PDA

View Full Version : Weird NFL Rules


DaFace
11-09-2007, 12:42 PM
I was watching "Official Review" on the NFL Network last week, and they reviewed an interesting play. The QB was under center, and the center snapped the ball completely out of whack. The ball went off to the left of the QB without touching him. This is apparently, by rule, a false start. On the other hand, if the QB is in the shotgun but the ball goes around him without touching him, this is a fumble and is a live ball.

I understand the point of the rule, but it's certainly one of those that's not very intuitive. So what other weird rules are there that I should know? The "fair catch kick" comes to mind, but I'm sure there are many more.

unothadeal
11-09-2007, 12:47 PM
Encroachment. I've never understood how that one works.

DaFace
11-09-2007, 12:52 PM
Encroachment. I've never understood how that one works.

What's weird about that one? If I understand correctly, encroachment is just touching an offensive player before the snap. Is there another part of it you're wondering about?

Rain Man
11-09-2007, 12:55 PM
I don't understand the point of that rule. Should be a snap and a fumble.

I remember when Darren Sproles muffed a punt once and it bounced right out of his arms into the arms of a punt coverage guy (not a Chief, some other team). The punt coverage guy then got called for a penalty because the ball apparently belongs to Sproles until it hits the ground. It was a very nonsensical call in that situation, though I can see why they do it. Otherwise, players would be nailing the fair-catching punt returner and claiming that they saw a muff.

unothadeal
11-09-2007, 01:00 PM
What's weird about that one? If I understand correctly, encroachment is just touching an offensive player before the snap. Is there another part of it you're wondering about?
:p

FAX
11-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Illegal Acceleration.

I hate this rule. Basically, the league says a team may not jam Roman Candles up their runner's ass.

FAX

ferrarispider95
11-09-2007, 01:06 PM
Illegal Acceleration.

I hate this rule. Basically, the league says a team may not jam Roman Candles up their runner's ass.

FAX

ROFL

Stewie
11-09-2007, 01:15 PM
Leaping. I've never figured that one out.

Leaping in professional sports refers to a violation of NFL rules where a player on defense jumps in an attempt to block a field goal and lands on a fellow teammate. According to the rules, if a defensive player lines up more than one yard from the line of scrimmage, runs forward, jumps in the air in an attempt to block the kick, then lands on a teammate, this constitutes a leaping penalty. The penalty is also considered unsportsmanlike conduct, resulting in 15 yards (or half the distance to the goal, whichever is shorter) and an automatic first down.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 01:27 PM
What's weird about that one? If I understand correctly, encroachment is just touching an offensive player before the snap. Is there another part of it you're wondering about?

Encroachment also applies if the defensive player is across the neutral zone at the time of the snap, or if the defensive player causes an offensive player to move prior to the snap.

1ChiefsDan
11-09-2007, 01:28 PM
Leaping. I've never figured that one out.

Leaping in professional sports refers to a violation of NFL rules where a player on defense jumps in an attempt to block a field goal and lands on a fellow teammate. According to the rules, if a defensive player lines up more than one yard from the line of scrimmage, runs forward, jumps in the air in an attempt to block the kick, then lands on a teammate, this constitutes a leaping penalty. The penalty is also considered unsportsmanlike conduct, resulting in 15 yards (or half the distance to the goal, whichever is shorter) and an automatic first down.I thought leaping meant you couldn't use the lineman like a ramp - run up their back and jump to block the ball.

Didn't see it in the NFL rulebook though.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 01:29 PM
There's this whacky rule called the tuck rule. It has to do with the QB moving his arm forward as if he's going to pass, but doesn't, and if he subsequently drops the ball (even if it's knocked out of his hand), it may look alot like a fumble, but it's not unless he previously tucked the ball back into his body.

It's a really whacky rule. Never happens though...

Hydrae
11-09-2007, 01:32 PM
Encroachment also applies if the defensive player is across the neutral zone at the time of the snap, or if the defensive player causes an offensive player to move prior to the snap.


I was never clear on when it was encroachment and when it was offsides. It really almost seems like they just changed the terminology 10 years ago or so.

bobbything
11-09-2007, 01:39 PM
There's this whacky rule called the tuck rule. It has to do with the QB moving his arm forward as if he's going to pass, but doesn't, and if he subsequently drops the ball (even if it's knocked out of his hand), it may look alot like a fumble, but it's not unless he previously tucked the ball back into his body.

It's a really whacky rule. Never happens though...
Not so much as wacky, as completely and utterly stupid.

DaFace
11-09-2007, 01:47 PM
I don't understand the point of that rule. Should be a snap and a fumble.

I actually would have agreed, but the top zebra did a pretty good job of explaining it. Basically, the rule is designed to protect the defense. If it weren't there, you could have teams intentionally snapping the ball through the QB's legs directly to the RB. That's nearly impossible to see from a defender's standpoint, so the rule is there to make sure that, if the QB is under center, he's going to get the ball - no question.

DaFace
11-09-2007, 01:51 PM
Another one of these hit us against the Bears. The whole "fielding a kickoff with one foot out of bounds=kickoff out of bounds" things seems to be a BS rule as well.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 01:52 PM
I was never clear on when it was encroachment and when it was offsides. It really almost seems like they just changed the terminology 10 years ago or so.

Good point. Not sure what is encroachment versus offsides, or if they are just interchangeable?

Stewie
11-09-2007, 01:52 PM
I thought leaping meant you couldn't use the lineman like a ramp - run up their back and jump to block the ball.

Didn't see it in the NFL rulebook though.

You can't use a teammate for an illegal assist either, but leaping is just weird. If I remember correctly, leaping was called in a Chiefs' game in the not too distant past.

DaFace
11-09-2007, 01:53 PM
Good point. Not sure what is encroachment versus offsides, or if they are just interchangeable?

I think that encroachment requires contact, where offsides does not. Could be wrong, though.

Valiant
11-09-2007, 01:57 PM
You can't use a teammate for an illegal assist either, but leaping is just weird. If I remember correctly, leaping was called in a Chiefs' game in the not too distant past.


But can you jump over the offensive player.. And why isnt leaping called on Runningbacks who leap over a defender and land on one of their players and keep going.. WTF...

Stewie
11-09-2007, 01:58 PM
I think that encroachment requires contact, where offsides does not. Could be wrong, though.

You are correct.

JBucc
11-09-2007, 02:01 PM
It's offsides when a linemen just lines up past the LOS, or jumps forward too soon right at the snap without touching them. If he jerks froward and causes a linemen to move or touches a linemen then it's encroachment.

JBucc
11-09-2007, 02:02 PM
Uh....yeah, what he said.

JBucc
11-09-2007, 02:03 PM
Didn't leaping cause someone a playoff game, or a shot at a playoff game? I seem to remember the Bucs being involved.

Stewie
11-09-2007, 02:14 PM
It's offsides when a linemen just lines up past the LOS, or jumps forward too soon right at the snap without touching them. If he jerks froward and causes a linemen to move or touches a linemen then it's encroachment.

Is the "Neil Smith" rule considered encroachment?

patteeu
11-09-2007, 02:22 PM
I actually would have agreed, but the top zebra did a pretty good job of explaining it. Basically, the rule is designed to protect the defense. If it weren't there, you could have teams intentionally snapping the ball through the QB's legs directly to the RB. That's nearly impossible to see from a defender's standpoint, so the rule is there to make sure that, if the QB is under center, he's going to get the ball - no question.

I don't like that rationale. I'd like to give the offense that option and make the defense deal with it.

Of course, if I were making the rules, I'd probably repeal the fair catch option for punt returners too, so take my opinion for what it's worth. :)

patteeu
11-09-2007, 02:22 PM
Is the "Neil Smith" rule considered encroachment?

Oh yeah, I hate the Neil Smith rule too.

JBucc
11-09-2007, 02:25 PM
Is the "Neil Smith" rule considered encroachment?I guess. It might be a neutral zone infraction.

FAX
11-09-2007, 02:27 PM
I thought the Neil Smith rule was something different. Inducing a false start, maybe?

FAX

JBucc
11-09-2007, 02:27 PM
A player is offside when any part of his body is beyond his line of scrimmage or free kick line when the ball is put in play. Encroachment is when a defensive player enters the neutral zone with any part of his body and makes contact with an opponent prior to the ball being snapped. This play is killed immediately. A neutral zone infraction occurs whenever a defender enters the neutral zone, causing the offensive player in close proximity to react immediately (move). This play is shut down immediately, and no snap is allowed to occur. All three of these fouls carry a five-yard penalty and a replay of the down.

Link (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-041209jerrymarkbreitsanswers,1,5440703.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines)

Stewie
11-09-2007, 02:32 PM
I thought the Neil Smith rule was something different. Inducing a false start, maybe?

FAX

It is different because I don't think he entered the neutral zone. He would flinch and cause the offensive lineman to false start.

kcpasco
11-09-2007, 02:33 PM
When running backs grab the face mask its called a stiff arm.

FAX
11-09-2007, 02:36 PM
It is different because I don't think he entered the neutral zone. He would flinch and cause the offensive lineman to false start.

Exactly. I think they call it "inducement" or something now.

Personally, I loved it. One would think that the offensive linemen would catch on, eventually. But they never did.

FAX

JohninGpt
11-09-2007, 02:40 PM
When running backs grab the face mask its called a stiff arm.
Right, the running back can do pretty much anything he wants to protect himself. What he can't do is tackle a defensive player by his Cousin It hair after having the ball stripped, that's called unsportsmanlike conduct.

Otis99
11-09-2007, 02:43 PM
I remember when Darren Sproles muffed a punt once and it bounced right out of his arms into the arms of a punt coverage guy (not a Chief, some other team). The punt coverage guy then got called for a penalty because the ball apparently belongs to Sproles until it hits the ground. It was a very nonsensical call in that situation, though I can see why they do it. Otherwise, players would be nailing the fair-catching punt returner and claiming that they saw a muff.

We may be thinking of the same game, not sure - I remember this happening in a Steelers game. The guy fielding the punt called a fair catch but muffed it - the ball touched his body. Right after that happened, a defender levels the guy and another defender scoops up the ball. The ref called fair catch interference on the kicking team, because apparently on a fair you have to have the opportunity to catch the ball, even if you muff it.

I remember it being the Steelers because Bill Cowher went ballistic on the sidelines (they were the kicking team) and his eyes almost popped out of his head while he was screaming at the ref. If there's one thing I like about Cowher it was watching the guy argue. Bonus points for when they show him yelling in super-slow-mo.

Anyway, I thought that was a BS rule.

Calcountry
11-09-2007, 03:02 PM
Good point. Not sure what is encroachment versus offsides, or if they are just interchangeable?Kind of like, false start and Illegal procedure.

Calcountry
11-09-2007, 03:22 PM
Exactly. I think they call it "inducement" or something now.

Personally, I loved it. One would think that the offensive linemen would catch on, eventually. But they never did.

FAXThat is because Niel Smith was a bad ass mofo who could get off the line quicker than anybody but DT and the OL he was up against couldn't afford to NOT react.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 03:25 PM
Kind of like, false start and Illegal procedure.

I do tend to think of these differently. Maybe I'm right, but I might be wrong. I think of Illegal Procedure as including a number of errors by the offense, which includes but is not limited to False Start. False start is just when someone flinches when they should've been stone still.

Illegal procedure, to me, is not just false start, but also:

1. a man in motion who is moving towards the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.

2. two men in motion at the same time.

3. failure to set before the snap

4. failure to cover up on the line of scrimmage.


Am I right about this, or am I on an island here?

Garcia Bronco
11-09-2007, 03:27 PM
Spiking the ball forward if the runner is not down is considered an illegal forward pass...not a fumble.

1ChiefsDan
11-09-2007, 03:32 PM
Right, the running back can do pretty much anything he wants to protect himself. What he can't do is tackle a defensive player by his Cousin It hair after having the ball stripped, that's called unsportsmanlike conduct.ROFL

ct
11-09-2007, 03:37 PM
A blocked punt, touched but not possessed by a defensive player behind the LOS, then recovered by the kicking team behind the LOS, is a 1st down for the kicking team.

JohninGpt
11-09-2007, 03:38 PM
A blocked punt, touched but not possessed by a defensive player behind the LOS, then recovered by the kicking team behind the LOS, is a 1st down for the kicking team.
Bad memory, baffled, furious...

patteeu
11-09-2007, 03:40 PM
I do tend to think of these differently. Maybe I'm right, but I might be wrong. I think of Illegal Procedure as including a number of errors by the offense, which includes but is not limited to False Start. False start is just when someone flinches when they should've been stone still.

Illegal procedure, to me, is not just false start, but also:

1. a man in motion who is moving towards the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.

2. two men in motion at the same time.

3. failure to set before the snap

4. failure to cover up on the line of scrimmage.


Am I right about this, or am I on an island here?

I think you're right that "illegal procedure" includes more than just a false start although I couldn't begin to tell you what's included (without exhausting myself with a google search). I'm not sure where illegal procedure ends and illegal formation begins, for example.

FAX
11-09-2007, 03:41 PM
I do tend to think of these differently. Maybe I'm right, but I might be wrong. I think of Illegal Procedure as including a number of errors by the offense, which includes but is not limited to False Start. False start is just when someone flinches when they should've been stone still.

Illegal procedure, to me, is not just false start, but also:

1. a man in motion who is moving towards the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.

2. two men in motion at the same time.

3. failure to set before the snap

4. failure to cover up on the line of scrimmage.

Am I right about this, or am I on an island here?

To my mind, Manning violates several of those rules on every offensive snap.

FAX

FAX
11-09-2007, 03:41 PM
A blocked punt, touched but not possessed by a defensive player behind the LOS, then recovered by the kicking team behind the LOS, is a 1st down for the kicking team.

Yeah. What was that all about?

FAX

ottawa_chiefs_fan
11-09-2007, 03:49 PM
I always wondered about "unabated to the quarterback", 'til I read this:

An offside penalty is committed when a player is in the neutral zone at the snap of the ball. Unabated to the quarterback is when a defensive player charges across the line and is on his way to the quarterback before the ball is snapped. Encroachment is when a defensive player makes contact with an offensive player at the line of scrimmage prior to the ball being snapped. And delay of game by the defense is when a defensive player who is within a yard of the line of scrimmage makes a non-football move in an attempt to draw the offensive player into a false start. A non-football move would be jerking the body or arms or head in such a way as to trick the offense into moving without the defender actually coming into the neutral zone.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:07 PM
I think you're right that "illegal procedure" includes more than just a false start although I couldn't begin to tell you what's included (without exhausting myself with a google search). I'm not sure where illegal procedure ends and illegal formation begins, for example.

True, I have trouble there too. My instinct is that illegal procedures involve MOVEMENT, while illegal formations do not (leaving someone uncovered on the line, not enough men on the LOS and stuff like that).

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:09 PM
Oh, and as we all (re)learned recently, a field goal attempt that does not go out of bounds (even if it goes past the LOS) is IN PLAY, and can be returned by the receiving team.

If recovered by the kicking team, however, it becomes a dead ball.

Basically, it's about the same as a punt, but rarely thought of that way.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:11 PM
Kickoff is only a live ball if it goes more than 10 yards from the kickoff point, is touched by a defensive player, or goes out of bounds, in which case the receiving team gets the ball where it went out of bounds (not at its 40).

Not a hard rule, but a bit quirky.

Stewie
11-09-2007, 04:18 PM
Kickoff is only a live ball if it goes more than 10 yards from the kickoff point, is touched by a defensive player, or goes out of bounds, in which case the receiving team gets the ball where it went out of bounds (not at its 40).

Not a hard rule, but a bit quirky.

A kickoff is marked at the receiving team's 40 if it goes out of bounds. The exception is if the kick goes out of bounds beyond the receiving team's 40, then it's marked at the point it went out.

Demonpenz
11-09-2007, 04:21 PM
what about when hester had one foot out of bounds when we kicked off and we were called for illegal proceder kicking the ball out of bounds

ct
11-09-2007, 04:24 PM
And apparently, you cannot tell Suzy Kolber you want to kiss her on national TV while drunk. No definition as of yet if you're sober.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:25 PM
A kickoff is marked at the receiving team's 40 if it goes out of bounds. The exception is if the kick goes out of bounds beyond the receiving team's 40, then it's marked at the point it went out.

Yeah, I wasn't clear about that.

I was thinking psecifically of the context of an onside kick.

The point being that even if the ball doesn't go 10 yards, if it goes out of bounds, the play is complete and the opposing team gets the ball at that point.

If it stayed inbounds, however, nto going 10 yards, and the kicking team "recovered" it, the play is dead and there's a rekick unless the receiving team touched the ball FIRST.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:25 PM
what about when hester had one foot out of bounds when we kicked off and we were called for illegal proceder kicking the ball out of bounds

This raises a good one. On ANY play, if any part of the player's body is out of bounds, and touching the ball, the play is DEAD.

During 2001, one of the many LUCKY things that happened to teh Patriots that year was David Patten caught the ball and then got annihilated down the right sideline. He fell, fumbling as he did. A leg was out of bounds, but his arm was touching the ball, which was absolutely IN bounds. The Bills picked it up and took off with it.

Whistle. Play dead. No fumble. Pats keep possession.

:eek: :ROFL

Stewie
11-09-2007, 04:29 PM
Yeah, I wasn't clear about that.

I was thinking psecifically of the context of an onside kick.

The point being that even if the ball doesn't go 10 yards, if it goes out of bounds, the play is complete and the opposing team gets the ball at that point.

If it stayed inbounds, however, nto going 10 yards, and the kicking team "recovered" it, the play is dead and there's a rekick unless the receiving team touched the ball FIRST.

Ah, I missed your point. I guess their point is that a dead ball going out of bounds is a non-play. We used to call that "do-overs." :)

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:31 PM
Ah, I missed your point. I guess their point is that a dead ball going out of bounds is a non-play. We used to call that "do-overs." :)

Right, you would think so, but that's not correct.

A team very recently did this -- Dolphins against Giants in London. Kicker sent it out of bounds about 7 or so yards downfield. HORRIBLE onsides attempt. Giants ball.

xbarretx
11-09-2007, 04:31 PM
Illegal Acceleration.

I hate this rule. Basically, the league says a team may not jam Roman Candles up their runner's ass.

FAX


the team cant? what if he accidently sits on one?

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:31 PM
Here's a write up of the whacky play by David Patten:

Here's what happened on that disputatious play:

Pats receiver David Patten caught a 13-yard pass from New England quarterback Tom Brady at the Bills 41. He went down near the sideline and then fumbled the ball after Bills safety Keion Carpenter hit him hard. Nate Clements was Johnny-on-the-spot, scooping up the ball and giving the Bills possession. Then the officials huddled up and decided to go to the video review. After further review, the refs gave the ball back to the Pats.

"This is unbelievable," protested Clements. "I don't care what the call was, all I know is the ball was loose and we got it. Everybody saw it. We just never get any breaks."

They reached for this obscure rule that had the Bills brass, players and their fans in an uproar. Head referee Mike Carey said that Patten had his head go out of bounds, thus deeming the ball out of bounds because his body was like a lightning rod, making anything that touched Patten out of bounds including the ball. In actuality, the ball was still inbounds when Patten fumbled it, as it hit his leg and went to Clements.

This is how referee Carey described his most controversial decision: "On the play, there was a reception by the receiver," Carey said. "He fumbled. The ball was loose on the field of play, and while in contact with the receiver's calf, his head hit out of bounds. By rule, that's a loose ball. When a loose ball touches anything that's out of bounds, it is itself out of bounds. It would be in the possession of the receiver's team."

Stewie
11-09-2007, 04:35 PM
Right, you would think so, but that's not correct.

A team very recently did this -- Dolphins against Giants in London. Kicker sent it out of bounds about 7 or so yards downfield. HORRIBLE onsides attempt. Giants ball.

Hmmm... Something has changed. Was the ball touched? I've seen onside kicks go out of bounds and re-kicked.

Amnorix
11-09-2007, 04:44 PM
Hmmm... Something has changed. Was the ball touched? I've seen onside kicks go out of bounds and re-kicked.Dunno if it's a change or not. Definitely not touched. Check it out starting at about 3:20 mark. The red line is the 10 yard line demarcation point.


http://www.nfl.com/videos

click on "Highlights" in the mdidle of the page. Then go to the scroll down menu on the left and select "Week 8", then select NYG @ Mia, and click on the game highlights (the 4:10 version).

patteeu
11-09-2007, 05:06 PM
what about when hester had one foot out of bounds when we kicked off and we were called for illegal proceder kicking the ball out of bounds

Good one. I thought that was weird.

Valiant
11-09-2007, 05:35 PM
Right, the running back can do pretty much anything he wants to protect himself. What he can't do is tackle a defensive player by his Cousin It hair after having the ball stripped, that's called unsportsmanlike conduct.


I can't remember but did the defender have the ball??? Cause the rules states that hair is part of the uniform that you can tackle with...

Demonpenz
11-09-2007, 06:49 PM
the free kick one was messed up last year. remember when the rams played the cards and someone decided to take a penalty and then they could punk and denny green could call fair catch and have one free kick to try to win the game and then they came back and changed their minds and said they wanted to decline the penalty? That was a major screw up. but it was weird rule. MAdden points it out all the time when someone is trying to end a half and they are punting call fair catch and try a free kick

FAX
11-09-2007, 07:03 PM
Denny Green has Foephobia (the fear that your opponents are going to kick your ass).

And they usually do.

FAX

ZootedGranny
11-09-2007, 07:11 PM
Does anyone remember Kennison getting ruled out of bounds against the Chargers in SD a year or so ago?

He caught a pass while going out of bounds backwards, and got one foot and the toes on his other foot down. If I remember correctly, he was ruled out because he needed his heel to come down instead of his toes, due to going out of bounds backwards.

CoMoChief
11-09-2007, 07:51 PM
I remembering not liking the call against the Chargers last season in SD when we blocked that punt and we touched it first but the punt didn't even go as far as the first down marker and SD got another first down when they recovered it.