Randall Cobb's quick thinking!

[PedroDaGr8]

Link (http://nfl.si.com/2012/12/23/randall-cobb-takes-advantage-of-bizarre-nfl-rule/?sct=obnetwork)


The kickoff landed shy of the Green Bay goal line and rolled nearly to a stop at about the 4. Rather than pick up the ball and return it, Cobb put one foot on the sideline and fielded it — meaning that the kickoff, technically, had landed out of bounds, which led to a penalty against the Titans and gave Green Bay possession on its own 40.


A brilliant quick thinking move.

[Darrell KSR]

Terrific video of it, too.

Randall Cobb. Winner. What a play.

[fastkat]

We already knew he was a smart football player

[dan_bgblue]

We already knew he was a smart football player

Heck of a lot smarter than me, as I did not know the rule and would ave spotted the ball at the point he touched it. JMHO, but that is a messed up rule, but I give all the credit to Cobb for knowing the rule and using it to the advantage of the Packers

[Darrell KSR]

Dan, do you think the rule is messed up because

a) Cobb went out of bounds intentionally before touching the ball, and an "intentional" act shouldn't count, or

b) A ball that touches a player out of bounds should mean that the player caused the ball to go out of bounds, and be spotted there at all times? Or maybe if the ball is otherwise in bounds? (I.e., still allowing it to be a kickoff "out of bounds" if it strikes a player out of bounds, provided that the ball is also out of bounds at the time?)

[dan_bgblue]

a) If the ball dies on the field of play it is a legal kick. Any action by the receiving team should not negate the fact it is a legal kick.

b) If the player is out of bounds and he touches the ball while it is still in the field of play the ball should be spotted there. If the player is out of bounds and the ball crosses the sidelines before touching the player, the kick should be ruled out of bounds and be spotted at the 40

c) On a kick off play, if the player is in bounds and he reaches across the sideline to successfully field a ball that left the field of play in the air but has crossed the sideline, what would be the correct ruling today?

[Darrell KSR]

So if I'm reading you right, you believe the location of the ball should be the deciding point. It's the "soccer" rule, rather than the basketball rule. In soccer, a player can go out of bounds all he wants, as long as the ball stays within the boundaries. It leads to some funny looking plays, but really, I like the rule.

In basketball, if a player touches out of bounds, and part of the player OR the basketball touches out of bounds, then the ball is out of bounds. That is similar to the football rule as it now exists.

I think what disturbs people about the rule is how it is applied here. In most cases, the punishment for being out of bounds, and having the ball declared out of bounds, is on the player's team who is out of bounds. Try to catch a ball, but your toe touches out of bounds--incomplete pass.

Here, though, it is used as a weapon to punish the other team.

That's where (some) people have had issues with the rule application, as it exists in my a) question above. They are irritated that an intentional act by a player can create an unusual situation in which the rule really did not intend to apply. I'm not a fan of that argument. If the rule says a ball that touches a player who is out of bounds is an out of bounds ball, I don't care if it is because the player did it on purpose or not. That's part of the game.

One note here of clarification -- the ball had not "died on the field of play," as you mention in your first subpart. I don't know how that changes the rule, but the ball was still moving there. Maybe the ball would've stopped inbounds. Maybe it wouldn't--take a look at the last move it made prior to him touching it--end over end, 90 degrees perpendicular to the sideline. Not sure if it had enough momentum to touch the sideline or not.

Side note--while looking up a little of this, I found a message board post from 4 years ago. Here it is, in its entirety:


Bearflag70
11-17-2008, 01:46 AM
Another interesting rule I learned the other day was regarding kickoffs going out of bounds. It's a penalty on the kicking team to kickoff out of bounds. I knew that.

However, if the ball is rolling CLOSE to the sideline in the field of play, the return player can put one foot out of bounds, then reach into the field of play, and touch the ball; the result is considered a kickoff out of bounds penalty on the kicking team even though the ball itself never actually went over the sideline.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-493278.html

Fascinating! Supposedly, it is the same rule as in rugby, although I know ZERO about rugby.

On your answer to c), a kickoff is never out of bounds unless the ball touches something out of bounds. In Randall's case, it was the player. In your example, it is a legal kick, no matter how far over the sideline it goes, since it is in bounds until it is out of bounds. (Yeah, I know that *sounded* stupid, but don't judge me too harshly!)

[dan_bgblue]

After watching the replay again I have to agree that the ball had not stopped moving. IMO it had lost all forward momentum, but that is just my perception. IF the ball was completely inert on the field of play, Cobb's actions would still result in the penalty being assessed against the kicking team.


I think what disturbs people about the rule is how it is applied here. In most cases, the punishment for being out of bounds, and having the ball declared out of bounds, is on the player's team who is out of bounds. Try to catch a ball, but your toe touches out of bounds--incomplete pass.

I can agree with that. A similar rule, if it were in place, would be a receiver standing out of bounds catching a ball that had been deflected by a defender and the pass being ruled complete because of the deflection. The penalty is applied to the defense for deflecting the ball.