Blue Bombers Forum
December 16, 2019, 09:31:47 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Medlock Punt  (Read 2583 times)
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« on: July 07, 2019, 06:29:57 AM »

after BC missed the field goal for the win tonight (how odd does that sound, lol), it got me thinking about last night when Medlock punted the ball and then ultimately recovered the ball for the Bombers.

I understand the rule that anybody lining up behind the ball on the kicking team is eligible to recover the kicked ball. so, in this case, Medlock is eligible to recover his own kick and is not required to stay outside of the normal 5 yard halo. so, it would all be pretty simple in the event that Medlock goes downfield and recovers the ball when a receiving team's return man isn't near the ball. But, the way the play went down, the close proximity to the ball for each player, it has me wondering a few things...

a. I assume for these instances, the ball is considered a 'live ball' for the receiving team and those players on the kicking team lined up behind the ball before kick. it's a 'live ball' in the sense that it would be considered no different than a fumbled ball in regards to Medlock and what he can do to recover it? because it looked to me that Lankford got to the ball first and actually touched it before Medlock, but since Lankford had yet to establish possession, though he had touched it, it is still considered a 'live ball' and Medlock can make a play to recover it. correct?

b. I think I already know the answer to this one but, if Medlock had failed to recover the ball he still would not be called for 'no yards' because he is eligible to recover ball. correct?

c. in the event that Lankford would have gained possession of the ball with Medlock inside of the 5 yard halo, could Medlock tackle Lankford without being called for 'no yards"?

If I had been Ottawa I would have challenged the call, I believe they had a challenge available at that time, on the grounds that Lankford actually got to the ball first, had his hand on the ball when Medlock hit the ball with his leg forcing it out of bounds, but, while Medlock did indeed hit the ball out of Lankford's hand, Lankford's hand was actually the last to touch the ball...

don't know if they would have been successful or not, and dang glad they didn't try it because you can never be sure how the command center will see events.... but seeing how that was the play that pretty much sunk Ottawa's chances to make a real comeback after we scored because they were only down 8 when it happened...


also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3868


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2019, 08:49:17 AM »

a. I assume for these instances, the ball is considered a 'live ball' for the receiving team and those players on the kicking team lined up behind the ball before kick. it's a 'live ball' in the sense that it would be considered no different than a fumbled ball in regards to Medlock and what he can do to recover it? because it looked to me that Lankford got to the ball first and actually touched it before Medlock, but since Lankford had yet to establish possession, though he had touched it, it is still considered a 'live ball' and Medlock can make a play to recover it. correct?

Good questions.  All this is why I love the CFL kick game.  You're never going to see crazy exciting stuff like that in NFL.  This might end up being the play of the year for me.

a. yes, live ball, and onsiders can recover, touching doesn't equal possession.  In fact, Lankford touching it first makes OTT's case harder because the instant he touched it it's live for offside players as well, and I do believe some esoteric rules might not apply.

b. I think I already know the answer to this one but, if Medlock had failed to recover the ball he still would not be called for 'no yards' because he is eligible to recover ball. correct?

b. yes.  Onside players don't count for no-yards.  Refs throw the flags but we'll rescind them once they confirm who was onside.

c. in the event that Lankford would have gained possession of the ball with Medlock inside of the 5 yard halo, could Medlock tackle Lankford without being called for 'no yards"?

c. yes.  Theoretically Medlock, instead of going for the ball, could have gone in to light up Lankford with a massive hit tackle.  A bit of a loophole in the "protect the returner with a halo" player safety rules.  And of course, only an insane kicker would risk his body in such a way.  (See Parades high-tail it out of the massive Purifoy return line of fire tonight? hehe.)

If I had been Ottawa I would have challenged the call, I believe they had a challenge available at that time, on the grounds that Lankford actually got to the ball first, had his hand on the ball when Medlock hit the ball with his leg forcing it out of bounds, but, while Medlock did indeed hit the ball out of Lankford's hand, Lankford's hand was actually the last to touch the ball...

Nope, I watched that play at length before they announced the result and I knew for a fact it was WPG ball because you can see definitively in some angles that Medlock's knee is the last to touch.  Trust me, Command would make sure they got that right.  Some of the angles make it tricky to see, but there's at least one where it is definitive.

As we've seen twice this weekend, challenging reviewed plays for what they reviewed already is just stupid.  If OTT thought there would have been a hope, they might have challenged, as there is no worse play in the world than that play there, that you'd like to have disappear.

The only possible hope OTT had is if booth guys were right and some esoteric "can't kick it" rule exists in the annals of the rulebook, and that a knee (which is what hit it) qualified as a kick.  Luckily neither was the case... I think.  If indeed he can't kick it but knees are allowed, then Medlock gets genius of the year award for knowing to slide knees first (which is very strange!) to avoid the penalty!!

also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...

BMO is messed up.  Shorter EZ.  Grass to turf in one EZ.  Benches on same side.  It's a disgrace, especially seeing as how it's the newest (or 2nd newest?) venue in the CFL.  (Yes, I know it was repurposed and does soccer also -- still no excuse.)
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2019, 07:00:20 PM »

thanks for the info!

they said on tv that a hit ball is consider a kicked ball when player hits the ball with a part of their leg BELOW the knee... the knee itself if consider ok...

I've since found info in the rule book in regards to punts and on side players, etc., didn't find it first time I looked... but I still say that Ottawa could have had a basis to challenge that play due the stating:

Article 2 ? Onside Player
The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

PENALTY: Ball awarded to receiving team at point of foul or at its 25-yard line, if the foul occurred in the receiving team's Goal Area. If the kicker or onside player and a Team B player simultaneously recover the ball, possession shall be awarded to the receiving team at the point the ball was touched.


If I were Ottawa I would have challenged on the grounds that Lankford was indeed attempting to recover the ball when Medlock kicked hit it...  again, it was a game changing play and I would have pulled out all stops if I was on the bad end of the play...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2147



« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2019, 09:18:20 PM »

Medlock has an entitlement to the ball and every bit as much of an entitlement as Lankford. Interfering with the returner means physically impeding his pursuit of the ball. Medlock did not do that. Last to touch the ball in bounds = possession. That play was very clear.

As for end zones, it has always left me miffed that the CFL allows inconsistency in the dimensions of the end zones. Toronto has short end zones. Edmonton has curved "corners" at the back end of the end zones.

I'd have to do some research, but I believe that prior to the 1980s, end zones were 25 yards deep. BC Place was built tighter than that and could only accommodate 20 yard end zones, prompting a change across the league. I'll have to check on that though.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2147



« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2019, 09:19:40 PM »

Quick research from Wikipedia:

The end zones were previously 25 yards, with Vancouver's BC Place the first to use the 20 yard-long end zone in 1983, and since 2016, the home of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, BMO Field, utilizes an 18-yard-long end zone.[3] Including the end zones, the American field is about 34% smaller than the Canadian field (87,750 square feet (8,152 m2) for the Canadian field vs 57,600 square feet (5,350 m2) for the American field), but the Canadian field occasionally will have its end zone truncated at the corners so that the field fits in the infield of a running track. The only example in the CFL is the Percival Molson Memorial Stadium, home of the Montreal Alouettes.

I believe that Commonwealth also has truncated end zones.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2147



« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2019, 09:22:50 PM »

Quick research from Wikipedia:

The end zones were previously 25 yards, with Vancouver's BC Place the first to use the 20 yard-long end zone in 1983, and since 2016, the home of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, BMO Field, utilizes an 18-yard-long end zone.[3] Including the end zones, the American field is about 34% smaller than the Canadian field (87,750 square feet (8,152 m2) for the Canadian field vs 57,600 square feet (5,350 m2) for the American field), but the Canadian field occasionally will have its end zone truncated at the corners so that the field fits in the infield of a running track. The only example in the CFL is the Percival Molson Memorial Stadium, home of the Montreal Alouettes.

I believe that Commonwealth also has truncated end zones.

I was wrong. Those have been standardized now.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2019, 09:54:15 PM »

Medlock has an entitlement to the ball and every bit as much of an entitlement as Lankford. Interfering with the returner means physically impeding his pursuit of the ball. Medlock did not do that. Last to touch the ball in bounds = possession. That play was very clear.

As for end zones, it has always left me miffed that the CFL allows inconsistency in the dimensions of the end zones. Toronto has short end zones. Edmonton has curved "corners" at the back end of the end zones.

I'd have to do some research, but I believe that prior to the 1980s, end zones were 25 yards deep. BC Place was built tighter than that and could only accommodate 20 yard end zones, prompting a change across the league. I'll have to check on that though.

I'm not suggesting they, Ottawa, would or should win a challenge, more along the lines that it's not a play you see routinely in a game or maybe in a season... I don't know, as I don't recall ever seeing it happen before, but either I missed a game that it happened in last year, or just don't recall....

but, it does you a chance for someone to review and then make a decision based upon their determination of the intent of the language... like I said, no don't know that they would win, most likely not, but on a play that significant... I have to have someone tell me for sure that I had to give the ball back... that's all...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2019, 09:59:15 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
blue newt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 308



« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2019, 10:08:36 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?

Pretty sure you need to be behind the ball until it is kicked.  At least, when I see it happen in game, none of the onside players are running past the ball on the snap; they always wait until the kick to run by. 
Logged
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2147



« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2019, 10:12:38 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?

Must be onside at the time of a kick.

Kickoffs = all players
FG = Kicker and holder
Punt = punter

Teams have sometimes put a speedster onside for a special punt play. Every now and again the punter gets close, but it is very rare that the punter recovers (or pushes the ball out of bounds).

The Medlock play was the perfect storm. A bouncing punt that bounced laterally towards the sideline, and happening near the goal line. I suspect Lankford was hoping for the ball to turn into the end zone. He was pinned and was going to give his team bad field position, unless the ball went into the end zone. The ball bounced high and slowly, allowing Medlock the time to get to the ball. Being close to the sideline gave Medlock the chance to push the ball out of bounds without having to try to actually recover the ball. It all came together.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2019, 10:17:03 PM »

Pretty sure you need to be behind the ball until it is kicked.  At least, when I see it happen in game, none of the onside players are running past the ball on the snap; they always wait until the kick to run by. 

thx... I was thinking about the times you are just barely outside field goal range and have to punt... we may have 1 or 2 guys fast enough that with enough 'hang time' they could be a factor...  I have to admit, I haven't really paid that much attention to punt formation as I recall knowing that this type of play was actually possible...

when the play was happening live I was like 'Medlock, what the heck are you doing?', figured I had missed something that happened, not that it was fair game for him to recover... lol...

needless to say, I'll be watching for things such as this moving forward...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
gobombersgo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3355



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2019, 10:18:53 PM »


also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.
Logged

66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2019, 10:21:58 PM »

Must be onside at the time of a kick.

Kickoffs = all players
FG = Kicker and holder
Punt = punter

Teams have sometimes put a speedster onside for a special punt play. Every now and again the punter gets close, but it is very rare that the punter recovers (or pushes the ball out of bounds).

The Medlock play was the perfect storm. A bouncing punt that bounced laterally towards the sideline, and happening near the goal line. I suspect Lankford was hoping for the ball to turn into the end zone. He was pinned and was going to give his team bad field position, unless the ball went into the end zone. The ball bounced high and slowly, allowing Medlock the time to get to the ball. Being close to the sideline gave Medlock the chance to push the ball out of bounds without having to try to actually recover the ball. It all came together.

and you could tell that Lankford was watching and thinking, more like wishing, that it was going to roll back into the end zone... then he realizes that Medlock is making a bee line for the ball and he freaks, lol...

with Lankford being an ex Bomber, I kind of felt bad for him... granted, not bad enough to have given him the ball back, but just bad for him, lol...  as a Bomber fan, I was more than a little excited that Medlock was on his game and recognized the opportunity to make a play and in a position to follow through!!!

very exciting as well as pivotal in securing a Bomber win... gotta love it!   oh, and thx for the info...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4455


« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2019, 10:26:02 PM »

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.

I wasn't paying that close attention honestly as I was actually listening to it more than watching it... I was doing other things on my computer while the game was on...  I thought that I had notice this type of thing before but it may have been a different sport though, not for sure...

but that doesn't surprise me, and in fact it makes a lot of sense... the ability to add graphics such as this is fairly easy to do, I would assume, and can be very convincing to the viewer...  not to mention, easily 'removed' if sponsors change and no actual on field maintenance required...  cost effective if nothing else...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2147



« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2019, 10:27:58 PM »

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.

Ads and Argos logo are all computer-generated for TV. BC Place is the same. Replays don't have the ads or logos either.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!