Punching the ball illegal?

[NFSeahawks]

Wasn't this an issue with Bobby Wagner a few years ago?

I recall him batting a ball out of the back of the end zone, but I think they ignored it because the ball was inevitably going to go out of bounds anyway.

Any attempts to bat or punch a ball should be allowed assuming that player has possession.

 

[NFSeahawks]

Sometimes you have to look at the next or previous sentence in a rule... you err on the side of strip and not bat. See the "note", below. I read that to mean you can bat or punch the ball if the intent is to strip said ball. Earl, he be strippin'.

A player may not bat or punch:

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.

(b) A ball in player possession.

Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball).

This rule needs to be revised, the Seahawks have been doing (b) for years and I've never seen anything called, nor should there have been in my opinion.

 

[mikeak]

punch defined as closed fist?

That is the only thing I can think of which makes this legal by hitting at it with a non-closed fist, but then that next sentence differentiates between stripping and batting

Seriously there is no way the refs understand this rule. We all see it every single Sunday multiple times

judgment call so I am sure you can't challenge this

 

[hawkeyerob]

Is part b) stating a player can't bat or punch a ball in their own possession?

It could be read as universal, but the fact it's using a single term "player" to me reads like you can't treat the football like a volleyball and punch/bat it to "fumble" it 10 yards forward or out of bounds or a desperate punch out lateral while being constrained. The note could be read to mean if there's a question as to whether a defender was trying to legally strip it, vs a desperate offensive player trying to punch it away (e.g. losing control, or needing to stop the clock so they punch it out of bounds), it'll be interpreted to be a legal strip.

 

[Rocket]

Yeah... this isn't the only NFL rule that isn't clear.

 

[mikeak]

Yeah... this isn't the only NFL rule that isn't clear.

What is unclear about you may not bat a ball in a players possession?

I think people wanting to make it unclear are adding language to the interpretation

What is unclear is why it isn't enforced......

 

[West TX Hawk]

So there'll be a future uproar when Bennett or Avril knock a ball out cleanly against a legacy team late in a game and then all strip sacks will be reviewed to see if the player intentionally or negligently batted the ball out in any way as opposed to strip it-did he make "a football move" toward the ball? And challenges will be made and the game will slow down even more while the owners remain befuddled as to why the ratings will continue to fall.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

Yeah... this isn't the only NFL rule that isn't clear.

What is unclear about you may not bat a ball in a players possession?

I think people wanting to make it unclear are adding language to the interpretation

What is unclear is why it isn't enforced......

Agree that the rule seems pretty bloody clear. Pretty weird though -- literally every team in the NFL has been doing it on pretty much every play for about as long as I can remember.

So what are we missing? Gotta be missing something.

 

[Reaneypark]

I predict in the near future the Seahawks D will punch the ball out of an opponent's possession to seal a victory in a Primetime game. Everyone will think it's an amazing hustle play until after the game when the network drags out some crusty old fart former official who will enjoy his 15 minutes of fame by telling everyone that play was illegal according to some vague rule that is no longer enforced and then the whole country will lose their minds over the travesty of it all for about 24 hours.

It's sad that I can picture this happening a little too easily.

That's because it (essentially) did happen almost exactly that way last year when we played Detroit. At the time no one thought the KJ Wright slap of the ball out of bounds in the endzone was illegal, and most thought it was a clever play (and almost everyone thought he could have easily tried to recover it but it wasn't worth the risk). That includes the coaches and players on the Detroit sideline.

I wasn't until a crusty old retired official said it was illegal that the controversy started. Grrrr........

Exactly. That crusty old guy loved showing off how much he knew a rule that nobody knew existed.

 

[Polaris]

Yeah... this isn't the only NFL rule that isn't clear.

What is unclear about you may not bat a ball in a players possession?

I think people wanting to make it unclear are adding language to the interpretation

What is unclear is why it isn't enforced......

Agree that the rule seems pretty bloody clear. Pretty weird though -- literally every team in the NFL has been doing it on pretty much every play for about as long as I can remember.

So what are we missing? Gotta be missing something.

Punching the ball is illegal but stripping the ball is perfectly legal, and there is an officiating note that instructs officials to assume that if there is any doubt, assume the defender is stripping rather than punching the ball.

That's why it's never called.

 

[Jerhawk]

I predict in the near future the Seahawks D will punch the ball out of an opponent's possession to seal a victory in a Primetime game. Everyone will think it's an amazing hustle play until after the game when the network drags out some crusty old fart former official who will enjoy his 15 minutes of fame by telling everyone that play was illegal according to some vague rule that is no longer enforced and then the whole country will lose their minds over the travesty of it all for about 24 hours.

This was one of the most accurate predictions I've read on here. Spot on, yet unfortunately something like this would happen

 

[KARAVARUS]

Wasn't this an issue with Bobby Wagner a few years ago?

I recall him batting a ball out of the back of the end zone, but I think they ignored it because the ball was inevitably going to go out of bounds anyway.

Any attempts to bat or punch a ball should be allowed assuming that player has possession.

It was KJ Wright against the Lions, and not really the same kind of thing. But that is where the crusty old guy with a new rule no one cares about stuff came from. Lol

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Sometimes you have to look at the next or previous sentence in a rule... you err on the side of strip and not bat. See the "note", below. I read that to mean you can bat or punch the ball if the intent is to strip said ball. Earl, he be strippin'.

A player may not bat or punch:

(a) A loose ball (in field of play) toward his opponent’s goal line or in any direction in either end zone.

(b) A ball in player possession.

Note: If there is any question as to whether a defender is stripping or batting a ball in player possession, the official(s) will rule the action as a legal act (stripping the ball).

I read it as stripping is legal, but punching illegal. The ref has to make a judgment call that the blow is not a punch. So technically punching the ball our is not legal, but they obviously never call it because I as well have seen the ball get punched out LITERALLY a ZILLION times, ya'll.

 

[RobbinHood]

I read it as stripping is legal, but punching illegal. The ref has to make a judgment call that the blow is not a punch. So technically punching the ball our is not legal, but they obviously never call it sarms for sale black friday sale because I as well have seen the ball get punched out LITERALLY a ZILLION times, ya'l

You are quite right, I agreed with you!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

The KJ thing was pretty ticky tack, but man did the media make a huge deal about it. Really, he should have just walked up and caught it and ran out of bounds. So he tapped it out of bounds, big deal.

Peanut Tillman made himself a legend with his punch outs.

 

[Spohawks]

Its the Tuck rule 2.0. If Vegas needs team A to keep the ball, well its a punch.