Blue Bombers Forum
July 21, 2019, 06:31:50 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 1345 times)
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6399



« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2019, 07:10:07 PM »

So, if Toronto had not been playing at home against BC, Rainey would have caught the missed field goal in bounds and the Lions would have had to try and win in OT?  Jeez, talk about not being able to catch a break.

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2019, 07:16:05 PM »

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?


Rainey caught it with one foot on the line, so two more yards (standard field size) and he's in bounds on the catch.  He doesn't have to return it out, he can also kick it out, in which case BC would have to try and field the ball and score (either punt it through or run it in).  Not saying Rainey's a punter by any stretch, but he'd likely have at least a 10 yard run up before he'd have to kick it.  Granted, in that scenario, you'd normally put your punter in the end zone for the kick, which Chamblin didn't do, in fact, he had no one back there until after the penalty on the first kick.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6399



« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2019, 08:03:04 PM »


Rainey caught it with one foot on the line, so two more yards (standard field size) and he's in bounds on the catch.  He doesn't have to return it out, he can also kick it out, in which case BC would have to try and field the ball and score (either punt it through or run it in).  Not saying Rainey's a punter by any stretch, but he'd likely have at least a 10 yard run up before he'd have to kick it.  Granted, in that scenario, you'd normally put your punter in the end zone for the kick, which Chamblin didn't do, in fact, he had no one back there until after the penalty on the first kick.


I'd be very surprised if Chamblin survives the year, the Argos have a lot of decent players but coaching blunders cost them the game.
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2019, 08:20:33 PM »

I'd be very surprised if Chamblin survives the year, the Argos have a lot of decent players but coaching blunders cost them the game.

Chamblin on Mic'd up against SSK was painful to watch.  Not sure if him knew less about the rules of football than the 20 something ref he was talking to or not.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 01:40:25 AM »

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?

to answer your question, yes, if his kick sails thru the end zone, not hitting in bounds or a player first, you are still awarded a point... so, if you were to be close enough to attempt a field goal, say from the 10 yd line, and you miss wide, yet have kicked it hard enough that it actually lands out of play, you still get 1 pt...

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/scoring/definitions/
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2019, 05:27:55 AM »

to answer your question, yes, if his kick sails thru the end zone, not hitting in bounds or a player first, you are still awarded a point... so, if you were to be close enough to attempt a field goal, say from the 10 yd line, and you miss wide, yet have kicked it hard enough that it actually lands out of play, you still get 1 pt...

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.
Logged
DM83
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6708


« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2019, 06:40:15 AM »

Laziness, ignorance and age account for my next statement.  Back in the day, at least when I played I was under the impression if the ball was not batted out with the hand intentionally, I believe it didn't go to the guy who didn't  do it.

Specifically using the lower body to force the ball,out( kicking) would still be a change of possession, a la Medlock kicked it out.

Medlock IMO definitely made a kicking motion.

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

My closeup of what happened wasn't really close enough to see what happened.  I don't think bombers should have got the ball though.  Really a once in a lifetime play
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2019, 06:51:46 AM »

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

Lankford 100% touched that ball.  In the end I don't think it mattered at all though.  If him touching it had any effect it would be to "forgive" the "kick" by Medlock and keep the WPG recovery legal.  However, I think 66(?) definitively proved knees are ok(?).

In any event, I'm not sure any kicker "makes a kicking motion" with their ankle on their butt and the ball contacting their knee!!!

I'm sure command looked up all the relevant rules before ruining everyone in OTT's night.  And if they hadn't, Campbell would have been raising a stink all week.  Since he's been silent, I'd expect everyone has decided it's legit.
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2019, 11:12:35 AM »

Laziness, ignorance and age account for my next statement.  Back in the day, at least when I played I was under the impression if the ball was not batted out with the hand intentionally, I believe it didn't go to the guy who didn't  do it.

Specifically using the lower body to force the ball,out( kicking) would still be a change of possession, a la Medlock kicked it out.

Medlock IMO definitely made a kicking motion.

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

My closeup of what happened wasn't really close enough to see what happened.  I don't think bombers should have got the ball though.  Really a once in a lifetime play

It's not hockey. Kicking motion has nothing to do with it. Any ball contact below the knee is considered a kick, any ball contact above the knee is considered contact for possession.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2019, 11:14:11 AM »

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.


I have seen many, many games where teams have tried to punt through the end zone for the rouge. Surprisingly, it is not as successful as one would think.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2019, 08:30:23 AM »

It's not hockey. Kicking motion has nothing to do with it. Any ball contact below the knee is considered a kick, any ball contact above the knee is considered contact for possession.

OK... but you didn't give us the critical bit: what happens with contact ON THE KNEE?  (Slight jape.  Wink )

But it was precisely Medlock's knee that contacted the ball... so what then?
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2019, 11:23:18 AM »

OK... but you didn't give us the critical bit: what happens with contact ON THE KNEE?  (Slight jape.  Wink )

But it was precisely Medlock's knee that contacted the ball... so what then?


Rule actually says below the knee.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Stats Junkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1393


Unofficial Blue Bombers Historian


« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2019, 01:46:24 PM »

Article 1 ? Kicked Ball
A kicked ball is one struck by a player?s foot or leg below the knee.

NOTE: If the ball accidentally strikes a player?s leg or foot, it shall not be ruled as a kicked ball.


It appeared as though Medlock was sliding in effort to make the recovery. The ball (after touching Lankford) accidentally bounced off Medlock's leg and out of bounds.
Logged

@Stats_Junkie
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22846


« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2019, 01:57:49 PM »

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.


Yes I'm sure that has happened. Keeping in mind that the ball doesn't have to go out the back of the end zone which is the longer distance. If the kicker can angle it out the side of the end zone than it's a point.

It's a risk assessment. Chances of making a 55 + yard FG or kicking for the single. Neither usually have best odds but both have happened.

Wind assist certainly helps the odds for distance but could hurt accuracy.

Bomber Charlie Shepard had a 91 yard punt once. Obviously this wasn't a choice between a long FG or single but the CFL has seen many punts 60+ yards.

OTOH I remember a game during the Poplawski era where wind was a big problem. Our punter was either injured or kicking from FG formation was " better " than actually punting.

So we ended up doing all kicks from FG formation. It was hilarious to see FG formation from your own 35 yard line ( example only ). It's the same logic of actually kicking the long single from FG formation. Accuracy tends to be a little better than punting.

So as mentioned teams will line up in FG formation and just kick to the sideline in the end zone.

Logged

No more excuses.
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2617


« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2019, 02:38:38 PM »

This has been informative. So to recap the kicking rules everyone has contributed: in order to be considered a kick, the ball contact must meet two criteria.

1) below the knee
2) not accidental

Medlock's contact didn't meet either of those criteria. For #1 it was pretty clearly on the knee or just above. For #2, he was sliding to recover the ball, Lankford touched the ball first, resulting in a bounce in close quarters, immediately after which the ball hit Medlock. It would be very tough to argue any contact to his lower leg was purposeful. How could you possibly show that he wasn't aiming to hit it on a different part of his leg, or trying to recover it with your hands and/or body, and the bounce directed it into his lower leg instead? There's no way.

But even if you successfully challenged one of those points, you'd still also have to successfully challenge the other one too. So a challenge would have a 100% chance of failure.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 02:54:49 PM by jeremy q public » Logged
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!