THE Winnipeg Punt

First of all I want to appologize if this was brought up in another forum.....

Winnipeg punts the ball. An Edmonton player almost blocks it, gets a hand on it and the ball comes close to the line of scrimage. Another Edmonton player trys to field it and a Bomber player gets the ball and runs with it.

There is a challange flag to see which side of the line of scrimage the Edmonton player was on.
Why does it matter what side of the line of scrimage the Edmonton player was on when he touched it WHEN an Edmonton player already touched it while trying to block the punt?
I know that if the ball was not touched as the player was trying to block it then there are rules about who can field a ball that did not pass the line of scrimage.

I thought the person blocking the punt made contact with the ball and therefore it does not matter who gets it after that because it is a live ball.

I don't know all the details of the rule but I do know that contact with the ball made in an attempt to block the punt does not negate no yards. The no yards on that play was negated because the Winnipeg player got the ball behind the line of scrimmage. Had the ball gone another yard Winnipeg would have been called for no yards.

That is a rule that drives me crazy. If some one one blocks a punt it should be a live ball then no matter what.
No / no yards or anything.

I didn't see the play so I cannot comment on that, but I know that it depends on if the ball crosses the line or not. If the ball crosses the line it is a punt and the no-yards applies, if it does not cross the line then it is a live ball. At least that is what I always have believed.

Punts are measured from the LOS, so a kick that does not cross the line is not considered a punt, and actually deemed as a fumble...thus, behind the LOS a kicked ball is live. If it had crossed the line, then no yards could be penalized.

The Edmonton player did not actually have to touch the ball to make it live...but because he touched it 'behind' the LOS (during what is technically a fumble, not a punt) and then it passed the LOS (I believe it passed the LOS after he touched it) it is now a part of a live ball from the fumble...not the kick...the kick is a mute point at this point of the play. Therefore, it is a live ball.

It was a good challenge, because he it been beyond the LOS it is no yards...clearly was behind, but a worthy challenge none the less.

Bingo!

it's not a punt if it doesn't cross the LOS. :slight_smile:

therefore the play was legal.

yup...it goes as a no turnover fumble against the kicker

Because the ball didn't make it to the line of scrimmage after being contacted, it is considered a blocked punt/kick. Had it made it across the line of scrimmage after the initial contact, it would have been deemed a deflected punt/kick, and the no yards rule would have applied.

I suspect that "contact" in this case applies only on the ball's way up. For example, if the punter shanks one straight up and it comes down and contacts or is contacted by a player (either team) before crossing the line of scrimmage, and then bounces across the line of scrimmage, I suspect that it would not be considered to be a deflected kick/punt and that the no yards rule would not apply. Maybe the key word here is "prevented". In the case I described, the ball would not have crossed the line of scrimmage even if it hadn't been contacted on its way down.

Does not matter if it was contacted (in a blocking sense) or not...a punt is live behind the LOS. An Esk touching it before it crossed the LOS simply kept it live, and because it was live (behind LOS) when he touched it no yards is not an option. The receiving team or kicking can grab it. If touches any kicking team player before crossing the LOS it is live. If it touches a receiving team, and nobody else, then crosses the LOS it is a punt. You could shank one off the side of a DL's helmet and have it roll 3 yards past the LOS and it is a punt, but if it hit a OL's helmet, it is a live ball. The kicking team still needs to progress the ball past the 1st down marker to retain possession if it was kicked on 3rd down.

as there is is quotation from the rule book, I thought I would open it up as well. Section 3, as quoted, defines a block, but check out section 8

8. Punts partially blocked that cross the line of scrimmage are treated as ordinary punts. 9. An attempted punt that fails for any reason to cross the line of scrimmage will not be recorded as a punt since it could still evolve into a rushing or passing play, See Section 8(b).

The punt was declared a blocked kick as it was played before it crossed the LOS. Meaning either team can play the ball. If Wpg recovers it as they did, the play resumes as if originally played from LOS (meaning it is still played as 3rd down and the yardage they need for a first down is still applicable. The two things confusing me are:

  1. Did Wpg get the yardage for the first down? Listening on the radio I thought they needed to get to the 17 yd line to get the first down. (Anyone verify this? I don't know if this is certain)

  2. Why was Edm charged with a turnover on this play? Both TSN and 630 Ched (haven't checked official scorekeeping yet) said this was an Edm turnover and I cannot figure out how this is true? No possession was ever had by Edm, a touch on a fumble (as the blocked kick essentially turns this into) would not be deemed possesion.

Curious as to what I'm not understanding.

doesn't this just make you love the CFL even more?? :smiley:

imagine, this never could have possibly happened in the NFL..

their rules don't allow it.

yes they indeed got the yardage necessary.

and the Edmonton Broadcasters don't know what they're talking about because simply put, they've never seen anything like it before.

I'm not sure you're right on the case of a shanked (no contact) punt hitting a DL's helmet and then bouncing across the line of scrimmage being classified as a punt. I'm also not sure you're wrong. I suspect it would be a live ball with no no-yards penalty applied, but I could be wrong.

Your last point bring up an interest, rather obscure, rule, one which Paolox brought up a year or so ago in the Xs and Os forum. If a punt crosses the line of scrimmage and is legally recovered by the kicking team, i.e. no offside player was within five yards of the ball, then it is a first down, even if the player did not make it to the first down marker. I could see one of these Aussie rules punters take off on a fake on third and long, and just before reaching the line of scrimmage, tap the ball up a few feet and catch it just past the line for the first down. It would probably never work a second time, but might work once.

It was 3rd and 29 from the 47, so Winnipeg needed to get to the 18 for the first down. They only got to the 24, so they did not get the necessary yardage for a first down. As it was a blocked punt, the "punt crossing the line of scrimmage" rule I mentioned in my previous post would not apply. The only other possible explanation would that it was considered a fumble by Edmonton, which is how it's recorded in CFL LivePlay. I agree with Chris667 on this; as Edmonton never had possession, it should not have been classed as a fumble, and Winnipeg should had to make the first down yardage.

TSN game recap says it was 3rd and 29 on the Edm 47. Meaning they would need to get to the 18 yd line which is consistent to what I was hearing on the radio. They only got to the 24. So the way I see it they didn't get the necessary yardage for the first down. Now if the play (as it seems) is deemed an Edm turnover (which I can't understand why) then no yardage would be necessary for the 1st down. Just the recovery.

Copy pasted from TSN:
3rd and 29 on E47 (3:11) M. RENAUD Team Loss (1 yds), H. LOPEZ Blocked Punt, M. RENAUD Fumble E48, M. MILLER Fumble Recovery E48, J. MCGEE Fumble Recovery E44, M. MILLER Fumble Return (-4 yds), J. MCGEE Fumble Return (20 yds), M. MILLER Fumble E44, Tackle: C. THOMPSON Edmonton blocks punt but touches the loose ball behind LOS making it live. The ball then crosses the LOS where it is recovered and advanced by Winnipeg to Edm 24.

Are they saying there were multiple fumbles on this play???

And in the NFL the "punt returner" is on the bench guzzling gatorade before the play is whistled dead while 4 250+lb linemen, bent over at the waist, do a bizzare dance as they follow the bouncing ball in an effort to stop it at just the right moment.

I'll take the CFL rule thank you very much.

That is not what happened
2 Edmonton Players touched the ball
The first player blocked the punt
The second Edmonton Player tried to catch the ball in the air behind the LOS and fumbled....It was then picked up by Wpg who advanced it to the 24.

Had the second Edmonton played touched it passed the line LOS(or not at all) WPG would have had to advance it to the 17 to get the first down
Because it was touched behind the LOS(the player who actually blocked it does not count) it is considered a fumble/change of possession and Wpg did not have to get to the first down marker

The challange was to see if the second player was behind or ahead of the LOS when he touched the ball

I think I just found the other rule that applies to this play, explaining why there were indeed two fumbles on the play.

Even though it was a blocked kick, it was still a kick, and as a result, first contact by either team is deemed to be possession, in this case the attempted catch by Miller.

According to the rule I quoted, it wouldn't have mattered where Miller touched the ball. Just touching it gave him possession, and the recovery of his fumble by Winnipeg gave them an automatic first down without having to make their yardage.

I disagree that the 2nd player touching the ball deems it a fumble. It wasn't a return as it was a blocked kick (not a deflected kick). Same as if the ball had have been blocked behind the kicker instead of between the kicker and the LOS. Each time a player touched the ball trying to recover the blocked kick isn't a fumble. It isn't a fumble until possession is established.

the only way I can think of that permits a fumble from a touch would be from a misplayed kick return (which this is not, and if it was the 5yd no yards area would need to be given).

I still don't get how this is deemed a fumble by Edm.