RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Football League => Topic started by: golfingref on December 22, 2013, 05:38:52 PM
-
Watching the Pittsburgh / Green Bay game. Illegal bat by B after a blocked field goal attempt. Half the distance and automatic first down for A. I know in NFHS, PSK would be in order. Just wondering about the NFL rule.
-
it sure did look like the steelers had possession and pitched then i agree there was an illegal batting.
the big question is how can they not review whether there was possession?
-
the original answer is Yes there is PSK enforcement in the NFL
-
No problem with the batting. Just with the enforcement.
-
Where did the bat take place? Behind or beyond the LOS?
-
Where did the bat take place? Behind or beyond the LOS?
Behind. Ball never crossed the neutral zone. They missed the possession but otherwise had it right. That's a huge miss though.
-
But if there is PSK, B should have kept the ball. Foul by B after the snap and before the kick ends. But if B had possession of the ball, they also should have kept the ball.
-
For PSK the ball has to go past the previous LOS
-
The NFL calls is a post-possession foul. It did not apply here because the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage.
The officials enforced the penalty correctly (with their assumption that the player did not complete the process of the recovery). An illegal bat is treated as a foul during a backward pass or fumble. The penalty happened behind the LOS. When the spot of a backward pass or fumble is behind the LOS, all fouls committed by either team (including a foul by Team B in A's endzone) are enforced from the previous spot.
PIT also couldn't get the ball after their penalty because they did not get the ball with clean hands.
And recovery of a loose ball is not reviewable in the NFL unless it involves a boundary or the endzone.
-
Thanks for the insight, APG. But since the illegal batting occurred after the 'possession' by Pit, if it had been ruled so, then Pit would have kept the ball, correct?
-
Thanks for the insight, APG. But since the illegal batting occurred after the 'possession' by Pit, if it had been ruled so, then Pit would have kept the ball, correct?
Not an NFL rules expert but I would guess Pittsburgh would have kept the ball. Also, if they had ruled Pittsburgh got possession, I believe replay would have also ruled he was down before the pitched it so technically the backward pass didn't happen.
-
Thanks for the insight, APG. But since the illegal batting occurred after the 'possession' by Pit, if it had been ruled so, then Pit would have kept the ball, correct?
Yes...if all things were the same with the officials ruling possession by PIT, they would have kept the ball.