WTF happened on the illegal double punt?

[HE WITH HORNS]

rule needs to be changed... if you get a punt blocked you shouldnt be allowed to kick it again.

thats stupid

The guy was literally beyond the line of scrimmage, I don't care if his heel or whatever was still behind it, doesn't matter. He had a running start, beyond the line of scrimmage, and punts for like 70 yards. He was a runner at that point, not a punter. Would it be running into the punter if we had tried to tackle him?

 

[XXXIVwin]

Okay, fair enough, but I wonder how that affects "illegal man downfield". Is that obviated by the block? I dunno.

but yeah, you can bank on that being addressed by the rules committee in the off season for sure.

Mike Perreira said the following regarding this play and the current 2021 rule:

"Lineman are not restricted from going downfield after the first kick. No foul for being downfield before the second kick."

So again-- looks like the refs applied the rules correctly , but... the current rule seems ridiculous and I sure hope they change it.

On one play, should it be allowed to have two forward passes? Nope. Or two FG attempts? Nope. Or two punts? Nope.

C'mon, NFL, use some common sense here...

 

[Mojo Ram]

Would it be running into the punter if we had tried to tackle him?

What if we blocked the 2nd punt too? Do they get a 3rd crack at it?

Fuckery.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

What if we blocked the 2nd punt too? Do they get a 3rd crack at it?

Fuckery.

They will just make up those rules as they go. They sure gave them a good break on that play tonight.

 

[XXXIVwin]

The guy was literally beyond the line of scrimmage, I don't care if his heel or whatever was still behind it, doesn't matter. He had a running start, beyond the line of scrimmage, and punts for like 70 yards. He was a runner at that point, not a punter. Would it be running into the punter if we had tried to tackle him?

FWIW the rule about "forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage" uses language like this also. Both the ball and the thrower's ENTIRE body have to be beyond the LOS for it to be illegal.

So say the LOS is at the 20. The QB runs past the 20, then pulls up at the 21 and releases the ball. BUT... if the tiniest part of the QB's left heel is still behind the 20, it's considered legal.

NFL has some damn weird rules. The "completing the catch through contact with the the ground" was the worst ever, the game is SO much better without that stupid rule.

 

[Kupped]

Just stupid. You block the kick, shit should not be able to be advanced in any manner.
Stupid.

 

[XXXIVwin]

What if we blocked the 2nd punt too? Do they get a 3rd crack at it?

Fuckery.

Lol, good point. I bet the NFL wouldn't have any good answer to that.

I hope some NFL folks come out this week and admit they got this rule wrong cuz it needs to be changed.

Belicheat is already scheming to somehow exploit this stupid rule...

 

[GoodBadUgly]

This is my point. Once the ball crosses the LOS (even if punter’s body hasn’t), it should dead just like a regular punt when the kicked ball makes contact with kicking team.

So say the LOS is at the 20. The QB runs past the 20, then pulls up at the 21 and releases the ball. BUT... if the tiniest part of the QB's left heel is still behind the 20, it's considered legal.

 

[HE WITH HORNS]

Just stupid. You block the kick, shit should not be able to be advanced in any manner.
Stupid.

If they want to pick it up and run it, then go ahead. But to rekick, no. Why not just let them throw the ball at that point then?

 

[Mackeyser]

This is my point. Once the ball crosses the LOS (even if punter’s body hasn’t), it should dead just like a regular punt when the kicked ball makes contact with kicking team.

Totally agree and 100% chance this gets fixed in the off-season.

Also, because we're in the multiverse, how many more times will this happen this season before the rule change?

 

[Kupped]

If they want to pick it up and run it, then go ahead. But to rekick, no. Why not just let them throw the ball at that point then?

I don’t even like that. A block is a win on the play. Should be rewarded. Ball should go where it stops.

 

[oldnotdead]

The rule states that the second kick is allowed if done behind the LOS. The Hawks kicker was 2-3 yds beyond that point.

In that case the Rams would have the choice of penalizing the Hawks 10 yds then a rekick or taking the 10 yds from the end of the kick.

IMO both are dumb. The Rams should have been allowed to take possession of the ball at the spot of the second kick. It was 4th down and when he kicked it a second time it's the same as giving up on the play. The play should have been whistled dead on that kick and the Rams should have been awarded possession on the 22 yd line.

There is no doubt in my mind that the way the rule is written it favors an illegal act because it negates the block. It's the same as a recovered fumble that is then passed foward. An incomplete pass would give the other team the ball at the LOS. A second kick isn't an attempt to pass it forward to one of his own guys (illegal because of everyone downfield) but it should be treated as an incomplete pass on 4th down. This means any kicker who gets his kick block can simply second punt it from anywhere. Behind the LOS a second kick shouldn't be disallowed as the block is treated as a fumble. So they should have treated the illegal beyond the LOS kick as a fumble with a dead ball at the point of the second kick.

 

[kurtfaulk]

So…. According to Joe Fuck, the rule changed this year. In my 51 years of watching the NFL I’ve NEVER seen a double punt. What are the frikken odds it would happen first year of a rule change? Damn….. maybe I need to run out and get a lottery ticket

of course you're gonna see it now. the job of the special teams coach is to know the rules and drill it into his players. a heads up play by the punter who turned a shit play into a great play.

it's the shame the ball went away from the rams player that blocked it. unlucky.

.

 

[XXXIVwin]

Bad news... this ridiculous rule applies to FG attempts, too. So if a FG attempt is blocked... and if by some miracle the holder catches the ball out of the air and places it down again...the kicker can make a second FG attempt on the same play.

(Addressed in notes 2 and 3, below)

 

[Rambitious1]

It actually wasn't across the LOS, so I guess it was legal

Nope it was past.
They showed it again on slo mo, then stopped it.
the second kick was a yard past the LOS.

 

[Karate61]

Bad news... this ridiculous rule applies to FG attempts, too. So if a FG attempt is blocked... and if by some miracle the holder catches the ball out of the air and places it down again...the kicker can make a second FG attempt on the same play.

(Addressed in notes 2 and 3, below)

View attachment 48783

Can the kicker punt instead on the 2nd kick?

 

[tempests]

Weird sequence of events, but a heads up play by Dickson.

 

[RamsFan4Life]

ESPN is wrong. The LOS was the 20 and he punted it the second time from the 22.

^^^^^^this^^^^^

 

[bluecoconuts]

Calvin Ball, baby.

Lets get a long snapper who can snap it back 40 yards, and have Matt Gay kick it forward to Hekker and then Hekker can boom it from the LOS while most on the return team are behind him. Have Kupp line up in the shotgun 20 yards back and throw it forward to Stafford who'll throw it deep to Woods, the rules don't mean shit anymore apparently.

 

[RamUK]

They can start by eliminating a 2nd punt altogether regardless of the LOS. It's 4th fucking down. Failing to advance to the 1st down marker after the (one and only one) punt attempt or (one and only one) pass attempt or run attempt is a turnover on downs...period.

Any other 4th down fuckery needs to be a turnover on downs in addition to a 15 yard penalty.

There's a really simple way to solve this problem and stop anything similar from ever happening again.

They insert a rule;

Any 4th down fuckery will be punished by being fucked up the ass by the fucking officials. So don't fucking do it, ok?

Not much room for debate with that one and everybody knows where they stand, even Pete fucking Carroll.