U*S 发帖数: 4914 | 1 onside kick or punt,双方抢作一团却都没有控制住球,球出边界,之前没有任何犯
规。此时是receiving 方从球出边界的地方开始进攻吗? |
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 2 Yes. Why the uncertainty?
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】 : onside kick or punt,双方抢作一团却都没有控制住球,球出边界,之前没有任何犯 : 规。此时是receiving 方从球出边界的地方开始进攻吗?
|
l*******z 发帖数: 4276 | 3 以前看到不少onside kick receiving team故意直接将球打出界 |
a****y 发帖数: 2548 | 4 是不是想问如果直接踢出去有没有penalty?
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】 : onside kick or punt,双方抢作一团却都没有控制住球,球出边界,之前没有任何犯 : 规。此时是receiving 方从球出边界的地方开始进攻吗?
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 5 He stated "之前没有任何犯规".
【在 a****y 的大作中提到】 : 是不是想问如果直接踢出去有没有penalty?
|
A*****a 发帖数: 52743 | 6 yes
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】 : onside kick or punt,双方抢作一团却都没有控制住球,球出边界,之前没有任何犯 : 规。此时是receiving 方从球出边界的地方开始进攻吗?
|
U*S 发帖数: 4914 | 7 以前没看到receiving方故意把球打出界,所以问问,double check一下。
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Yes. Why the uncertainty?
|
A*****a 发帖数: 52743 | 8 打出去的难度未必比控制住低
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】 : 以前没看到receiving方故意把球打出界,所以问问,double check一下。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 9 Wait a minute ... is this not illegal batting?
Say on a conventional fumble and the ball is rolling on the ground, the
offense canNOT intentionally push or hit or slap or kick the ball to make it
go out of bound (and thus maintain possession).
I am not sure about onside kicks ...
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】 : 以前看到不少onside kick receiving team故意直接将球打出界
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 10 i thought it is illegal only if the offense intentionally kick the ball
forward, then they not only retain the possession but may also get the first
down, if the ball pass the first down line and goes out of bound.
the thing is how do you define intentionally, which is very subjective.
去年港人对牌子, 汤哥放炮, 跑马路眼疾手快扑上去抢球,其实把球往前拨到牌子端
区,最后不记得是safety 还是 touchdown。 但是没判犯规。 也许因为没出界?
前两周,龙哥边线上放炮,他趴在地上伸手一拨把球横着拨出边界,也没算犯规。
it
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : Wait a minute ... is this not illegal batting? : Say on a conventional fumble and the ball is rolling on the ground, the : offense canNOT intentionally push or hit or slap or kick the ball to make it : go out of bound (and thus maintain possession). : I am not sure about onside kicks ...
|
|
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 11 那可就是误判了.
球在地上滚的时候你可以尽情扑上去抢,
但是不能用手打(或用脚踢)把球弄出界.
看看下面这个超级碗42的game log, 第二节还剩2:31:
"... Penalty on Ahmad Bradshaw: Illegal Bat, 10 yards"
就是这种情况, 我记得很清楚.
球被他打了以后还是往回走滚出边线的, 也不行.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200802030nwe.ht
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : i thought it is illegal only if the offense intentionally kick the ball : forward, then they not only retain the possession but may also get the first : down, if the ball pass the first down line and goes out of bound. : the thing is how do you define intentionally, which is very subjective. : 去年港人对牌子, 汤哥放炮, 跑马路眼疾手快扑上去抢球,其实把球往前拨到牌子端 : 区,最后不记得是safety 还是 touchdown。 但是没判犯规。 也许因为没出界? : 前两周,龙哥边线上放炮,他趴在地上伸手一拨把球横着拨出边界,也没算犯规。 : : it
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 12 看了一下,好象没看见不能往界外bat.只说不能往对方方向bat.
Article 8 A player may not bat or punch:
(a) a loose ball (in field of play) toward opponent’s goal line;
(b) a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in
either end zone;
(c) a backward pass in flight may not be batted forward by an offensive
player. |
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 13 第一种情况是往对方方向打在position上得利,第二种是到了端区。第三种是防止接力
传球。没有说不能往界外或者自己方向bat. |
d*****1 发帖数: 1837 | 14 这个是犯规,重新踢
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】 : 以前没看到receiving方故意把球打出界,所以问问,double check一下。
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 15 That's my understanding too. Either defense or offense cannot intentionally
bat the ball forward.
从3分40秒开始,汤哥放炮,牌子两球员离球最近,但都想弯腰捡球,跑马路从很远飞
身扑来,貌似抢球,其实是“故意?”把球往前捅到牌子端区。 这个没判犯规,估计
是没法断定是否“故意”。
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823a2078/
in
【在 l*****8 的大作中提到】 : 看了一下,好象没看见不能往界外bat.只说不能往对方方向bat. : Article 8 A player may not bat or punch: : (a) a loose ball (in field of play) toward opponent’s goal line; : (b) a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in : either end zone; : (c) a backward pass in flight may not be batted forward by an offensive : player.
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 16 我看到过。解说还夸很聪明,没见到扔小旗。
【在 d*****1 的大作中提到】 : 这个是犯规,重新踢
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 17 I am confused. So do you agree or disagree with my position that "receiving
方故意把球打出界" (regardless which end zone the ball happens to travel
toward) is indeed against the rule? I am not sure if there are provisions
for onside kicks.
【在 l*****8 的大作中提到】 : 我看到过。解说还夸很聪明,没见到扔小旗。
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 18 我觉得不违反rule。起码我没见到打出界被判得。而且rule book里的定义只有那么三
条,没有提到打出界。
receiving
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : I am confused. So do you agree or disagree with my position that "receiving : 方故意把球打出界" (regardless which end zone the ball happens to travel : toward) is indeed against the rule? I am not sure if there are provisions : for onside kicks.
|
d*****1 发帖数: 1837 | 19 某年,俺们学校的一场比赛,我方故意把球打出界外,判重踢
【在 l*****8 的大作中提到】 : 我觉得不违反rule。起码我没见到打出界被判得。而且rule book里的定义只有那么三 : 条,没有提到打出界。 : : receiving
|
d*****1 发帖数: 1837 | 20 找到了,
2008 ND vs Navy, 4Q 2:30,
Notre Dame penalty 15 yard illegal batting accepted.
Matt Harmon on-side kick recovered by Navy at the NDame 41. |
|
|
h*****r 发帖数: 1864 | 21 Anyway,如果自己控制不住球,international batting 10码总比把球权直接给别人好
吧 |
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 22 我还是不明白, 那这个动作是违反了上面列举的(a), (b), (c) 三条中的哪一条?
还是说如果接球方是把球backward地打出界, 就不犯规了?
That would be very hard to do, in mind set or in reality.
【在 l*****8 的大作中提到】 : 我看到过。解说还夸很聪明,没见到扔小旗。
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 23 我觉得不犯规阿。到网上搜了一下,NCAA的rule book也是类似,没说是犯规。但是在
一个论坛上一个高中裁判说在高中比赛里是犯规。在那里bat loose ball是不允许的。
反正不是太清楚。
上面说的几个例子是不是向届外bat的同时也向前bat?
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : 我还是不明白, 那这个动作是违反了上面列举的(a), (b), (c) 三条中的哪一条? : 还是说如果接球方是把球backward地打出界, 就不犯规了? : That would be very hard to do, in mind set or in reality.
|
l*******z 发帖数: 4276 | 24 这种情况下如果判罚怎么判。主要是球权算谁的,特别是如果球被跑马路直接打出end
zone出界的情况?
intentionally
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : That's my understanding too. Either defense or offense cannot intentionally : bat the ball forward. : 从3分40秒开始,汤哥放炮,牌子两球员离球最近,但都想弯腰捡球,跑马路从很远飞 : 身扑来,貌似抢球,其实是“故意?”把球往前捅到牌子端区。 这个没判犯规,估计 : 是没法断定是否“故意”。 : http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d823a2078/ : : in
|
d*****1 发帖数: 1837 | 25 这个是裁判的judgemnet,说你故意的,那就是犯规
俺们学校那个球,就是接球的在空中直接把球打出界外
明显是故意的 |
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 26 也就是说,只要被认为是故意的,
那么不管是正常的plays or kick offs, 不管是往前打往后打往边线打,
甚至可能并没有打出界, 统统都是犯规?
That's my original position.
【在 d*****1 的大作中提到】 : 这个是裁判的judgemnet,说你故意的,那就是犯规 : 俺们学校那个球,就是接球的在空中直接把球打出界外 : 明显是故意的
|
N*****m 发帖数: 42603 | 27 不合理吧
跑路马路那个球如果不是故意,就没有故意了
【在 d*****1 的大作中提到】 : 这个是裁判的judgemnet,说你故意的,那就是犯规 : 俺们学校那个球,就是接球的在空中直接把球打出界外 : 明显是故意的
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 28 我在NCAA的rule book里仔仔细细的查了半天,没找到说向后故意打出界是犯规的条目。
这个裁判论坛上有人说在NFL和NCAA不算犯规。有人说在NFHS(估计是高中联赛)算犯规。
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6141.0
【在 d*****1 的大作中提到】 : 这个是裁判的judgemnet,说你故意的,那就是犯规 : 俺们学校那个球,就是接球的在空中直接把球打出界外 : 明显是故意的
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 29 我找不到视频,但我说了 ,上个星期,龙哥就是坐着地上,故意把前面的球横着一拨
拨出界。他完全可以再往前扑一点,双手拿住球。很明显他懒得那样做,也不想拿球后
被防守队员上来撞一下,直接拍球出界,play over,方便省事。所以我的理解还是故
意往前拨才是犯规。
多年前,绿湾就是混战中有人倒地时,用脚把球往前踢。在前面被绿湾的人捡到了。我
以为first down。 但被判犯规。 旁边的老球迷就说故意往前踢确实是犯规。 试想如
果这球踢出界了,那岂不要给你first down?
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : 也就是说,只要被认为是故意的, : 那么不管是正常的plays or kick offs, 不管是往前打往后打往边线打, : 甚至可能并没有打出界, 统统都是犯规? : That's my original position.
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 30 我知道几年前有一场高中比赛,
QB传球, 飞出禁区的底线了, 一个WR跳起来,
全身都已经凌空在界外但脚还没有着地的时候,
把球bat回禁区内, 队友接住, TD.
这个镜头反复播放, 全国喝彩.
假如裁判没有误判, 漏判, 那这个动作没有犯规的原因,
是因为他把球往回打? 是因为他在空中打? 是因为他在禁区打?
This is confusing.
目。
规。
【在 l*****8 的大作中提到】 : 我在NCAA的rule book里仔仔细细的查了半天,没找到说向后故意打出界是犯规的条目。 : 这个裁判论坛上有人说在NFL和NCAA不算犯规。有人说在NFHS(估计是高中联赛)算犯规。 : http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=6141.0
|
|
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 31 显然,防hail mary时,防守都是故意把球打下来,往前往后都可以。
逻辑兄贴的规则里,端区内只有球触地后才不可以拍。
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : 我知道几年前有一场高中比赛, : QB传球, 飞出禁区的底线了, 一个WR跳起来, : 全身都已经凌空在界外但脚还没有着地的时候, : 把球bat回禁区内, 队友接住, TD. : 这个镜头反复播放, 全国喝彩. : 假如裁判没有误判, 漏判, 那这个动作没有犯规的原因, : 是因为他把球往回打? 是因为他在空中打? 是因为他在禁区打? : This is confusing. : : 目。
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 32 Right, right, the batted ball becomes a focus point only when a fumble has
already happened or possession has yet to be determined, like on a onside-
kick.
My brain just got short-circuited.
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : 显然,防hail mary时,防守都是故意把球打下来,往前往后都可以。 : 逻辑兄贴的规则里,端区内只有球触地后才不可以拍。
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 33 在跑马路拍球处罚15码(or 10), 牌子球(原贴错写成刚人球了),first down。
end
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】 : 这种情况下如果判罚怎么判。主要是球权算谁的,特别是如果球被跑马路直接打出end : zone出界的情况? : : intentionally
|
l*****8 发帖数: 16949 | 34 觉得你这个例子算是Impetus.一般backwards传球才犯规。
Article 3 Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball
and sends it in touch.
The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when the ball is sent in
touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest,
or nearly at rest, or illegally bats:
(a) a kick or fumble;
(b) a backward pass after it has struck the ground;
(c) or illegally kicks any ball (12-1-9).
Note 1: If a player is pushed or blocked into any kick or fumble or into a
backward pass after it has struck the ground, and if such pushing or
blocking is the primary factor that
sends such a loose ball in touch, the impetus is by the pusher or blocker,
and the pushed (blocked) player will not be considered to have touched the
ball. See 9-2-4.
Note 2: Momentum is not applicable (11-5-1-Exc. 2).
这个有说明,不算犯规:
Article 7 Legal Touching. A forward pass (legal or illegal) thrown from
behind the line
may be touched by any eligible player. A pass in flight may be tipped,
batted, or deflected
in any direction by any eligible player at any time, including such a pass
in the
end zone. See 12-1-8.
【在 B*****e 的大作中提到】 : 我知道几年前有一场高中比赛, : QB传球, 飞出禁区的底线了, 一个WR跳起来, : 全身都已经凌空在界外但脚还没有着地的时候, : 把球bat回禁区内, 队友接住, TD. : 这个镜头反复播放, 全国喝彩. : 假如裁判没有误判, 漏判, 那这个动作没有犯规的原因, : 是因为他把球往回打? 是因为他在空中打? 是因为他在禁区打? : This is confusing. : : 目。
|
l*******z 发帖数: 4276 | 35 so the possession is awarded to whoever last touched the ball? With no bias
to the offense? Or to the receving team when kicking?
Then if there is a fumble, everyone should try to kick/bat/punch the ball
out of bounds to secure the possession. That is a much higher chance than
battling on the ground. And 15 or 10 yards is neglible comparing the
increased chance of possession
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : 在跑马路拍球处罚15码(or 10), 牌子球(原贴错写成刚人球了),first down。 : : end
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 36 Yeah I am not sure about that either. It sure seems contradictory to
penalize his act of illegal batting by taking yards off against his team,
yet at the same time reward that same act by giving his team the possession,
which he never had.
bias
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】 : so the possession is awarded to whoever last touched the ball? With no bias : to the offense? Or to the receving team when kicking? : Then if there is a fumble, everyone should try to kick/bat/punch the ball : out of bounds to secure the possession. That is a much higher chance than : battling on the ground. And 15 or 10 yards is neglible comparing the : increased chance of possession
|
l*x 发帖数: 14021 | 37 sorry,犯大糊涂了,想写的是牌子球,想着跑马路,写成港人了。
bias
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】 : so the possession is awarded to whoever last touched the ball? With no bias : to the offense? Or to the receving team when kicking? : Then if there is a fumble, everyone should try to kick/bat/punch the ball : out of bounds to secure the possession. That is a much higher chance than : battling on the ground. And 15 or 10 yards is neglible comparing the : increased chance of possession
|
l*******z 发帖数: 4276 | 38 why? Because of edge to offense? so the offense should kick the out if they
see no realistic chance of winning the ball on the ground?
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : sorry,犯大糊涂了,想写的是牌子球,想着跑马路,写成港人了。 : : bias
|
l*******z 发帖数: 4276 | 39 also, if it is PAT's ball, does the yardage penalty still apply? If so, that
is one of the most severe penalty then. It is either a turnover or a huge
sack, penalizes into a PAT's first down. I cannot see the impact of this
foul justifies the penalty being as much as a personal foul/unsportsman
conduct. If it is indeed true, then the team with no edge (defense or
kicking team when kicking) should try absolute best to avoid kicking/batting
the ball for a chance to be subjectively judged as intentional
【在 l*x 的大作中提到】 : sorry,犯大糊涂了,想写的是牌子球,想着跑马路,写成港人了。 : : bias
|
B*****e 发帖数: 9375 | 40 Yes, and take the penalty in yard in exhange for keeping possession.
Of course, there is always this "palpable unfair act" at the ref's disposal
... but has that ever been used in an NFL game?
they
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】 : why? Because of edge to offense? so the offense should kick the out if they : see no realistic chance of winning the ball on the ground?
|