2010 NFL Rule Changes: Fair Catch Interference

by JasonB on Aug 10, 2010 10:17 PM EDT in Philadelphia Eagles News

This week we'll be detailing the rule changes for the 2010 NFL season. The rest of the series can be found here.

Last year, you may remember a play in a game between the Tennesse Titans and Houston Texans in which the Texans returner Jacoby Jones called for a fair catch and had the ball bounce off his chest. Before he had a chance to recover the muffed kick, Titans' rookie Jason McCourty caught the ball and advanced it. The Titans not only didn't get the ball, but were also flagged for a 15 yard penalty. Titan's coach Jeff Fisher was understandably upset.

"It just doesn't look right," Fisher said. "There's no way we can coach a player not to hit the return man or go after the ball once the ball bounces out of his hands. You can't wait for the ball to hit the ground and then jump on it. To me, I think we need to look at it. Again, it was the correct call considering our current rules.

"The hard thing about this play when you see it is we've got the ball first down at the 9-yard line, and now we don't have the ball and they assess the 15-yard penalty on top of it," Fisher said.

They did look at it again and decided to clarify the rule. If a player has signaled for a fair catch, he must be allowed a chance to recover a muffed kick before it hits the ground. If the ball hits the ground or the returner does not signal for a fair catch, all bets are off. However, under the new rule the kicking is not assessed a 15 yard penalty. The receiving team is simply awarded the ball at the spot of the fair catch. NFL referee Walt Coleman explains.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Does anyone else

Hate this rule? It seems that if you screw up a fair catch you are rewarded.

by Bono Hit My Car on Aug 10, 2010 11:04 PM EDT reply actions

Yup, I hate it too. Its illogical.

by philiafan14364 on Aug 11, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

As long as it doesn't touch the ground.

I see it as he is technically still in the catch process. If he bats it up then catches it, it’s still a catch.

I would agree with a ruling going either way however.

by KornontheKobb on Aug 10, 2010 11:20 PM EDT reply actions

So what you're trying to say is

A punt returner can juggle the ball forward untouched right into the endzone?

This changes everything.

by Team Serbia on Aug 10, 2010 11:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Well

I’m sure they would say something like where the player “started” the catch is where it would be spotted

by Johnny G on Aug 11, 2010 1:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions

How could a punt returner juggle a ball forward into end zone?

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on Aug 11, 2010 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions

If it never touches the ground they can’t be touched.

by SJPhillyVT on Aug 11, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions

No that’s not true, the rule is that they need a reasonable chance to recover a muff. Anything more than just a momentary bobble is just a regular muffed kick.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on Aug 11, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions

I got a really funny mental picture of a PR trying that and getting demolished in the process

Brent Celek>Keith Brooking

by 700 Level on Aug 11, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

“reasonable chance”

Here we go with the gray area…

by philiafan14364 on Aug 11, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmm

I wasn’t really serious. I thought the “This changes everything” part made that clear, because fair catch rules really won’t change too much. Haha.

by Team Serbia on Aug 11, 2010 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

that's interesting

i wonder what they could do about it, if it actually happened (although of course it won’t)

by hungarian_eagle on Aug 11, 2010 5:40 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't agree with this

Fair catch means you get to catch it and not get tackled. If you fail to catch it, the ball should be fair game (equivalent of a fumble) once it goes out of the receiver’s hands or hits his body and flies somewhere else.
As for Team Serbia’s scenario, I would say down the ball where the receiver first had it in his hands.

"Verde que te quiero verde..."
Το πράσινο είναι ζωή!
That's right, I bleed green multiculturally
"if you shut someone down with class, it's more effective" - Udalango

by Rabbit T on Aug 11, 2010 7:52 AM EDT reply actions

If it hits the ground it’s fair game, I don’t see why this is a problem.

by SJPhillyVT on Aug 11, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions

I really wasn't serious

by Team Serbia on Aug 11, 2010 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions

so if it doinks off his helmet 40 yards upfield, he can run and catch it without being interferred with, until it hits the ground? or if it bounces of his head/shoulder into a defenders arms they have to let it bounce before they can touch it. seems stupid. should be fair game once it leaves the fair catchers hands

Kolb - a heavy medieval war club with a spiked or flanged metal head, used to crush armor - Wikipedia of course
I've been waiting my whole life for an Eagles Championship
RIP JJ

by sports00fan00 on Aug 11, 2010 7:52 AM EDT reply actions

No.

Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook

by JasonB on Aug 11, 2010 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions

read?

Is no one reading this line?

“The receiving team is simply awarded the ball at the spot of the fair catch”

by grucifer on Aug 11, 2010 8:48 AM EDT reply actions

I hate this rule

It seems stupid. If he doesn’t catch, ie it bounces off his pads into the air, it should be a free ball. I’m glad they fixed the penalty, but its still a stupid rule.

I'm now Kolb's biggest fan

by bdawk4ever on Aug 11, 2010 9:09 AM EDT reply actions