HawkFreak":cwp7rbkk said:
niveky":cwp7rbkk said:
Smellyman":cwp7rbkk said:
No foul if this is it:
Rule 12-4-1(a) explains that an illegal bat occurs if “a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line. While Rule 12-4-1(a) doesn’t expressly require intent, Rule 3-2-5(g) defines illegal batting as “the intentional striking of the ball with hand, fist, elbow, or forearm.”
not towards the opponents goal line
Edit: someone else could find the actual rule, someone smarter than me.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-dolphins-patriots-game-comes-under-scrutiny/
That says TOWARDS OPPONENT GOAL LINE.....he was past the opponents goal line and hit it out the back of the endzone....does no one understand reading comprehension? I mean...am I missing something here?
I did see another post that mentioned it being illegal to bat the ball in any direction in either endzone.
What I don't understand is someone reported that the "spirit of the rule" in this case is that the Lions could recover it for a TD. Regardless of the fact that it didn't appear any Lion would be able to before KJ got it...why then is a punter or QB allowed to deny the opposing team the opportunity to recover an muffed snap or fumble in the endzone by batting it out for a safety? I know some explained that the safety and possession change is the penalty so they don't call the "illegal bat in any direction in either endzone"...but in the "spirit of the rule" they intentionally denied the team the chance at recovering football and scoring 7 points. There's certainly no guarantee that gaining 2 points and the ball would turn into more than the 7 points a recovered ball would give the opposing team.
Firstly, I want to say that Seattle deserved to win the game. And if the refs had called it correctly, there's no guarantee the Lions score; even if they do, Seattle would have had over a minute, so even if Detroit scores, there's still not guarantee they win the game.
Having said that, my fiancée is the only one that can back me up on this, but as soon as I saw the play I said "that's a foul". I wish it would have been called, but they are so inconsistent with it that it's not surprising that they didn't call it.
What Peyton Manning did for example in the superbowl against the Seahawks on the first play of the game was the same foul - and as previously noted we've seen multiple punters and QBs do it - what's the difference though?
When is the last time you saw a team intentionally bat the ball out of the end zone when a player fumbles while going into the end zone? This is the first time I've seen it happen.
Here's the difference to me: when the ball goes into the offenses own end zone, any outcome is better for the defense than what the penalty would be.
So when Peyton batted the ball out of the end zone for a safety against Seattle in the superbowl, they should have thrown a flag and said illegal batting 5 yard penalty against Denver....but the penalty would be declined every time.
Now, it still should be called, because it's a foul for a reason. And maybe they come up with a new enforcement because a punter or QB batting the ball IS an advantage - it prevents the defense from potentially getting a TD.
But the difference here is that when a ball is fumbled into the defenses end zone, good things can happen for BOTH teams - either a turn over or a TD. So the difference between the two scenarios is that one really only benefits one team, while the other could benefit both teams - to be clear, I'm saying that both SHOULD be called. I'm just explaining my take on why it's typically NOT called.
Either way...the Lions deserved to lose. I don't feel bad for the Lions, I feel bad for the fans, who seem to get the short end of big calls every year. The fans didn't fumble, so all they're going to be focused on is the call (rightfully so)....but the Lions literally fumbled the game away, so they have nothing to complain about.
As for why ESPN spent time on it....if another network or twitter broke the news about the illegal bat, it would look pretty bad for ESPN to not have caught it when it was on their network.
