance, the OTHER team gets penalized when you grab the ball while your foot is out of bounds, lol!

That's what I thought. Purpose of the ko rule is the penalize kickers for kicking oob and preventing the return guy an opportunity to return the kick. Not to give a freaking loophole to cheat the ball up to the 40 when the ball itself never goes oob.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

That's what I thought. Purpose of the ko rule is the penalize kickers for kicking oob and preventing the return guy an opportunity to return the kick. Not to give a freaking loophole to cheat the ball up to the 40 when the ball itself never goes oob.

Exactly. The ball never went out-of-bounds (nor was it going to do so...) and they get the ball on the 40. Nuts I tell ya'!

 

[knightfan7]

"smart play," yes, but awful rule IMHO. Bottom line is this:

ANY other play in football and the guy is out-of-bounds. Period. So why not on KO's?

He is OB so the ball is considered OB too.

 

[knightfan7]

Isn't it an illegal touching penalty if a player goes oob and is first to touch the ball?

Only if he comes back inbounds before touching the ball.. In this case the player was OB when he caught it.

 

[KingHigh]

He is OB so the ball is considered OB too.

We understand that. It's a dumb rule. The kicker should be allowed the use of the field before being penalized for kicking it oob.

 

[knightfan7]

You guys are looking at this way too deeply.

The simple fact is the ball was dead as soon as it was touched by a player who was out of bounds. Doesn't matter where his other foot was or if the ball itself had yet to pass the line.

 

[KingHigh]

You guys are looking at this way too deeply.

The simple fact is the ball was dead as soon as it was touched by a player who was out of bounds. Doesn't matter where his other foot was or if the ball itself had yet to pass the line.

Yes. Dead ball at the spot. Receiving player is at fault for that. Not the kicker. No penalty.

 

[rags]

This same rule is also in rugby where it comes into play almost every game and in many games multiple times ... my assumption is that with football evolving from rugby its one of those rules (like drop kicks) that doesn't occur but once in a blue moon, so there's no outcry to change it, but causes some buzz when it occurs.

 

[RUScrew85]

Stunning. How that hasn't gotten changed - with a slew of rule changes on a yearly basis - is mind-boggling to me.

They're pretty busy removing defense from the NFL to worry about stuff like that.

 

[knightfan7]

Yes. Dead ball at the spot. Receiving player is at fault for that. Not the kicker. No penalty.

But he's not. Once again with one foot over the line, he's out of bounds. It's up to the kicker to keep the ball in play, not the receiver.

 

[KingHigh]

But he's not. Once again with one foot over the line, he's out of bounds. It's up to the kicker to keep the ball in play, not the receiver.

The ball was within the lines. The kicker used the field as provided by the white lines. The receiver did not, so let's penalize the kicker. I understand the application of the rule so you need not explain it to me. I'm saying the application of the rule that the league has adopted is dumb and pointless. It's lawyerball.

 

[knightfan7]

The ball was within the lines. The kicker used the field as provided by the white lines. The receiver did not, so let's penalize the kicker. I understand the application of the rule so you need not explain it to me. I'm saying the application of the rule that the league has adopted is dumb and pointless. It's lawyerball.

I wish I had seen the play.

IMO, Lawyerball would be expecting a rule to be changed every time you don't like a result.

 

[KingHigh]

I wish I had seen the play.

IMO, Lawyerball would be expecting a rule to be changed every time you don't like a result.

Oh boy. This is a very unfun exchange. You win. It's a great rule, one that makes sense and makes the game better. I only dont like it because I'm a giants fan.

 

[Plum Street]

It's a rule , been a rule for years. Why bring it up now in week 15 of another NFL season? Because it happened to the Giants today?

 

[KingHigh]

It's a rule , been a rule for years. Why bring it up now in week 15 of another NFL season? Because it happened to the Giants today?

I've never seen it happen before today. How would i know theres so absurd loophole rule? When I saw the flag, I honestly believed it must have been a penalty on the receiver for illegal touching or something. I have since learned the rule and have come to believe it's a dumb rule. Can someone explain why this loophole is necessary and good for the game?