SA Footy

OnSong wrote:Can someone explain to me if a team punts, can they not catch the punt?

mighty hounds wrote:

OnSong wrote:Can someone explain to me if a team punts, can they not catch the punt?

It's quite impossible to do that. If the punting team touches the punt the opposition takes the possession from the touch.

OnSong wrote:

mighty hounds wrote:

OnSong wrote:Can someone explain to me if a team punts, can they not catch the punt?

It's quite impossible to do that. If the punting team touches the punt the opposition takes the possession from the touch.

It would be a better game if they could.

OnSong wrote:Yeah, ok, I just wondered why they weren't having a crack at catching it.

There you go.

Still, would be better if they could. Not enough punting in the game IMO.

Make a rule you can catch the punt but it must carry 40 or 50 yards. Then watch them fly into each other.

HH3 wrote:

Theres the drop...and i wouldnt want to have to be the one catching that. I cant find the Hernandez one anywhere, but it was on his chest when he was wide open and just dropped it.

OnSong wrote:

HH3 wrote:Theres the drop...and i wouldnt want to have to be the one catching that. I cant find the Hernandez one anywhere, but it was on his chest when he was wide open and just dropped it.

I think that looks fairly regulation to be honest. Not a great deal of tackling pressure, got two hands to it. A pro footballer should be catching that. The throw was pretty much on the money.

Strawb wrote:

OnSong wrote:

Strawb wrote:http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201202/tom-bradys-wife-blames-patriots-teammates
This makes me laugh more.

See the last comment on this story?

PS: She's right IMO, two crucial drops.

I often wonder if the ball is as hard to catch as some of these guys make it look.

It is hard to catch depending on how hard it is thrown. It is not one of the easiest things to catch at times. Also some people have problems handling the clutch of pressure.

HH3 wrote:

OnSong wrote:

HH3 wrote:Theres the drop...and i wouldnt want to have to be the one catching that. I cant find the Hernandez one anywhere, but it was on his chest when he was wide open and just dropped it.

I think that looks fairly regulation to be honest. Not a great deal of tackling pressure, got two hands to it. A pro footballer should be catching that. The throw was pretty much on the money.

I reckon running flat out, spinning, jumping and catching like that wouldnt be as straight forward as it seems. The throw should have been a bit deeper to account for how fast he was running. Shoulda dropped it right over his left shoulder.

Strawb wrote:

OnSong wrote:Yeah, ok, I just wondered why they weren't having a crack at catching it.

There you go.

Still, would be better if they could. Not enough punting in the game IMO.

Make a rule you can catch the punt but it must carry 40 or 50 yards. Then watch them fly into each other.

It would but that will not happen. The receiver can call for a fair catch where he cannot be touched. I have the college rule book somewhere and they are slightly different from the NFL rules. But alot of the rules are the same.

mighty hounds wrote:

Strawb wrote:

OnSong wrote:Yeah, ok, I just wondered why they weren't having a crack at catching it.

There you go.

Still, would be better if they could. Not enough punting in the game IMO.

Make a rule you can catch the punt but it must carry 40 or 50 yards. Then watch them fly into each other.

It would but that will not happen. The receiver can call for a fair catch where he cannot be touched. I have the college rule book somewhere and they are slightly different from the NFL rules. But alot of the rules are the same.

Didn't they change that rule about blokes smashing into each other like that only 3 years ago. After watching so much NFL I personally wouldn't like the game to turn into a punt fest. Working the ball up and making throws and awesome catches is what makes the game exciting and gets everyone off their feet/seats.ass'. I dont know how punting will make it more exciting? You would have to chnage all the rules and that.

Strawb wrote:On Song commentator's are morons in the game they will say what they think people will want them to say. Problem is half the time they are trying to make the player look good.

mighty hounds wrote:

Strawb wrote:

OnSong wrote:Yeah, ok, I just wondered why they weren't having a crack at catching it.

There you go.

Still, would be better if they could. Not enough punting in the game IMO.

Make a rule you can catch the punt but it must carry 40 or 50 yards. Then watch them fly into each other.

It would but that will not happen. The receiver can call for a fair catch where he cannot be touched. I have the college rule book somewhere and they are slightly different from the NFL rules. But alot of the rules are the same.

Didn't they change that rule about blokes smashing into each other like that only 3 years ago. After watching so much NFL I personally wouldn't like the game to turn into a punt fest. Working the ball up and making throws and awesome catches is what makes the game exciting and gets everyone off their feet/seats.ass'. I dont know how punting will make it more exciting? You would have to chnage all the rules and that.

I forgot how long ago it was but it is designed to protect the receiver because some guys are sprinting as hard as they can and will Hammer into him cause alot of Injuries.

Strawb wrote:I think it was before then but I have been watching more College than NFL I knew it was a College rule for ages. I will look into it and have an answer later on

HH3 wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:

HH3 wrote:Yeah, if the Pats didnt allow the TD, the Giants would of wound the clock down to 0.02 and kicked the field goal from point plank. At least giving up the TD gave them another shot with the ball to win the game.

Thanks HH. Haven't seen the game yet, and don't understand everything about it either, but it seems an extraordinary gamble to take, almost "anti-sport". Would the field goal have been so easy the bloke wouldn't have felt any pressure? What other options would have the Pats considered that could have lead to NY losing the ball?

The Giants really did have them by the balls. They could have ran the clock down and had a field goal attempt from about 10 yards out...which is hard to miss. Woulda put the Giants a point up with probably 20 seconds maybe for the Pats to go for broke. If they did that, the Pats woulda had 20 seconds at best to get 40-50 yards, then convert a long distance FG. (This is without having any timeouts) So pretty much impossible.

Letting the Giants have the TD with nearly a minute left meant the Pats at least got a little bit of time to get a TD. And they really did utilise the time well. I think they had something like 8 or 9 plays in that minute.

Also the Giants could have won the game with about 20-25 seconds on the clock when the Pats were 4th and 13, but Brady made the pass and kept the game alive.

PS In the press conferences leading up to the game, Brady said if it came down to the last drive, he would rather be DOWN and HAVE the ball, than be UP and NOT have the ball. He got his wish and didnt make the most of it.

FlyingHigh wrote:So in those leagues the play continues regardless Strawb, like in Rubgy league does from the kick-off?