21 replies to this topic

[Special K]

On the play where Mario hit Bradford, who fumbled the ball and recovered the fumble and gained a half yard.

Mario was credited with a forced fumble, but shouldn't he also get a sack b/c it was against the QB behind the line of scrimmage?

I'm pretty sure that should be a sack, right?

I mean, earlier in the year Cleveland was awarded a sack when the ball just slipped out of Fitz's hands when nobody touched him.

[PaattMaann]

bradford made it back past the line of scrimmage for a yard gain if I remember correctly, no sack if its a positive gain

[SACTOBILLSFAN]

He would have been had the ball been recovered behind the line.

[Special K]

PaattMaann, on 11 December 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

bradford made it back past the line of scrimmage for a yard gain if I remember correctly, no sack if its a positive gain

I figured that was the rule, but its kind of a dumb one if you think about it.

What if a DE just beats the tackle badly, blindsides the QB ten yards behind the line, the QB fumbles the ball and an OL picks it up and gets back past the line--no sack for the DE...that sucks, IMO.

[Doc]

Bradford was sacked behind the LOS and recovered his fumble behind the LOS, and advanced it 3 yards.  Mario didn't get credited with a sack because he was ruled to be a runner at the point he fumbled.

[Why So Serious?]

Arggghh!!! That would have given me a win in my money league playoffs.

[Wooderson]

Special K, on 11 December 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I figured that was the rule, but its kind of a dumb one if you think about it.

What if a DE just beats the tackle badly, blindsides the QB ten yards behind the line, the QB fumbles the ball and an OL picks it up and gets back past the line--no sack for the DE...that sucks, IMO.

Special K, on 11 December 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I figured that was the rule, but its kind of a dumb one if you think about it.

What if a DE just beats the tackle badly, blindsides the QB ten yards behind the line, the QB fumbles the ball and an OL picks it up and gets back past the line--no sack for the DE...that sucks, IMO.

Think about a QB.  Tipped balls or dropped balls that turn into INTs which aren't completely their fault but they still get credited with the INT.  Just the way she goes.

[Dopey]

Why So Serious?, on 11 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Arggghh!!! That would have given me a win in my money league playoffs.

I lost in FF by .5 pts(yes a 1/2 of a point) because the sack was taken away after initially awarding it to Mario. Oh well.

[Adam]

Doc, on 11 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Bradford was sacked behind the LOS and recovered his fumble behind the LOS, and advanced it 3 yards.  Mario didn't get credited with a sack because he was ruled to be a runner at the point he fumbled.

He actually was a passer, but there was no tackle for a loss, as the play continued. The actual tackle took place beyond the line of scrimmage.

[Doc]

Adam, on 12 December 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

He actually was a passer, but there was no tackle for a loss, as the play continued. The actual tackle took place beyond the line of scrimmage.

After looking it it more, that he advanced it makes it not a sack.  Which is dumb.  But whatever.

[Adam]

Doc, on 12 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

After looking it it more, that he advanced it makes it not a sack.  Which is dumb.  But whatever.

You think that's dumb? Hypothetical from Sunday- if we block a Rams punt and they recover it behind the line of scimmage, we are charged with a lost fumble. How dumb is that?

[K-9]

Adam, on 12 December 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

You think that's dumb? Hypothetical from Sunday- if we block a Rams punt and they recover it behind the line of scimmage, we are charged with a lost fumble. How dumb is that?

How can that be? For a fumble to occur, there has to be possession. For a muffed punt to occur, that has to be an attempt to field it. I'm not necessarily doubting you here, I'm just wondering how the rule makers came up with that. If you block a punt or a FG and it's recovered by the kicking team behind the l LOS, it's your ball at the spot of the recovery.

GO BILLS!!!

[Meathead]

yeah i thought the same thing. logically the fumble should be an automatic sack if its behind the los on what was a pass play, but apparently thats not the rule

[Adam]

K-9, on 12 December 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

How can that be? For a fumble to occur, there has to be possession. For a muffed punt to occur, that has to be an attempt to field it. I'm not necessarily doubting you here, I'm just wondering how the rule makers came up with that. If you block a punt or a FG and it's recovered by the kicking team behind the l LOS, it's your ball at the spot of the recovery.

GO BILLS!!!

It accounts for the kicking team's ability to advance the ball- I agree, it makes no sense to penalize the team for the block. Hate the rule.

[K-9]

Adam, on 12 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

It accounts for the kicking team's ability to advance the ball- I agree, it makes no sense to penalize the team for the block. Hate the rule.

The kicking team can't advance the ball after a block. Whether it's recovered by the kicking team behind or beyond the LOS, it's your ball at the spot of the recovery.

GO BILLS!!!

[Adam]

K-9, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

The kicking team can't advance the ball after a block. Whether it's recovered by the kicking team behind or beyond the LOS, it's your ball at the spot of the recovery.

GO BILLS!!!

I will have to check the book- it may be a field goal and not a punt

SECTION 7—BLOCKED PUNTS
Article 1. A blocked punt is recorded as a “Team” entry (except
when a properly centered ball is fumbled) and not charged against
the individual kicker. Also, charge one punt for zero yards to assure
that the blocked punt is included under “Times Kicked” in team
totals.
If the ball travels toward the kicker’s goal and is recovered by the
blocking team, the yardage is treated as a punt return by the player
who blocked the kick. If the ball travels toward the kicker’s goal and
is recovered by the kicking team, the yardage is treated as a punt
return by the player who blocked the kick; and the blocking team is
charged with a fumble lost, except on fourth down. Remember that
yardage for a blocked punt by an opponent cannot be a negative
fi gure, but is listed as zero yards and the diff erence shall be listed as
punt return yardage for the team blocking the punt.

Edited by Adam, 12 December 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[K-9]

Adam, on 12 December 2012 - 10:45 PM, said:

I will have to check the book- it may be a field goal and not a punt

SECTION 7—BLOCKED PUNTS
Article 1. A blocked punt is recorded as a “Team” entry (except
when a properly centered ball is fumbled) and not charged against
the individual kicker. Also, charge one punt for zero yards to assure
that the blocked punt is included under “Times Kicked” in team
totals.
If the ball travels toward the kicker’s goal and is recovered by the
blocking team, the yardage is treated as a punt return by the player
who blocked the kick. If the ball travels toward the kicker’s goal and
is recovered by the kicking team, the yardage is treated as a punt
return by the player who blocked the kick; and the blocking team is
charged with a fumble lost, except on fourth down. Remember that
yardage for a blocked punt by an opponent cannot be a negative
fi gure, but is listed as zero yards and the diff erence shall be listed as
punt return yardage for the team blocking the punt.

Thanks for the legwork, Adam. It's interesting that the fumble is charged, EXCEPT on fourth down. Like so many teams punt before that.

GO BILLS!!!

Edited by K-9, 12 December 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[Adam]

K-9, on 12 December 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Thanks for the legwork, Adam. It's interesting that the fumble is charged, EXCEPT on fourth down. Like so many teams punt before that.

GO BILLS!!!

Not a problem- I have been statting games for years- by the way, when the kicking team recovers, they can do anything the would have done before the block, including punting again

[K-9]

Adam, on 12 December 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

Not a problem- I have been statting games for years- by the way, when the kicking team recovers, they can do anything the would have done before the block, including punting again

I honestly didn't remember that. But that's right. I was incorrect in thinking the ball goes to the blocking team at the spot the kicking team recovered. But that's only if he's down by contact. Theoretically, a player on the kicking team that recovers can advance the ball for a first down.

GO BILLS!!!

[Adam]

K-9, on 12 December 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

I honestly didn't remember that. But that's right. I was incorrect in thinking the ball goes to the blocking team at the spot the kicking team recovered. But that's only if he's down by contact. Theoretically, a player on the kicking team that recovers can advance the ball for a first down.

GO BILLS!!!

Now try remembering that while inputting stats for a game and having to remember tons of ridiculous rules! lol