- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No PI on Punt pass
Posted on 12/8/19 at 9:37 pm to BDJ
Posted on 12/8/19 at 9:37 pm to BDJ
Here's the entire rule.
So the gunner definitely cannot throw down the defender. So now we know.
quote:
Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation and until the ball is kicked, defensive acts that normally
constitute pass interference are permitted against the end man on the line of scrimmage, or against an eligible receiver
behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line, provided
that the acts do not constitute illegal holding. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result
in a five-yard penalty from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply
So the gunner definitely cannot throw down the defender. So now we know.
2
Posted on 12/8/19 at 9:43 pm to AFtigerFan
Thank you, “an apparent punt formation” our fricking punter wasn’t even in the game.
Posted on 12/8/19 at 10:02 pm to keakar
quote:
even still holding could have, and should have, been called on that but its not reviewable
When have you ever seen that called?
Gunners, get held, shoved, pushed out of bounds and none of that shite is ever called.
The design of the play was stupid. That you are going to pick the guy (gunner) in all of football that can be seemingly legally roughed up as your primary receiver is idiotic.
Posted on 12/8/19 at 10:42 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
So what happens if Drew Brees is 10 yards back of LOS next game? I get the point SN is making. There should have been holding called but I understand why PI wasn’t called. But what says that you are punting because of a certain formation.
Posted on 12/8/19 at 10:58 pm to keakar
I hear what you're saying but why do they call it a fake punt. The officials saw it was a fake punt and the throw which in my opinion should cancel out the gunner rule.There was definitely interference and holding with the play.
Very confusing.
Very confusing.
Posted on 12/8/19 at 11:25 pm to AFtigerFan
That actually makes no sense.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 6:51 am to Pintail
quote:
So what makes wide receiver not a gunner when he is lined up wide on 4th with the quarterback in shotgun?
Here is the rule
quote:
Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation and until the ball is kicked, defensive acts that normally
constitute pass interference are permitted against the end man on the line of scrimmage, or against an eligible receiver
behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line, provided
that the acts do not constitute illegal holding. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result
in a five-yard penalty from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply.
We all know what a punt formation looks like, if you are in a formation designed to look like a punt, regular offensive PI rules do not apply regardless if you call them a gunner of whatever. That is true of any eligible receiver.
I think the real question all along is was there holding. There clearly was IMO and that is what Payton was arguing.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 7:20 am to mdomingue
quote:
Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation
Nah dude, this is not good enough. We need pictures, diagrams, tables, charts. All of a sudden we have a bunch of morons in our fan base that dont know what a punt formation is.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 7:24 am to Pendulum
quote:quote:
Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation
Nah dude, this is not good enough. We need pictures, diagrams, tables, charts. All of a sudden we have a bunch of morons in our fan base that dont know what a punt formation is.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 7:33 am to Pendulum
quote:
Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation
Nah dude, this is not good enough. We need pictures, diagrams, tables, charts. All of a sudden we have a bunch of morons in our fan base that dont know what a punt formation is.
You realize you can punt out of the i formation if you wanted to.. So I guess the i formation could also be the punt formation.
And yes, if there is a rule that says when lined up in the punt formation you need to define what a punt formation is.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 8:00 am to Pintail
quote:
So I guess the i formation could also be the punt formation.
No. No I guess not.
You guys were smart enough to refer to this play as a "fake punt". I wonder how that's possible seeing as it's so ambiguous when a team presents a punt formation.
Must be the same guys that strangled themselves with their mattress and that's why we have 2 page warning labels.
This post was edited on 12/9/19 at 8:02 am
Posted on 12/9/19 at 8:03 am to SaintNation
quote:
Thank you, “an apparent punt formation” our fricking punter wasn’t even in the game.
Are you saying that wasn't a fake punt play?
Posted on 12/9/19 at 8:05 am to Pintail
quote:
You realize you can punt out of the i formation if you wanted to.. So I guess the i formation could also be the punt formation
I've never seen a team run a fake punt while in the i formation.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 9:00 am to TigerJeff
OK. So it's legal to throw a forward pass to a gunner. It's also legal to commit pass interference against a gunner who is attempting to catch a pass. That makes no sense. If the rule is designed to protect players in punt formation/punt execution/fake punt execution, (like protecting the snapper), how does this rule "protect" the gunner/receiver??
True, the rule is the rule; the Electoral College is stupid, but it's the rule.
Now, how about holding? The defender can't hold the gunner, but he can commit pass interference. The defender can shove/push the gunner/receiver. He can't grab/hold him. See the difference? The defender could've legally pushed Smith; however, he illegally grabbed and held him. Are you telling me that's not a holding penalty, b/c we were throwing the ball? Again, the rule makes no sense.
True, the rule is the rule; the Electoral College is stupid, but it's the rule.
Now, how about holding? The defender can't hold the gunner, but he can commit pass interference. The defender can shove/push the gunner/receiver. He can't grab/hold him. See the difference? The defender could've legally pushed Smith; however, he illegally grabbed and held him. Are you telling me that's not a holding penalty, b/c we were throwing the ball? Again, the rule makes no sense.
Posted on 12/9/19 at 9:34 am to TigerJeff
quote:
OK. So it's legal to throw a forward pass to a gunner. It's also legal to commit pass interference against a gunner who is attempting to catch a pass. That makes no sense. If the rule is designed to protect players in punt formation/punt execution/fake punt execution, (like protecting the snapper), how does this rule "protect" the gunner/receiver??
It doesn't protect the gunner/receiver. It's just a quality of life rule because the blocker of gunner doesn't ever turn his head to ball to see if it was a fake or not once the snap occurs; and he is allowed to block and put his hands on the gunner. If this rule didn't exist, then you could constantly abuse the blocker on the gunner with forced pass interference calls. It makes complete sense to me.
quote:
Now, how about holding? The defender can't hold the gunner, but he can commit pass interference. The defender can shove/push the gunner/receiver. He can't grab/hold him. See the difference? The defender could've legally pushed Smith; however, he illegally grabbed and held him. Are you telling me that's not a holding penalty, b/c we were throwing the ball? Again, the rule makes no sense.
Now this; this is a valid argument, and I will not call anyone a moron who is arguing this was holding on the blocker. However the rule does stipulate them falling to the ground; so it clears the rules unfortunately. Seems it could be abused though. I'm thinking the play was designed to attack this rule perhaps.
Posted on 12/10/19 at 11:43 pm to SaintNation
LINK
This post was edited on 12/10/19 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 12/11/19 at 12:14 am to TigerJeff
‘ello ‘ello ‘ello?
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:06 am to SaintNation
Check out the game between Arizona and Tampa Bay Arizona faked a punt Tampa Bay was called for pass interference
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:10 am to Stirling
See Link two posts above
Posted on 12/11/19 at 11:32 am to SaintNation
If it wasn't a punt formation, did Josh Hill and Zack Wood identify themselves as ineligible receivers? This is required in a non-special teams situation where you are wearing an eligible receiver number but lining up in an ineligible position - both were covered on the line. The Patriots took advantage of this a few years back - putting a tight end at tackle, declaring him ineligible one play, then declaring another eligible receive ineligible on the next play and throwing a pass to the tight end.
So if it wasn't a punt formation, it should have been an illegal formation against the Saints.
So if it wasn't a punt formation, it should have been an illegal formation against the Saints.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News