Explain that touching ball out-of-downs

[G. Host]

I was in bathroom during that kick where Miami player touched ball while out of bounds and they diid not replay it. Tell me what happened? Referee screwup or another "retaining possession while unconscious" rule.

[DraftBoy]

I was in bathroom during that kick where Miami player touched ball while out of bounds and they diid not replay it. Tell me what happened? Referee screwup or another "retaining possession while unconscious" rule.


If the player is out of bounds and touch an inbounds ball the ball is called out of bounds, therefor when Wes Walker was standing out of bounds and picked up an inbounds ball it was called out of bounds and therefor a penalty which allowed them to go to the 40, it is a 100% legal play and very smart on the part of Walker. Hope that helps.

[G. Host]

It is a rule which needs to be changed and until it is changed the ST coach needs to teach ST's players how to play it.

[helmetguy]

I haven't watched the tape yet, but I'm guessing that the officials were saying the ball was out of bounds before the INELIGIBLE player touched it. If it was still in the field of play while he touched it with one foot in the paint, it should be called Illegal Touching and assessed accordingly.

[LtBillsFan66]

I haven't watched the tape yet, but I'm guessing that the officials were saying the ball was out of bounds before the INELIGIBLE player touched it. If it was still in the field of play while he touched it with one foot in the paint, it should be called Illegal Touching and assessed accordingly.
Wrong. There is an obscure rule. Heads up play on the fins part. I never heard of the rule before that. A lame rule anyway...

[DraftBoy]

Funny enough it was used in a college game earlier in the week wonder if Walker saw it there?

[LtBillsFan66]

Funny enough it was used in a college game earlier in the week wonder if Walker saw it there?
I'd say we are going to see it more often. We even had a chance in an earlier kickoff that was near the sidelines.

[DraftBoy]

I just did it in Madden!!

[lordofgun]

Funny enough it was used in a college game earlier in the week wonder if Walker saw it there?
Morton also did the same thing on Sunday Night Football last week.

[LtBillsFan66]

Morton also did the same thing on Sunday Night Football last week.
Ah. It's still a stupid rule.

[lordofgun]

yep

[SABURZFAN]

Morton also did the same thing on Sunday Night Football last week.


we were talking about that at Santora's too.it was perfectly legal and a smart play.

[helmetguy]

Thanks fo the clarification. Think maybe the competition committee might look at it in the offseason? I think, if you're OB and felf the ball there, you should have to take the ball where you fielded it.

[chernobylwraiths]

It is as stupid as the rule that if, as a defensive player, your pinky toe is touching the goalline, but the ball is on the one when you try to down a punt, it is a touchback. I think it should be where the BALL is. If an offensive player is in the endzone but the ball is not, it isn't a touchdown.

They will never change the rule. Now we just have to get a player to use it to his advantage when we can. Like an offensive fumble near the sidelines just has to be touched from a player out of bounds and the offense will retain possession.

[Iehoshua]

I remember seeing it in another game last week. Very poor rule. If the ball stops in the field of play then its should be playable. If the player fields it out of bounds, that is where the ball should be spotted.

Unless someone has a good explination for that rule, I'm all ears...

[Mike in Syracuse]

So then lets follow this through. If the Welker does not signal for a fair catch and the Bills get a defender down there, does this give the Bills defender the right to BLAST Welker into the second row even if he's standing OB?

If Welker's intention is to down the ball even though he's OB I say he's fair game!

[Cntrygal]

This is an awful rule. If the guy is OB, he should be ineligible to touch the ball first.

[Michael82]

It doesn't matter. That kickoff was going out of bounds anyways.

[chernobylwraiths]

It doesn't matter. That kickoff was going out of bounds anyways.

It didn't look that way to me, and two more seconds and a Bill is right there. If THAT long.

[Dozerdog]

So then lets follow this through. If the Welker does not signal for a fair catch and the Bills get a defender down there, does this give the Bills defender the right to BLAST Welker into the second row even if he's standing OB?

If Welker's intention is to down the ball even though he's OB I say he's fair game!

You can block a player if he goes OB. They do that with gunners all the time- try to force them OB and they continue to hit them even if the gunner runns downfield OB. The only thing a gunner can't do is be the firt to touch the ball if he went OB (downing it)

As far as fair catches go- the second it hits the ground there is no "fair catch" protection. You can blast them WITH A LEGAL BLOCK.

[Dozerdog]

It didn't look that way to me, and two more seconds and a Bill is right there. If THAT long.



At first I didn't think so either- but upon further review I'll say the ball would have rolled out of bounds.

[Turf]

It's a dumb rule that needs to be changed for sure. It has the same logic as when the NE player was laying unconscience on the field but a part of his body was out of bounds and the ball touched him and the ball was ruled out. Dumb rule.
They also need to change that stupid pushed out of bounds overriding two feet in. The refs are giving too many calls to WR's that would never have landed in had they not been pushed.