Was a fair catch called?

[chow184]

it's a perfectly legal thing to do by the book,but I'm sure if it keeps happening,the owners will change the interference rule to include chucking a player on the receiving team into the returner AFTER fair catch has been called.

you can clearly see the carolina play chucked the redskin player into the returner,and that he wasn't merely blocked into him.

like I said in the other thread. it's dope when your team does it,but if someone does it to you,you'll feel like someone just robbed you.

[Proudiddy]

Unless I'm mistaken, or the rule has been changed, I thought there was a rule that voids a fair catch call if the ball is on its way down - to prevent guys from purposely drawing illegal contact penalties by waiting to the last second to call fair catch. IMO, that's kind of what Randle-El did.

Additionally, I think its a matter of intent and whether the refs thought Teal purposely pushed the Skins player into him. IMO, there was no intent, and I think the fact that Westbrook was running, turned around to engage Teal, and then got thrown forward as a result, was the reason they didn't call it.

I don't completely understand the rule that the play by play guys were using to justify it. I'm clear on why we got the ball after, but I don't know what rule they were using to justify it being the right call regarding the no-call on illegal contact.

As I said, I think it was a matter of the refs measuring the intent of Teal, and being that Westbrook turned around and engaged him, it was Westbrook's fault.

[chow184]

Unless I'm mistaken, or the rule has been changed, I thought there was a rule that voids a fair catch call if the ball is on its way down - to prevent guys from purposely drawing illegal contact penalties by waiting to the last second to call fair catch. IMO, that's kind of what Randle-El did.

Additionally, I think its a matter of intent and whether the refs thought Teal purposely pushed the Skins player into him. IMO, there was no intent, and I think the fact that Westbrook was running, turned around to engage Teal, and then got thrown forward as a result, was the reason they didn't call it.

I don't completely understand the rule that the play by play guys were using to justify it. I'm clear on why we got the ball after, but I don't know what rule they were using to justify it being the right call regarding the no-call on illegal contact.

As I said, I think it was a matter of the refs measuring the intent of Teal, and being that Westbrook turned around and engaged him, it was Westbrook's fault.

the fair call was fine

teal tossing westbrook was fine. by the book.

you don't need to defend it or make it westbrooks fault.

I'd simply say it was taking advantage of a non-rule. teal saw that randle el had fair catch signaled and made a heads up play by chucking his blocker into randle el. a ref can't call that a penalty,if he did he'd be going against the NFL rulebook.

[beastson]

Teal pushed him into Randel El... oh really

[Kevin Greene]

There is just not enough muff in the NFL anymore.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[natty]

it's a perfectly legal thing to do by the book,but I'm sure if it keeps happening,the owners will change the interference rule to include chucking a player on the receiving team into the returner AFTER fair catch has been called.

you can clearly see the carolina play chucked the redskin player into the returner,and that he wasn't merely blocked into him.

like I said in the other thread. it's dope when your team does it,but if someone does it to you,you'll feel like someone just robbed you.

I doubt it. The football still has to touch the receiving team first. 9 times out of 10 the ball would hit Teal's back.

[guyinchesapeake]

"Maybe the penalty only occurs if a player from the kicking team comes in contact with the fair catcher."

It's always a penalty if the covering team hits the guy waving for a fair catch, unless the covering team member is blocked into the receiver, or unless the fair catcher actually muffs the ball. Anyone has the 'right' to fend off a block, regardless of what kind of play is happening, or where they are on the field. It's up to the receiving team's members to know where they are on the filed when a punt is airborne, and it is up to them to avoid being shoved into their own receiver if they are actually engaged in blocking.

What I can't find anywhere is an answer to this question: Can the punt receiver be hit before the ball arrives and NO fair catch signal has been given? I believe he cannot be hit until the punt 'hits him', but again, I cannot find a source that says 'yay or nay' either way!

[Snake]

If the punt teams defender is engaged with our player and and ends up hitting his man then its not a foul. This has bit us in the ass before also. So Teal knew this and sent him into the guy. It was a heads up play and the PR guy is supposed to yell out ether DOG DOG or some sort of call to let his teammates know not to block. I guess it didnt happen.

[hdevonxz]

Cuz Godfrey was "engaged" in a block and since it was his own teammate that bumped into him, no call.

[Brooklyn Bully]

Just watched Panthers Huddle on NBC after the late news. Most of us on here know the play was legal...but just to get it through to those who don't, co-host Mike Minter said Danny Crossman teaches that exact move. Teal did it perfectly. Jake also mentioned the perfectly done play by Teal.

[goodlay]

Basically, it was a douche bag move that helped us steal a game that we shouldn't have won. I'll take it though.

[Brooklyn Bully]

Basically, it was a douche bag move that helped us steal a game that we shouldn't have won. I'll take it though.

Or a perfectly legal move, that they practice, that worked perfectly, allowing us to get the ball and eventually score.

Neg rep you if I could.

[goodlay]

Or a perfectly legal move, that they practice, that worked perfectly, allowing us to get the ball and eventually score.

Neg rep you if I could.

Hm, so this is the only time in Crossman's tenure that this just happened to come into fruition and when it did, it was executed perfectly? I have a hard time believing that, sorry. Seemed like a heads-up play if anything, to me.

[Brooklyn Bully]

Hm, so this is the only time in Crossman's tenure that this just happened to come into fruition and when it did, it was executed perfectly? I have a hard time believing that, sorry. Seemed like a heads-up play if anything, to me.

First it was a douchebag move, now it's heads-up? Make up your mind.