Missed Safety in GB/SF game?

[Ceodore]

Was listening to Satellite Radio on my home from work yesterday, a man called in claiming to be a college referee. He said that after we tied the game, before SF drove down the field to win; on our kickoff to them the returner flubbed the kick in the field of play and the ball rolled around / into the endzone maybe. He then batted the ball out of the back of the endzone and a touchback was called.

His point was (if i remember correctly), that since he muffed the kick in the field of play, by swatting it out of the back of the endzone it would have been illegal hitting of the ball and should have resulted in a safety for GB. If this is the case, it obviously went unnoticed during the game and continues to go unnoticed as nothing has been made from it.

I wasn't paying that close of attention to the kick and haven't seen the video again. But if it was indeed called incorrectly, that was a huge blown call.

Thoughts, opinions, or recollections? The guy seemed pretty certain of himself and was citing NFL rulebook bylaws as evidence.

Edit: guess i should have googled it first. Apparently would not have been a safety, just a 10 yard penalty rekick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hael-james-wouldnt-have-resulted-in-a-safety/

Double Edit: Would it make a difference if he muffed outside of the endzone as opposed to in the endzone?

 

[NOMOFO]

I found this article:

San Francisco kick returner LaMichael James batted the kickoff out of the end zone. Under Rule 12-4-1(b), an illegal bat occurs if “a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone.”

Some have suggested that the penalty, if called, would have resulted in a safety — which would have given the Packers two points and would have required the 49ers to punt or kick from their own 20.

While the interpretation of the rule book on the appropriate consequence is too complex for an Internet hack with whom you may be familiar to decipher, a league source tells PFT that the proper interpretation would have been to enforce the 10-yard penalty from the spot of the kickoff.

This means the Packers would have been able to choose between another kick from their own 40, or declining the penalty and having the 49ers start the drive from their 20.
------------------------------------
I believe this is one of those "intent" rules. There's a difference between batting the ball to avoid the other team from getting it and scoring a TD, verses batting the ball on a kickoff like he did with nobody near him.

 

[Ceodore]

I agree, but if he dropped it at say, the 2 yard line, he gave himself a potential 18 yard advantage by batting it out of the endzone.

 

[NOMOFO]

Not sure. That's just what I found on-line about it.

Clearly there were no Packers close by him and it actually looked like the ball would have bounced out but... I don't know.

For me personally, I would love it if we got back to the players being able to decide games on the field. I thought the officials Sunday did a great job of letting them play. I'd love to see PI rules be rolled back to the year 1965!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I´m not so sure Pro Football Talk is right about that. While I haven´t had any idea of the rule and didn´t recognize there was anything wrong with it, taking a look into the NFL rulebook, maybe the play should have resulted in a safety.

Here´s the rule:

That´s a supplemental note in the NFL rulebook to the illegal batting rule:

If the penalty for an illegal bat or kick is declined, the procedure is the same as though the ball had been muffed.
However, if the act (impetus) sends the ball behind a goal line, 3-15-3 applies.

Rule 3-15-3, which is actually 3-16-3, explain what an impetus is.

Safety. It is a Safety:
(b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its
possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

So.............was it a safety or not ? Thats three different interpretations I`ve read now . Not that it makes any difference now of course.

 

[NOMOFO]

So.............was it a safety or not ? Thats three different interpretations I`ve read now . Not that it makes any difference now of course.

I'm sure the no call was the right call because according to Bears fans, the NFL favors the Pack on calls so they get them into the SB. (Seriously... that's a talking point these days on Bears forums and talk shows) Fricken clowns.

Try pointing out to them that some of the worst blown calls in NFL history have come against the Packers over the past 2 years. Everything from the "fail mary" to the refs not letting us snap the ball against the Steelers with the game expiring.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I'm sure the no call was the right call because according to Bears fans, the NFL favors the Pack on calls so they get them into the SB. (Seriously... that's a talking point these days on Bears forums and talk shows) Fricken clowns.

Try pointing out to them that some of the worst blown calls in NFL history have come against the Packers over the past 2 years. Everything from the "fail mary" to the refs not letting us snap the ball against the Steelers with the game expiring.

Fortunately I don`t come into contact with them here in the UK. . I work with a 49er fan, and a Dolphins fan. I`m off ill at the moment so don`t have to listen to the 9er fan going on and on about Sunday.

 

[NOMOFO]

Fortunately I don`t come into contact with them here in the UK. . I work with a 49er fan, and a Dolphins fan. I`m off ill at the moment so don`t have to listen to the 9er fan going on and on about Sunday.

Lucky you. Trust me, you are lucky. We have a lake cottage in Northern Wisconsin and dealing with FIBs is the worst part of being up there. I can tolerate the mosquitoes. It's the FIBs that I can't stand. lol

 

[D3uc3]

I´m not so sure Pro Football Talk is right about that. While I haven´t had any idea of the rule and didn´t recognize there was anything wrong with it, taking a look into the NFL rulebook, maybe the play should have resulted in a safety.

Here´s the rule:

That´s a supplemental note in the NFL rulebook to the illegal batting rule:

If the penalty for an illegal bat or kick is declined, the procedure is the same as though the ball had been muffed.
However, if the act (impetus) sends the ball behind a goal line, 3-15-3 applies.

Rule 3-15-3, which is actually 3-16-3, explain what an impetus is.

Safety. It is a Safety:
(b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its
possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line.

Was listening to Satellite Radio on my home from work yesterday, a man called in claiming to be a college referee. He said that after we tied the game, before SF drove down the field to win; on our kickoff to them the returner flubbed the kick in the field of play and the ball rolled around / into the endzone maybe. He then batted the ball out of the back of the endzone and a touchback was called.

His point was (if i remember correctly), that since he muffed the kick in the field of play, by swatting it out of the back of the endzone it would have been illegal hitting of the ball and should have resulted in a safety for GB. If this is the case, it obviously went unnoticed during the game and continues to go unnoticed as nothing has been made from it.

I wasn't paying that close of attention to the kick and haven't seen the video again. But if it was indeed called incorrectly, that was a huge blown call.

Thoughts, opinions, or recollections? The guy seemed pretty certain of himself and was citing NFL rulebook bylaws as evidence.

Edit: guess i should have googled it first. Apparently would not have been a safety, just a 10 yard penalty rekick.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hael-james-wouldnt-have-resulted-in-a-safety/

Double Edit: Would it make a difference if he muffed outside of the endzone as opposed to in the endzone?

Hey as much as I want the packers to be in the hunt still for the big dance they did it to themselves TT that is he knew we needed another playmaker in our front 7 and Safety would present problem but he elected to go with what he signed even after losing close games due to our safeties not being able to stop a nosebleed, And the back QB situation let's not even get into it, TT gambled on our season and we lost only good thing is Chicago and Detroit suck and can't win **** to save their lives and we limped away with the NFC North Title this Year!

 

[Ceodore]

I'm just a little surprised it isn't being discussed a little more in the media and elsewhere when the result of the play would have basically changed the result of the game. Maybe the NFL is trying to keep it hush hush.

I'll be the first to admit that I found the play to be as innocuous as the next guy when watching in real time, but i'm a little surprised more people didn't notice or question it. The PFT article mentions they asked a league source. Perhaps the league source was just trying to make it not seem like a big deal?