The UNT Fake Fair Catch

[MrNubbz]

Arkansas will prolly lay someone out next week claiming they didn't here the whistle,see the signal but read it here

[Brutus Buckeye]

Not as bad as when UConn actually called for a fair catch, but the refs didn't notice, and then he returned it for a TD.

It was unreviewable. A tleast at the time. 

They went on to win the game, the Big East, and played in a BCS Bowl Game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMf5DZOy3Mg

[MarqHusker]

I appreciate these posts on whistles and end of play scenarios. 

[SFBadger96]

I've got a different take for a rule change: a punt returner who has secured the ball is not live until he makes a move to advance the ball (lateral moves count, too). Get rid of this signaling debate altogether, and remove the crushing hits on a player who is defenseless as he's trying to catch the ball. He's not live until he makes a move to advance the ball. That also clarifies for the defense that if he has made an attempt to advance the ball, he's live to hit, so it doesn't matter whether they've seen his fair catch signal as they are fighting off blocks down the field.

[SFBadger96]

I appreciate these posts on whistles and end of play scenarios.

Yeah, it's a funny phrase. I coach and referee soccer, and I coach my players to "play to the whistle," but the reality is that most stoppages in soccer (out of bounds) don't involve a whistle so the phrase doesn't make a lot of sense.

Interesting to know that's true in football, too.

[Kris60]

I've got a different take for a rule change: a punt returner who has secured the ball is not live until he makes a move to advance the ball (lateral moves count, too). Get rid of this signaling debate altogether, and remove the crushing hits on a player who is defenseless as he's trying to catch the ball. He's not live until he makes a move to advance the ball. That also clarifies for the defense that if he has made an attempt to advance the ball, he's live to hit, so it doesn't matter whether they've seen his fair catch signal as they are fighting off blocks down the field.

Yeah, I was thinking something along those same lines.  If he doesn’t immediately make a “football move” (to borrow a term from the catch rule) then the play is dead.

[Brutus Buckeye]

The CFL doesn't have fair catches, but you have to give the guy a one yard radius to make the catch. If they don't catch it, the kicking team can recover the ball irrespective of whether or not it has been touched by the receiving team.

[FearlessF]

I like it

[ELA]

Yeah, I was thinking something along those same lines.  If he doesn’t immediately make a “football move” (to borrow a term from the catch rule) then the play is dead.

I could see that getting dicey.  Guy was just positioning himself better, and then gets blasted.  Or team thinks guy was just re positioning, and then takes off.  I just think something like this is similar to that "intent to deceive" or whatever UM got flagged for a couple years ago.

[FearlessF]

too many times the guy catching the punt is on the move, sometimes running forward

[SFBadger96]

I'm not a football referee, but if the rule is he cannot be hit until after he has possession of the football, I think it would end the "blow ups" entirely. All defensive players would have to pull up before hitting the returner to make sure he actually has the ball, then makes a move. Even when caught on the run, this should work. We have targeting rules for defenseless receivers, why not punt returners?

Just spit-balling. I think it's workable--at least as workable as the current system--and safer.

[FearlessF]

but, they don't pull up.  They try to time the hit exactly when the returner catches the ball

[rolltidefan]

I'm not a football referee, but if the rule is he cannot be hit until after he has possession of the football, I think it would end the "blow ups" entirely. All defensive players would have to pull up before hitting the returner to make sure he actually has the ball, then makes a move. Even when caught on the run, this should work. We have targeting rules for defenseless receivers, why not punt returners?

Just spit-balling. I think it's workable--at least as workable as the current system--and safer.

there is a penalty for hitting the returner before they have possession of the ball, catch interference.

I've got a different take for a rule change: a punt returner who has secured the ball is not live until he makes a move to advance the ball (lateral moves count, too). Get rid of this signaling debate altogether, and remove the crushing hits on a player who is defenseless as he's trying to catch the ball. He's not live until he makes a move to advance the ball. That also clarifies for the defense that if he has made an attempt to advance the ball, he's live to hit, so it doesn't matter whether they've seen his fair catch signal as they are fighting off blocks down the field.

i like this, except as others have pointed out, how do you distinguish when a player is coming up to catch ball on run?

[OrangeAfroMan]

Watching that UConn play makes me think of a bigger rule change needed:  they should not list what can be reviewed, but what specifically cannot be reviewed.  



Everything should be reviewable if it hasn't already been thought of.  There are so many random-ass, unpredictable things that happen in football - and the refs just shrug and say it's not reviewable.  BS.