The On Side Kick

[-X-]

Actually, Tru Johnson could not fair catch the onside kick. The ball was kicked hard into the ground (as virtually all onside kicks are for this very reason), causing the ball to bounce high into the air. Once the ball strikes the ground, there is no longer a fair catch available to the receiving team, just like you cannot fair catch a punt once it strikes the ground.

LBRamsfan

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. I went through the rule book and couldn't see anything about a kickoff and fair catches. Not that it would matter anyway; because, as you say, if the ball hits ground or is touched by member of kicking team in flight, the fair catch signal is off and all rules for a kicked ball apply.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules

So, this is all moot. Since the kickoff was hit into the ground first - ergo, no fair catch could be called.
I mean, unless someone can show me a specific rule that says differently.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGNbHFDoJVM[/youtube]

Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. I read about a rule change, but I don't think it was for the NFL. I just scoured the whole NFL rule book. Moot point it seems. It definitely hit the ground, so a fair catch would not have been valid.

Still too dangerous. Arguably the most dangerous play in a game. Remember JL getting a tooth cracked last year? You have to wonder if there will be any changes to that particular play in the future.





Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[DR RAM]

Actually, Tru Johnson could not fair catch the onside kick. The ball was kicked hard into the ground (as virtually all onside kicks are for this very reason), causing the ball to bounce high into the air. Once the ball strikes the ground, there is no longer a fair catch available to the receiving team, just like you cannot fair catch a punt once it strikes the ground.

LBRamsfan

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. I went through the rule book and couldn't see anything about a kickoff and fair catches. Not that it would matter anyway; because, as you say, if the ball hits ground or is touched by member of kicking team in flight, the fair catch signal is off and all rules for a kicked ball apply.

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/digestofrules

So, this is all moot. Since the kickoff was hit into the ground first - ergo, no fair catch could be called.
I mean, unless someone can show me a specific rule that says differently.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGNbHFDoJVM[/youtube]

Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. I read about a rule change, but I don't think it was for the NFL. I just scoured the whole NFL rule book. Moot point it seems. It definitely hit the ground, so a fair catch would not have been valid.

Still too dangerous. Arguably the most dangerous play in a game. Remember JL getting a tooth cracked last year? You have to wonder if there will be any changes to that particular play in the future.





Sent via Tapatalk2.

I think they did change it in college, but I'm too tired to confirm. It seems that could be a rule on the table. They already changed how many that you could line up on one side, but it only takes one guy to break your neck from that distance. Once the ball hits the ground it eliminates the halo rule also, so it seems as if the whole thing is a loophole to kill someone someday.

 

[Thordaddy]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

 

[-X-]

Have you ever seen a fair catch on an onsides kick? I know I haven't.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[Thordaddy]

Have you ever seen a fair catch on an onsides kick? I know I haven't.



Sent via Tapatalk2.

Not sure if I have I know it's legal AND that if you DO on ANY free kick and time has expired during the kick you are allowed to attempt a FG from that spot.
The Dolphins did it in a game where the other team took a safety when they were ahead by like 5 or less and the Dolphins FC'd and then attempted a FG. Shula was their coach at the time. They missed the FG , but with a kicker like GZ this is a point that can have value.
I think you would have been a pre teen at the time,it was likely in the 70's.
Ever for me is a long time ,I saw Y.A.Tittle play,remember Frank Gifford making T.V. cameo appearances while he was a player. But I suppose your point is it's uncommon and I agree, but common doesn't win championships and IMO if you WANT to you gotta go for Max Q to quote my favorite Ram coach ( not including Fisher/ must have coached 2 or more seasons to qualify).
There are no small mistakes at this level, good coaches get fired here,you know that :ww:

 

[-X-]

Well, I asked Mike, so we'll see.
Low blow on the Spags dig.
15 yards for unnecessary roughness.




Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[DR RAM]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

 

[Thordaddy]

Well, I asked Mike, so we'll see.
Low blow on the Spags dig.
15 yards for unnecessary roughness.




Sent via Tapatalk2.

Cool ,srry wasn't trying to injure, just making the point that if you can make the rules work for you, it's an edge and any edge can be the difference.

 

[Thordaddy]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

 

[-X-]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

You're gonna go down swingin, yeah?
5 pages of onside fair catch debate.
Only at ROD. :lol:





Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[DR RAM]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

You're gonna go down swingin, yeah?
5 pages of onside fair catch debate.
Only at ROD. :lol:





Sent via Tapatalk2.

Question is if he's swingin from a tee or or not. And do you want to do a little/big side bet?

 

[-X-]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

You're gonna go down swingin, yeah?
5 pages of onside fair catch debate.
Only at ROD. :lol:





Sent via Tapatalk2.

Question is if he's swingin from a tee or or not. And do you want to do a little/big side bet?

Nah. I have a good idea how this will turn out.
IF Mike answers me.





Sent via Tapatalk2.

 

[DR RAM]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

You're gonna go down swingin, yeah?
5 pages of onside fair catch debate.
Only at ROD. :lol:





Sent via Tapatalk2.

Question is if he's swingin from a tee or or not. And do you want to do a little/big side bet?

Nah. I have a good idea how this will turn out.
IF Mike answers me.





Sent via Tapatalk2.

I meant Thor....

 

[Thordaddy]

I share the rule book fatigue, HOWEVER a ball can't HIT the ground until it LEAVES the ground so to me it isn't until it leaves the ground that it IS IN FLIGHT which the rule book defines as a part of a kick .So I'm still standing pat.If that's OK ? And so far IF it was in flight it is subject to fair catch. BTW the rule book doesn't to my notice define a period of time before catching the ball it must be called so I guess it's basically anytime .
Regardless Tru could have called it, and THEN they would have had to contend with this sort of debate to assure the correct call.

I think we need Mike Perrera.

Technically the ball is on a tee, and then bounced off the ground, as opposed to being kicked, like a field goal, where the ball never hits the ground. It is possible to kick an onsides kick without it hitting the ground first, and then it would be eligible for a fair catch.

Well we are going to get into some technical terms and MY interpretation for now is that the rule book mentions IN FLIGHT and so if the ball is still in contact with the tee at the moment it touches the ground it has never TAKEN FLIGHT.
BTW thanks to ALL who have played , X has asked Perrera so we'll get his answer and that'll be good enough for me, unless I decide to appeal to the Mighty Fvog

You're gonna go down swingin, yeah?
5 pages of onside fair catch debate.
Only at ROD. :lol:





Sent via Tapatalk2.

Question is if he's swingin from a tee or or not. And do you want to do a little/big side bet?

Nah. I have a good idea how this will turn out.
IF Mike answers me.





Sent via Tapatalk2.

I meant Thor....

Alls I got ta say iz whodat?

 

[LBRamsFan]

I think Thor is still confused as to what happened. The Green Bay kicker did NOT kick the ball directly off the tee into the air. If he had, then a fair catch would be possible. Instead, the kicker kicked the ball off the tee and into the turf, causing the ball to bounce off the turf high into the air. Because the ball struck the ground, no fair catch is available. This is why the kick onside kicks like they do. Otherwise, kickers would "scoop" the ball off the tee high into the air, causing a free for all. But the receiving team would be able to call for a fair catch in this case, negating the advantage.

LBRamsfan

 

[Thordaddy]

I think Thor is still confused as to what happened. The Green Bay kicker did NOT kick the ball directly off the tee into the air. If he had, then a fair catch would be possible. Instead, the kicker kicked the ball off the tee and into the turf, causing the ball to bounce off the turf high into the air. Because the ball struck the ground, no fair catch is available. This is why the kick onside kicks like they do. Otherwise, kickers would "scoop" the ball off the tee high into the air, causing a free for all. But the receiving team would be able to call for a fair catch in this case, negating the advantage.

LBRamsfan

Me confused?

I saw what I saw and that's alls what I saw.

Seriously ,I AM operating under the assumption that the ball was not a squib and that it really never would be considered "taking flight " until it made that dramatic assent . If that assumption is correct then fair catch is a fair expectation, if it is deamed to be a squib and having taken flight and bounced unlike I assume it to be I suppose it isn't as clear cut as assumed.

NOW addressing the argument of presence of mind being a factor in that decision whether to call for a fair catch , the decision as to whether it bounces or not is far more compressed, item ,I'm still not convinced it did and that's not me being obstinate, I've replayed it several times and whatever bounce occurs is so nearly simultaneous that I certainly can see that it would appear to be a pooch and again in that case whether it got ruled either way calling FOR a fair catch would still be the heads up play EVEN if you got flagged for calling for one when it wasn't allowed, it still would cause the cover team uncertainty and they might pull off.Worth a shot whichever way it is ruled.

Either way, since KDemoff is a TD follower here,I'm sure my nuance has been communicated to the appropriate functionaries within the staff and we won't need to worry about this again,I adhere to the "spontaneous demonstration" explanation and not that this was an act of terrorism ,be sure to vote early and often.

 

[Thordaddy]

Sorry Doc I just noticed you were pulling the "put your money where your mouth is " card on me, WHOA dude ( small d) I'm yer huckleberry , whatya wanna bet , a beer at the Jets game?
I'd be delighted to pay off or win in either case so IF'N das gute mit chu, ve shall vager .

 

[-X-]

I think Thor is still confused as to what happened. The Green Bay kicker did NOT kick the ball directly off the tee into the air. If he had, then a fair catch would be possible. Instead, the kicker kicked the ball off the tee and into the turf, causing the ball to bounce off the turf high into the air. Because the ball struck the ground, no fair catch is available. This is why the kick onside kicks like they do. Otherwise, kickers would "scoop" the ball off the tee high into the air, causing a free for all. But the receiving team would be able to call for a fair catch in this case, negating the advantage.

LBRamsfan

Me confused?

I saw what I saw and that's alls what I saw.

Seriously ,I AM operating under the assumption that the ball was not a squib and that it really never would be considered "taking flight " until it made that dramatic assent . If that assumption is correct then fair catch is a fair expectation, if it is deamed to be a squib and having taken flight and bounced unlike I assume it to be I suppose it isn't as clear cut as assumed.

And that's all that's left to be determined. The ball was either drilled into the ground from above it, or it was kicked into the air FROM the ground. I think we all know it was the former; and as such, a fair catch isn't even an option. But I'll bug the hell out of Mike until he answers me. Let's consider this matter closed until he reopens it and subsequently closes it again.

Mkay? Mkay.

 

[Thordaddy]

Mmmmmm
mmmmmmm
mmmmmmm
mmmmmmmm k :tooth: