Game Thread: Rams @ Buccaneers (2014 Game 2)

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

bwdenverram

Legend
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,503
Name
BW

I can't find clear explanation from the NFL site. It only says:
  1. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted
So what escapes me is the part that says "untouched". Where is the part that says a receiver can touch it simultaneous to going out of bounds and still get it at the 40?
 

bwdenverram

Legend
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,503
Name
BW
Doesn't this say what I said earlier? :0

  1. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiver’s ball at out-of-bounds spot.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,643
I can't find clear explanation from the NFL site. It only says:
  1. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted
So what escapes me is the part that says "untouched". Where is the part that says a receiver can touch it simultaneous to going out of bounds and still get it at the 40?
If a receiver catches the ball at the same time he is out of bounds the ball is considered out of bounds. Same as if a receiver catches the ball on an offensive play with one foot out of bounds.

I've seen it a couple times before, that's how the rule goes.
 

jjab360

Legend
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
6,643
Here's an article about when Randall Cobb took advantage of the rule a few years ago.

http://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule

6isvf.gif
 

bwdenverram

Legend
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
5,503
Name
BW
If a receiver catches the ball at the same time he is out of bounds the ball is considered out of bounds. Same as if a receiver catches the ball on an offensive play with one foot out of bounds.

I've seen it a couple times before, that's how the rule goes.

If a receiver catches a ball with one foot out the play is dead and it goes back to the original LOS. In a kick off scenario that's not the case. You don't get it at the 40 unless you are completely out of bounds. Not one foot in and one foot out. The last thing I posted from the NFL rules:

  1. When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines and is touched last by receiving team, it is receiver’s ball at out-of-bounds spot.
 

MarkMyWords

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
1,328
Name
Mark
Kind of a strange rule. I certainly didn't know about it. Definitely a risky move though. If Givens would have touched the ball a split second before he got his foot down out of bounds, ball inside the 5 yard line.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,886
Name
Stu
I check in and you are arguing about THIS? Really? WTF? Unreal.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,886
Name
Stu
WELL WTF DO YOU WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT???!!!
I'd have to think about that and come up with some rule that I'm not really quite sure about but am certain the refs would get right and that any idiot should know but is a REAL idiot for not knowing because I have to find something to back up my argument which should be obvious by now. But then you knew that - didn't you.
 

Username

Has a Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
5,763
I'd have to think about that and come up with some rule that I'm not really quite sure about but am certain the refs would get right and that any idiot should know but is a REAL idiot for not knowing because I have to find something to back up my argument which should be obvious by now. But then you knew that - didn't you.

I'M NOT SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. PLUS I HAVEN'T READ THE PAST 10 PAGES.