The Non-Dribbled Non-OSK "Kick From Scrimmage" Again

[Blue In BC]

I think they need to change the rule but I'd leave the punter as onside. In the past we've seen a shanked punt recovered by the punter downfield.

The issue is a punt of 1 yard or less just over the LOS which is ridiculous.

[TBURGESS]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker. 

Examples: 

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and doesn't get it past the first down marker = next down or turnover if it was 3rd down. 

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and gets it past the first down marker = First down.  

Punter kicks ball past the first down marker & recovers it= First down.  

[Blue In BC]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker.

Examples:

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and doesn't get it past the first down marker = next down or turnover if it was 3rd down.

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and gets it past the first down marker = First down. 

Punter kicks ball past the first down marker & recovers it= First down.   

In theory I agree. In reality if could be into a gale force wind on 3rd and 30 when the punter shanks the punt unintentionally.

We have seen bad punts that only travelled 10 - 15 yards due to coming off the side of the punters foot. IIRC, there was one last week which was recovered by the receiving team, or might have even gone out of bounds?

[TBURGESS]

In theory I agree. In reality if could be into a gale force wind on 3rd and 30 when the punter shanks the punt unintentionally.

We have seen bad punts that only travelled 10 - 15 yards due to coming off the side of the punters foot. IIRC, there was one last week which was recovered by the receiving team, or might have even gone out of bounds?

If you don't advance the ball past the first down marker, you should have to give it up, no matter what the wind is like. 

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no. 

[Blue In BC]

If you don't advance the ball past the first down marker, you should have to give it up, no matter what the wind is like.

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no.

That's a bit more complicated. Punts can be blocked behind the LOS and the punter can recover it but the team loses possession because it did not travel past the LOS.

A partially blocked punt can travel over the LOS and can be recovered by the punter. I can't honestly say how the rule is applied in this instance. You'd think it would be the same as the dribble intentionally over the LOS which is not where the 1s down marker sits?

Overall it's a quirk in the rule and I certainly don't like how the Als have used it. Whether that should create a change to the rules, I'd agree.

Exactly what that change would be is not as evident. Maybe the same as on a onside K/O, it has to travel 10 yards minimum.

[TBURGESS]

That's a bit more complicated. Punts can be blocked behind the LOS and the punter can recover it but the team loses possession because it did not travel past the LOS.

A partially blocked punt can travel over the LOS and can be recovered by the punter. I can't honestly say how the rule is applied in this instance. You'd think it would be the same as the dribble intentionally over the LOS which is not where the 1s down marker sits?

Overall it's a quirk in the rule and I certainly don't like how the Als have used it. Whether that should create a change to the rules, I'd agree.

Exactly what that change would be is not as evident. Maybe the same as on a onside K/O, it has to travel 10 yards minimum.

It's really simple. If you don't go past the first down marker with the ball in your possession, you shouldn't get a first down. I don't care if it's running, passing, fumbling, kicking and recovering, or anything else for that matter. 

[Blue In BC]

It's really simple. If you don't go past the first down marker with the ball in your possession, you shouldn't get a first down. I don't care if it's running, passing, fumbling, kicking and recovering, or anything else for that matter.

I'm ok if they change it the way you suggest but onside punt in the CFL has been around for a long time. We don't see many successful ones each year but a few are tried.

[TecnoGenius]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker.

If you do that then you remove this wonky play entirely, because the whole purpose is to get like 19 yards "for free".  If you still need to gain yards, then why would you drop & kick it first and waste all that time when you still need to run it the same distance?

Ya, so most people want to remove the play, so ok, let's do it.  But how do you write that into the rulebook in the most economical way?  No one wants another exception tacked on in some addendum (already enough of those): it should fit into the rest of the rules in a logical and economical manner.

I think it may be beneficial to separate a "real punter who is 10Y back from the LoS at the snap" from "Joe Shmo running back".  Any rule should focus on the fact that: one is behind everyone and taking a "lateral/backwards pass", and one is lined up like a RB or WR and taking a forward pass.

How about just say that to be a punt behind the LoS you have to get the ball via a lateral/backwards pass/snap (so no forward hitch like Antwi uses!).  Punts beyond the LoS can still occur for "hook & ladder", so no change there.  Normal punts will not be affected as they are always a backwards snap and occur behind LoS.  Easy peasy, economical (one line added!) with the rules and non-intrusive.

If someone does do a forward pass and then punt @LoS across the LoS then it counts as a normal fumble/recovery (so no first down unless yards are gained), and thus no one would do it anymore.

Problem solved.

[TecnoGenius]

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no.

But this is a non-issue as the punter almost never recovers it because the team B gunners are generally 2-3 people on a "block that kick" play, and they are facing the ball and looking for a block.  The P is one guy and often staring downfield and has no idea where the blocked ball went.

And for the 0-1 times a season the P recovers it, as was already mentioned it's still a TOD if the ball didn't get past the LoS.

I can't recall ever seeing a blocked punt that passes the LoS and then gets recovered by the P and they get a free set.  Besides you can't plan and practice that like you do an Antwi punt... too many variables and too much chaos.

Just like this Antwi thing, I say worry about what teams are exploiting now, then worry about the what-ifs when teams exploit them later.

[TecnoGenius]

We still need a name for this play...

"Non-Dribbled Non-OSK Kick From Scrimmage" or NDNOKFS is a real crap acronym.

How about these ideas:

The Antwi Amble
The Antwi Artifice
The Piddly Punt
The Puny Punt
The Drop Kick
The Ball & Fall
The CONversion

Pick your favorite, and add some more!

[Blue In BC]

But this is a non-issue as the punter almost never recovers it because the team B gunners are generally 2-3 people on a "block that kick" play, and they are facing the ball and looking for a block.  The P is one guy and often staring downfield and has no idea where the blocked ball went.

And for the 0-1 times a season the P recovers it, as was already mentioned it's still a TOD if the ball didn't get past the LoS.

I can't recall ever seeing a blocked punt that passes the LoS and then gets recovered by the P and they get a free set.  Besides you can't plan and practice that like you do an Antwi punt... too many variables and too much chaos.

Just like this Antwi thing, I say worry about what teams are exploiting now, then worry about the what-ifs when teams exploit them later.

We have seen some punts recovered downfield by the punter. Usually on an unintentional shank. I think those are normally punts past the 1st down marker but it would take some research to confirm that. I have no idea where you'd actually check that.

More often you see a no yards called which is then waived because it was the punter who is onside and he did or didn't recover the kick.

[TBURGESS]

It should be easy to write a rule that says... You must pass the first down marker with possession of the ball to get a first down. It doesn't need to be specific to punts. 

[TecnoGenius]

We have seen some punts recovered downfield by the punter. Usually on an unintentional shank. I think those are normally punts past the 1st down marker but it would take some research to confirm that. I have no idea where you'd actually check that.

More often you see a no yards called which is then waived because it was the punter who is onside and he did or didn't recover the kick.

An onside player or punter recovering (in any manner) is still super rare.  The most memorable for us is the Meddy one where he kneed it out and got Lankford depersoned from the CFL.  But though it may have been a not-so-great kick, it still went 40+ yards.

We should also consider the product-on-field fan-wow-factor of these plays.  Meddy running down to knee it out is spectacular and entertaining.  Antwi punting 1Y, not so much.  Only us CFL nerds are intrigued.  I wouldn't want to do anything that inadvertently eliminates rare but exciting plays.

I wouldn't worry about any "on-purpose shank" from a real punter with a real backwards long-snap.  If they manage to kick it precisely 10-20Y and then recover by an onside guy, fans will love it and it'll be exciting and I say give it to them.  The odds of pulling that off will be the same as an OSK... which is maybe 10%.

Again, I would focus on the passing aspect of these NDNOKFS plays.  That's the way you attack this and only this particular problem.

[TecnoGenius]

In the OTT game tonight there were a few moments we were 1st or 2nd and 17-20 where I really wished Bombers had the Antwi-Antics play in their book.  At the very least forcing a DB to stay up at the line with a wide-out R or a sneaking-out RB is one less player they have to stop your 20Y pass attempt.

[BomberFan73]

In the OTT game tonight there were a few moments we were 1st or 2nd and 17-20 where I really wished Bombers had the Antwi-Antics play in their book.  At the very least forcing a DB to stay up at the line with a wide-out R or a sneaking-out RB is one less player they have to stop your 20Y pass attempt.

I think we have practiced it, and as I posted earlier, I think we tried to do it lastgame.  Doesn't work great for us though as our deep threat is not respected, and noone is leaving Brady open.