Okay so wtf happened on that muffed kick call?

[Fraggle145]

... Why wasnt that a td? did the kid touch it? how did we end up with just possesion?

I dont want to did through the entire game thread. Im a lazy ****.

[CrimsonJim]

Ya lazy ****.

[GottaHavePride]

The kicking team can't advance a muffed punt. We can recover, but not advance it. If he had actually gained possession of the ball and THEN fumbled it, we would have had a touchdown.

[Curly Bill]

You can't advance a muffed punt.


edit...rats GHP, beat me to it. :mad:

[sooner59]

The refs ruled that the A&M player muffed the catch. And by rule, the kicking team cannot advance the ball. They can only take possession at the spot. That is the way it was explained to me.

[Fraggle145]

when did this rule come into effect? I dont remember this ever being this way? I think its ****in dumb.

[Ground_Attack]

that rule has been around as long as I can remember

[OUHOMER]

when did this rule come into effect? I dont remember this ever being this way? I think its ****in dumb.

Did you watch the OU tx game? i think we muffed a punt and texas got the ball back

[Sooner70]

I was listenting to the aTm radio as I couldn't pick up Sooner station, but they kept harping on it wasn't right call & Aggies shoulda got the ball, 'cause, according to them, looked like OU touched it first. On looking close at the replay, it looked to me like what happened is indeed the first Aggie that tried to catch it missed, but the second guy that tried to pick it up off the ground appeared to touch it first. I think maybe that's what the refs saw in replay, so the second guy, #24, I think, touched the ball first & muffed it trying to scoop it up.

[swardboy]

I think the rule's origins lie back in the NFL in the 1960's. The Oakland Raiders had become masters of knocking the ball forward when desperate for yardage, and then recovering the ball. It was used when getting tackled, and the ball carrier would just "fumble" the ball ahead and others would bat it forward.

I think.....

[kelloggOUballa]

I was listenting to the aTm radio as I couldn't pick up Sooner station, but they kept harping on it wasn't right call & Aggies shoulda got the ball, 'cause, according to them, looked like OU touched it first. On looking close at the replay, it looked to me like what happened is indeed the first Aggie that tried to catch it missed, but the second guy that tried to pick it up off the ground appeared to touch it first. I think maybe that's what the refs saw in replay, so the second guy, #24, I think, touched the ball first & muffed it trying to scoop it up.

^^ this. The actual A&M punt returner did not touch the ball, but his teammate thought he did and tried to pounce on the ball. He couldn't corral it, and we recovered and got the ball. Correct call.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

Yep, he faked out his own teammates.

[rawlingsHOH]

Did you watch the OU tx game? i think we muffed a punt and texas got the ball back

And that wasn't even a muff, it was a catch and fumble. The A&M call was ruled correctly. Their returner never touched it but their 2nd guy did.

[47Wins]

I think the rule's origins lie back in the NFL in the 1960's. The Oakland Raiders had become masters of knocking the ball forward when desperate for yardage, and then recovering the ball. It was used when getting tackled, and the ball carrier would just "fumble" the ball ahead and others would bat it forward.

I think.....

I think that you are referring to the "Stabler Rule", although back in the wishbone days OU was pretty good at the Forward Fumble.

[OUHOMER]

And that wasn't even a muff, it was a catch and fumble. The A&M call was ruled correctly. Their returner never touched it but their 2nd guy did.

I agree catch fumble, lost out of bounds thru the endzone etc.
But i was referring the call of the muff rule, and seeing it recently.

[stoopified]

I've scored on many a muff.








:D I couldn't ignore it.I tried.

[tulsaoilerfan]

I think the rule's origins lie back in the NFL in the 1960's. The Oakland Raiders had become masters of knocking the ball forward when desperate for yardage, and then recovering the ball. It was used when getting tackled, and the ball carrier would just "fumble" the ball ahead and others would bat it forward.

I think.....

That was back in the late 70's, and the rule change that caused was that a ball could not be fumbled forward on 4th down and recovered by anyone but the fumbler; that play was called the Holy Roller and Snake Stabler was about to be sacked and intentionally threw the ball underhanded past the line of scrimmage where it was kicked by Pete Banaszak to Dave Casper who then kicked it into the end zone where he fell on it

[ARCO IRIS]

That was back in the late 70's, and the rule change that caused was that a ball could not be fumbled forward on 4th down and recovered by anyone but the fumbler; that play was called the Holy Roller and Snake Stabler was about to be sacked and intentionally threw the ball underhanded past the line of scrimmage where it was kicked by Pete Banaszak to Dave Casper who then kicked it into the end zone where he fell on it

1978 to be exact. Really did a lot of damage to the SD Chargers who were the victims. They were a young and inexperienced team and it ruined their first good season in several years. If Jerry Markbreit had called it what it was, a forward pass and intentional grounding, the Chargers would have won the game as that was the last play of the game.

Markbeit had a number of bad calls, apparently. Hye was the replay fool who overturned a crucial catch at the end of the Buc/Ram playoff game after the 1999 season. Bucs probably would not have won anyway but he cost them their only hope. A rule was changed that year. Not sure maybe it's the one regarding conclusive video evidence. Anyway they ruined both the Chargers and the Bucs years. I think he had a number of others as well.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

That wasn't a muff either. The officials blew the call in the eATMe me game just like they did at texass.

To muff, it has to be during the execution of the catch to be ruled a muff and thusly, if recovered by the kicking team, down at possession. The only way that could be ruled a muff is for the officials to claim the return man touched the ball. That isn't crystal clear in the replay, but the ball fails to deflect and to me, looks as if he doesn't make the touch. Ball is first touched by the eATMe player in the scrum, which is NOT during the execution of the catch, it's a touch, therefore live ball.

No different than the ball hitting someone in the leg.

[rawlingsHOH]

That wasn't a muff either. The officials blew the call in the eATMe me game just like they did at texass.

To muff, it has to be during the execution of the catch to be ruled a muff and thusly, if recovered by the kicking team, down at possession. The only way that could be ruled a muff is for the officials to claim the return man touched the ball. That isn't crystal clear in the replay, but the ball fails to deflect and to me, looks as if he doesn't make the touch. Ball is first touched by the eATMe player in the scrum, which is NOT during the execution of the catch, it's a touch, therefore live ball.

No different than the ball hitting someone in the leg.

Thanks, never knew that.

[prrriiide]

1978 to be exact. Really did a lot of damage to the SD Chargers who were the victims. They were a young and inexperienced team and it ruined their first good season in several years. If Jerry Markbreit had called it what it was, a forward pass and intentional grounding, the Chargers would have won the game as that was the last play of the game.

Markbeit had a number of bad calls, apparently. Hye was the replay fool who overturned a crucial catch at the end of the Buc/Ram playoff game after the 1999 season. Bucs probably would not have won anyway but he cost them their only hope. A rule was changed that year. Not sure maybe it's the one regarding conclusive video evidence. Anyway they ruined both the Chargers and the Bucs years. I think he had a number of others as well.

Seems to be a trend...take officials that can't cut the mustard and stick 'em in front of a rack of tivos. See also Reese, Gordon...

[MyT Oklahoma]

I've scored on many a muff.








:D I couldn't ignore it.I tried.

I know. I prefer red headed muffs myself.. or are we talking football here? Not that it really matters of course. :D

[Scott D]

just out of curiosity when did the aTm player have possession of the ball?

[rawlingsHOH]

just out of curiosity when did the aTm player have possession of the ball?

The ball never touched the punt returner, but one of their players thought it was a muff, and went after it. He touched it first, with his left hand I believe.

[snp]

That wasn't a muff either. The officials blew the call in the eATMe me game just like they did at texass.

To muff, it has to be during the execution of the catch to be ruled a muff and thusly, if recovered by the kicking team, down at possession. The only way that could be ruled a muff is for the officials to claim the return man touched the ball. That isn't crystal clear in the replay, but the ball fails to deflect and to me, looks as if he doesn't make the touch. Ball is first touched by the eATMe player in the scrum, which is NOT during the execution of the catch, it's a touch, therefore live ball.

No different than the ball hitting someone in the leg.

No, a muff can occur on a catch attempt or an attempt to recover the ball. In this case, the diving A&M player muffed the ball when he tried to gain possession of it.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Stupid rule IMO

[A-M]

Stupid rule IMO

^^^and that's not the only one.

[Fraggle145]

I just dont remember this ever being called before the OU/tx game... As far as I knew if the returning team touched it/muffed it the ball was fair game and could be advanced. Maybe the rule has always been there and they have just gotten stickier about distinguishing between muff and fumble?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That wasn't a muff either. The officials blew the call in the eATMe me game just like they did at texass.

To muff, it has to be during the execution of the catch to be ruled a muff and thusly, if recovered by the kicking team, down at possession. The only way that could be ruled a muff is for the officials to claim the return man touched the ball. That isn't crystal clear in the replay, but the ball fails to deflect and to me, looks as if he doesn't make the touch. Ball is first touched by the eATMe player in the scrum, which is NOT during the execution of the catch, it's a touch, therefore live ball.

No different than the ball hitting someone in the leg.

your definition of catch is too narrow. a muff is any attempt by the receiving team to possess the football, not just catch it in the air. once they possess the football, then normal fumble rules apply. the call was correct here.

[bluedogok]

I just dont remember this ever being called before the OU/tx game... As far as I knew if the returning team touched it/muffed it the ball was fair game and could be advanced. Maybe the rule has always been there and they have just gotten stickier about distinguishing between muff and fumble?
It has been that way as long as I can remember...plus like I stated in the game thread, 99.99% of the time the officials are going call any mishandled punt a "muff" unless someone catches it or picks it up and runs 10 yards with it before they fumble. One of those things where the "letter of the rule" is not always adhered to.

[TopDawg]

October 10, 1927


As the football season opened, puzzled followers read and reread the new rules and finally fixed these essential changes in their minds:

1) Goal posts will no longer stand on goal lines, but in the same relative positions ten yards back. This shift will prevent injury to players smashing into posts on touchdown plays and will eliminate confusion caused by the old position of posts, often in the way of goal line plays and punts from back of the line. Drop-kickers will have to boot ten yards harder to score three points.

2) Time changes. Attacking teams are limited to 30 seconds between plays (eliminating "stalling" when a team is ahead in the last quarter). Attacking teams may crouch in a "huddle" only 15 seconds giving signals. Shift plays are prohibited unless the attacking team stops a full second between the players, shift and the snapping of the ball from centre. Violation of the 15-second "huddle" rule costs five yards; violation of the one second shift rule, 15 yards.

3) Quarterbacks breathed easier. No longer can a team that has just punted pick up a muffed punt and score. The punting team can recover such a punt but the ball is down where muffed.

4) Lateral passes are protected. In previous seasons only forward passes were declared dead when uncaught or knocked to the ground. Now the attacking team can perfect a lateral passing attack with same protection. This change is expected to develop a complicated and spectacular system of open passing play. Lateral passes, however, can be intercepted like forward passes, and run back for gains and touchdowns.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,769424,00.html

[TopDawg]

The forward fumble rule also came into play in our 2000 Big XII title game against KSU. They were going to punt, but had a bad snap. The punter picked it up and tried to run for the first down. Before he got to the sticks, we hit him, he fumbled, ball rolled past the first down marker, was recovered by KSU, but was then moved back to the spot of the fumble because the fumbler didn't recover it himself. We take over, win the game and go on to win the national title.

Thank you, Kenny Stabler.

[Scott D]

The ball never touched the punt returner, but one of their players thought it was a muff, and went after it. He touched it first, with his left hand I believe.

exactly..that sir is what made it a muff, and not a fumble.

[Fraggle145]

It has been that way as long as I can remember...plus like I stated in the game thread, 99.99% of the time the officials are going call any mishandled punt a "muff" unless someone catches it or picks it up and runs 10 yards with it before they fumble. One of those things where the "letter of the rule" is not always adhered to.

I guess I just have never paid enough attention to it then...

:gary:

[TopDawg]

I guess I just have never paid enough attention to it then...

:gary:

It's pretty uncommon. Strange that it's happened to us twice in such a short span of time. Usually when there is a muffed punt, it results in a pile up to recover the fumble and the ball is dead anyway.