Montgomery's kickoff play

[HarveyWallbangers]

Exactly, Cobb was in the same situation a few years back and didn't do it.

Actually, I remember Cobb doing this in a game a few years ago.

[King Friday]

I'm not sure someone like Cobb, from such a backwoods university as Kentucky, would have the intelligence to make such a brilliant play. Only a Stanford alum could deduce such a fabulous ploy.

[Patler]

That's good on Monty and the Packers for taking advantage, but it doesn't seem right that a player can run out of bounds, touch the ball when it remains in bounds, and have it work to pretty big advantage. If it happens another time or two this year, the rules committee might take that one up for review.

I agree. The logic of the rule escapes me.

It's no different than having a foot out of bounds and catching a pass. It's ruled out of bounds. This one just looked odd because of how much he stretched to bring the ball in.

[hoosier]

It's no different than having a foot out of bounds and catching a pass. It's ruled out of bounds. This one just looked odd because of how much he stretched to bring the ball in.

Not quite. Catching a pass with a foot out of bounds means the receiver is out of bounds and the ball is dead (but not out of bounds). The kick never went out of bounds; intuitively it would make more sense to say the ball is dead where it was first touched by the player whose foot is out of bounds.

[Joemailman]

It's no different than having a foot out of bounds and catching a pass. It's ruled out of bounds. This one just looked odd because of how much he stretched to bring the ball in.

Well, except that if you're out of bounds on a pass play, the other team doesn't get penalized 38 yards. I really question why a player who is out of bounds should be allowed to touch the ball that is in bounds. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Patler]

Well, except that if you're out of bounds on a pass play, the other team doesn't get penalized 38 yards. I really question why a player who is out of bounds should be allowed to touch the ball that is in bounds. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

What if he just drifted over to catch the ball on the fly, and did, but with one foot out of bounds? Would you rule that differently? The league wants the ball kept in bounds on kickoffs, and established a very significant consequence for failing to do so. For whatever reason, that was important to them. Smart players narrow the field a few more feet on each side. That's about all it is.

[KYPack]

I'm not sure someone like Cobb, from such a backwoods university as Kentucky, would have the intelligence to make such a brilliant play. Only a Stanford alum could deduce such a fabulous ploy.

Kentucky?

Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, and more money baby.

[vince]

The league wants the ball kept in bounds on kickoffs, and established a very significant consequence for failing to do so.

When the ball is kept in play but the player goes out of play before touching it. I think you're right that there was a reason for it but I don't see the logic of penalizing a team for accurately placing a kickoff near the sideline - but not out of bounds - as a strategy for pinning a team back and helping the coverage team succeed. As you said, the penalty is severe if the ball goes out of bounds, but when it doesn't, the risk-reward should be there.

What would be the difference in the same situation with a punt? If the returner goes out of bounds and fields the ball it's a dead ball at that spot I believe correct?

[Patler]

There is no penalty for punting out of bounds, and it doesn't matter what causes the out of bounds to occur. There is a penalty for kickoffs out of bounds, and it doesn't matter what causes the out of bounds to occur. It is consistent in its own way.

[vince]

I guess it makes for an interesting occurrence once every five years or so. I'd love to see someone launch a drop-kick through the uprights in the middle of a play some day.

[King Friday]

To me, the kickoff isn't meant to be as strategical as a punt. The team kicking off just scored (unless it is the start of a half) and the purpose of the play is to get the ball to the other team and give their offense a chance to move up the field. I don't think the NFL really wants to have kickoffs regularly near the sideline...which is why they've put in the harsh penalty for OOB kicks, and also have this rule in place. I think the general idea that is being promoted is for most kickoffs to come down somewhere between the numbers instead of having them close to the sidelines.

The live ball forces the return team to make a play on the ball. You can't just take a chance on where it bounces like you would with a punt...hoping it goes out of bounds or into the endzone. Anything close to the sidelines basically has to be fielded by the returner, so this rule helps the returner make the catch without being forced to have to watch the sideline if it is close.

[vince]

I'm not sure where one would find the roots of the rule but I do see the possibility of there being too much of an advantage to kicking to the sideline without the strong penalty. That cuts the amount of space and improves the pursuit angles for the coverage teams tremendously, which is obviously why kickers usually angle the kick to one side or the other when they kick to cover rather than through the end zone - even with the added risk of the out of bounds rule. It puts a premium on accuracy and gives the return team a half-assed chance rather than just getting squeezed out of bounds. I'm converted.

[Pugger]

You apparently didn't read my post to start this thread???

Man, my eyes are not working very well...

[channtheman]

Remember Devin Hester doing this for the Bears a few years back, or was that Cobb for the Packers?

[CaptainKickass]

Obligatory "Cobb did it years ago" post.