for the life of me, I cant figure out what difference it is making. Teams seem to be always taking the ball where it went out of bounds, just like before.
That's because usually when it goes out of bounds in the air between the 20s, it's because it went off the side of the punter's foot, and turns out to be a 15-yard kick. Moving them back 10 yards and having them kick again would almost certainly result in worse field position for the receiving team, so they usually decline it and take the ball where it went out of bounds.
It has happened a few times where the kicker booms one that goes out in the air between the 20s. When that happens, the receiving team will usually take the penalty and force the re-kick. But it's rare.
I have seen decent punts go out at about the 22, and thats where they took the ball?? I think I have only seen 1 rekick myself this yr. Often I find myself expecting a rekick, only to go WHAT????
Re kick would be more fan friendly. :thup:
Purposely allowing the ball to enter the end zone should result in a penalty OR the ball should be live once it crosses the goal line. ??
I think when you give up a single on a playable ball, you should scrimmage from your 5 yard line.
That works :thup:
it's partly because most kicks that go out of bounds are shanks. it's also partly because the rule is doing what it was intended to do.
the intention of the rule is to deter teams from kicking intentionally out of bounds to keep it away from a returner. I'd guess that while there aren't many re-kicks, there are probably less kicks out of bounds in the air now than before.
I think the out-of-bounds rule may also have contributed to the tendency to give up a safety instead of punting from the endzone. If teams were still allowed to punt the ball out of bounds, they might do that more often instead of giving up two points. If a punter isn't worried about giving the cover team time to get under the ball, he can kick with a lower tragectory to go for more distance. Doing this, maybe the ball ends up near midfield - close to where it usually ends up after the kickoff from the 25-yardline.
I have to ask here, because my understanding of the rules is that teams ALSO may punt out-of-bounds directly from inside their own 20 not just going to inside the 20 on the other end of the field.
Above all the illegal kick penalty is not applicable if the punter gets the ball to bounce out of bounds, which by the way is the same as the rule in rugby from which this CFL rule is derived.
Being an amateur punter myself, I can tell you that kicking low to the sideline (driving the ball with more leg than loft/lift/spiral) for distance, as opposed to high for distance and still out-of-bounds, is definitely far easier said than done but can be beneficial when kicking into the wind when kicking it high is ineffective or even counterproductive much of the time.
All the same I have to agree otherwise that kicking it out-of-bounds from inside one's own 20 in many situations would be a better move than risking a dangerous return whether on the punt or after the fact on the free kick after the safety.
When I see a team give up a safety and then the other team returns the kick to midfield anyway, I am often baffled (if not mad if it is my team) at the very idea of giving up 2 points for the sake of perhaps 10 to 15 yards of field position. :roll:
In my opinion much of the time this is a dumb strategic move rather than just taking your lumps kicking it out-of-bounds and just playing defence without giving up the 2 points at minimum in the first place notwithstanding whatever the opponent will score in addition upon securing decent field position anyway after the free kick.
Now on the other hand if the wind is at your back and you are way in the lead and so forth, in such situations to give away the two points is often the better move to secure usually far more field position.
From the rule book:
[b]Article 3 – Kick From Scrimmage Going Out-of-Bounds In Flight[/b] On a kick from scrimmage going out of bounds in flight from 20 yard line to 20 yard line, the receiving team will have the option of taking possession at the point the ball went out of bounds in flight, or having a 10 yard penalty applied against the kicking team at the point of last scrimmage, with the down repeated.The description "going out of bounds in flight from 20 yard line to 20 yard line" to me just says that the ball went out of bounds between the 20s, not that the entire flight of the ball has to be between the 20s. Kick it out of your endzone and it goes out on the 21, and it's a penalty. (Something tells me that unless there's no time left on the clock, or it's near the end of the game and you're down by nine, nobody's going to take this penalty.)
Yes, if it lands in bounds and then bounces out, there’s no penalty. But then there’s the risk of a return.
And I’m sure you’re right that kicking low isn’t as easy as it seems, especially if the defence is sending heat to try to block the punt.
Actually, this brings up another question. A few weeks back, Hamilton got called for an illegal punt out of bounds. Watching the replay, it looked like the returner caught the ball right on the line - only one foot was still in bounds. Doesn’t the ball have to land cleanly out of bounds for it to be called a penalty? I’m sure it would have, but could the officials be totally sure? I don’t remember if the penalty was taken or not; that doesn’t really matter to me at this point. This is a question about the rule rather than the call.
Thanks for explaining that rule Cats and also raising another great question.
Also with regard to the rule then, you have to wonder if most teams would opt for a re-kick if behind in score and/or with the winds at their backs if the kick were to go go out-of-bounds all the same at about the 45 or 50 of the kicking team's side of the field (which is a difficult and solid kick mind you from behind the goal line cross-field into the wind out-of-bounds at that)?
Like most penalties, the non-offending team of course has the right to decline and accept the kick in this case, so that option ought not surprise anyone when taken especially on a shank or given other circumstances such as those above.
I've noticed most teams play it safe to accept the kick and won't let a solid punter, as are most in the league, have a chance to punt it again to risk either field position or a turnover.
Knowing this, it still makes sense more often than I think most would think for the punter to just kick it out-of-bounds for sort of a "Heads We Win, Tails You'll Probably Lose Anyway" strategy.
Good reads. I've often wondered why teams give up the safety and 2 points as well Paolo for the sake often as you say of only gaining 10-15 yards. I guess they are thinking the punter will boom it farther than they usually do, I don't know.
Good observation, IMO tampering with the rules is a slippery slope.
They are still allowed to kick for the coffin corner, so why change the rule ?