Coffin-corner punts could become illegal under proposed rule

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Football/2006/02/21/1454239-sun.html]http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Footba ... 9-sun.html[/url]

I know this topic was discussed before on the forum, but now it's actually being considered by the board of governors, partly because of emails George Black has gotten from fans. (Anyone we know?)

Opinions?

Worth considering and debating at least. If hockey can get rid of the red line for 2 line passes, well, they can at the very least debate this.

Personally, I’m opposed to this. There is a real strategy in the punting game, and to those who know the game, it’s exciting to see the ball go out of bounds on the one-yard line.

Let’s face it, how often does a returner take the ball in the corner and do anything with it besides get tackled on the five? One more penalty is just one more way for the zebras to get involved when they should be just letting the players play the game.

True BigDave, at least in hockey removing the red line for 2 line passes removes the refs more rather than what this rule would do in the CFL.

I'm not sure what this rule would entail, BUT IF IT WHAT I THINK IT IS...

Then YES!

EDIT: See Rugby Union's kick-out rule for behind the 22m line.
Also see Rugby League's 40-20 rule.

As I said before, perhaps something like only being allowed to kick out of bounds in the last 2 minutes of each quarter or only being allowed to do it inside the oppostions 20 yard line. Otherwise it's retarded. Special teams strategy is just as important as offensive and defensive strategy.

Maybe we should flood them with emails to abolish punting altogether and just force teams to play the ball three downs every time. If they don't convert, they turn the ball over on downs automatically. Yeah right, as if.

Oh, and I can't actually believe that they would consider changing a rule because some so called fan that doesn't even live in Canada emailed a zillion times. If kanga did have something to do with that, then I would vote for "punting" him from the forum. Pardon the pun.

Cheers

Maybe a reward for teams going for it on 3rd down like an extra timeout.

Ok, don't bash me, I know that wouldn't be Canadian football, I know. :?

WOOOOO HOOOOOO
Punting out of bounds is BOOOOOOORING
I dont see any strategy in it what so ever.
I would take a great return over an O.B punt anytime! Its far more exciting!!!!

We did have a thread about this.
I'm ecstatic - but as long as it's a rule that eliminates referee interference in the play of the game, without a bunch of specific details.

I'm HOPING that if you kick it out of bounds on the fly, possession starts where you kicked it from...that's the rule I'd like to see. Extreme yes. Saves the punt return from dying...yes :slight_smile:

I dont believe I have ever seen a referee interfere on a punt return.
I would say your rule is far too extreme. I say seeing that the average return is about 15 yards a 20-25 yard penalty from where it went out of bounds would make them kick

They lose a lot field position already if they punt the ball out of bounds. A 40 yard punt straight would only be around 29 yards if it goes out of bounds, that's 11 yards right there, that is the price they pay for punting out of bounds. It's a very strategic part of the game and a part I'd like to leave in. Like BigDave said it is exciting to see a punt go out at the one and see an offence have to go 109 yards for a touchdown or risk taking a safety on loss of yardage stop.

OK they lost 11 yards on the kick but they gained 5 on the return so they are still ahead where is the strategy! Its fine if they kick out of bounds inside the 5 but you see it nowadays everywhere on the field. Every team has a great returner and I would rather see a 109 yard punt return than 109 yards march down field.

I also feel that it is impossible for the ref to tell where exactly the ball went out of bound on the fly. He stands 20 yards away and decides that it went out at the 1 in the end zone. it cant be done accurately!

Yes, I always doubt that they can make an accurate call where the ball goes out of bounds, it would be interesting if they did a study of some sort seeing how accurate they are on this.
I really doubt they will change anything with the punting as it is but then who knows.

If I read the article correctly, it would only apply to kicks that go out of bounds in the air. Those that bounce and roll out of bounds, as I take it, would continue to be marked where they went out, with no penalty.

If a punter kicks the ball out of bounds at the 20, the returning team gets the ball on the 20. If they kick it out on the 19, the returning team gets the ball in better field position (they haven't said what the penalty would be yet.) So what this amounts to is penalizing the teams with the best punters, or who have the wind at their backs.

I say leave the rule as it is. While I wouldn't be happy with the change, I would eventually get over it if they say that, if it goes out of bounds on the fly inside the 20, the returning team gets the ball on the twenty, with no point awarded. That would be like our version of the NFL's touchback rule. But a team shouldn't lose 30 yards of field position because a punt went 6 inches further than he wanted it to, especially when, as ro mentioned, it's so hard to gauge exactly where it went out in the air. With the rule as I mentioned it, if it goes six inches too far, he loses just those six inches.

But if I had a vote, I'd say leave it alone!

I could live with it going out of bound on the bounce but not in the air. The bottom line to me is that they are afraid of a runback. Even before the GC both coaches said they planed to kick O.B. to keep the ball out of the returners hands

That's exactly what I would do when I see a guy like Tompkins or Itty Bitty back there, just give up some field position and get the darn thing out of bounds, you don't want those guys getting their hands on it. Play it safe for sure as it stands now.

So isnt that exciting to watch?
not for me.!

No, it isn't really exciting to watch for sure but I don't know if it is worth changing. I mean, they are giving up field position and risking a shank and really give up field position. And in baseball, you can walk a guy intentionally, you don't have to pitch to him. Again not exciting but you are allowing an extra guy to just get on base easily.
A tough one here for sure but I agree ro, it isn't too exciting, except when they shank it and this is good for your team.

Again though, just like in basketball where after 5 fouls you are out of the game, why not if a team trys on 3rd down for a first down say 3 times in a half, you get an extra time out. Good idea?

As a fan I want the excitement. I guess the people who wrote to the league want it as well.

Well, so do I. Let's see how this was discussed in the meetings and what comes of it with the pros and cons from the gurus. I'd love to hear them discuss this, would be cool.