Onside Punt for First Down

[PGSSS74]

I was not aware of the CFL rule that a player can "punt" or more accurately foot dribble the ball forward one yard, fall on it, and be awarded a First Down, as the team had "relinquished" possession of the ball and then recovered it. The Alouettes' Antwi did it on the weekend.

Perhaps this should become part of the Lions playbook when they are 2nd and 27?

[DanoT]

Perhaps the CFL should change the rule so that a punt needs to travel 10 yards (or whatever distance makes the most sense) before it can be recovered by onside players.

[B.C.FAN]

I've never seen that play in 60 years of watching football. But teams will start trying it regularly unless the rule (Rule 5, Article 14) is changed for next year to be consistent with what happens when an onside player recovers a kick behind the line of scrimmage (Rule 5, Article 15). In that case, if an onside player recovers the ball, yardage required for a first down must still be gained. So, if it's second and 14, an onside player could recover a punt on either side of the line of scrimmage but he would still have to gain 14 yards for a first down.

Article 14 — Recovery Of Own Kick
The kicker or an onside player may recover the kick across the line of scrimmage, in which case the ensuing down shall be first down whether or not the original yardage has been gained.

Article 15 — Kick That Fails To Cross Line Of Scrimmage
When a ball kicked from scrimmage fails to cross the line of scrimmage and is recovered by an onside player of the kicking team, the series of downs shall not be interrupted unless after recovery, the yardage required for a first down is gained.

[maxlion]

It is a risky play because a player with the ball at the line of scrimmage usually has opposing players in close vicinity. There is a high chance of a turnover. Is it worth the risk vs the safer field position play? Depends a lot on circumstances and situational awareness. I’m not sure that it would be used often in any case. With the limited practice availability, teams might be reluctant to devote practice time to such a play.

[Hambone]

This is not the first time I've seen this tried this year. Antwi tried the exact same thing in BC Place when Montreal was in town back in July. I couldn't figure out what the heck he was doing as he seemed to drop the ball unforced and picked it up again back then. Now I understand. It was a 2nd and 16 situation and was ruled a fumble that he recovered. If I recall he didn't actually kick the ball for whatever reason.

[Robbie]

I suppose that was also Anthony Calvillo's desperation move on the very last play of the 2005 Grey Cup game.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

I suppose that was also Anthony Calvillo's desperation move on the very last play of the 2005 Grey Cup game.

Calvillo dribbled it on the last play in overtime when he was about to be stopped; it was a good heads-up play but unsuccessful. And I recall the referee attempting to announce a No Yards penalty against Montreal, but mostly ignored by the celebration by the Eskimos and their fans.

[OV:54-40]

It is a risky play because a player with the ball at the line of scrimmage usually has opposing players in close vicinity. There is a high chance of a turnover. Is it worth the risk vs the safer field position play? Depends a lot on circumstances and situational awareness. I’m not sure that it would be used often in any case. With the limited practice availability, teams might be reluctant to devote practice time to such a play.

A risky play for sure; most times there will be a D player closing in and he could easily recover the dribbled kick (not as easy to execute as it was that game - where nobody on that brain-dead DC Ottawa defence was anywhere to be seen); the D recovers and you have lost possession of the ball and field position. Some might think it's a smart understanding of the rules, but IMO it's more a risky and cowardly call by a desperate OC - who is clueless about executing an 18 yard gain to get a first down (deep corners, posts, digs; or a well executed screen pass to a RB - these plays can all easily gain 20 yards or more); so he elects to get a one yard gain instead to get a fresh set of downs? The Als did nothing with that big first down and punted away soon after. Love to see Maas try that in a big play-off game.

[Toppy Vann]

I've never seen that play in 60 years of watching football. But teams will start trying it regularly unless the rule (Rule 5, Article 14) is changed for next year to be consistent with what happens when an onside player recovers a kick behind the line of scrimmage (Rule 5, Article 15). In that case, if an onside player recovers the ball, yardage required for a first down must still be gained. So, if it's second and 14, an onside player could recover a punt on either side of the line of scrimmage but he would still have to gain 14 yards for a first down.

Article 14 — Recovery Of Own Kick
The kicker or an onside player may recover the kick across the line of scrimmage, in which case the ensuing down shall be first down whether or not the original yardage has been gained.

Article 15 — Kick That Fails To Cross Line Of Scrimmage
When a ball kicked from scrimmage fails to cross the line of scrimmage and is recovered by an onside player of the kicking team, the series of downs shall not be interrupted unless after recovery, the yardage required for a first down is gained.

I think this would be a legitimate rule change but not sure I've thought of everything here.

Article 14 — Recovery Of Own Kick Suggested Revision
The kicker or an onside player may recover the kick across the line of scrimmage in which case the series of downs shall not be interrupted unless after recovery, the yardage required for a first down is gained.

If this were the rule a team facing 1st or 2nd and long yards could kick on all 3 downs in the first case to make a first down or 2 downs to make the yardage.

This rule would eliminate what Antwi pulled off unless he picked it up and ran with it. I always thought it had to get the yardage.

Not changing the rule would force defending teams not to bring one player up to ensure this doesn't happen thus making it more interesting with less defenders dropping off.

The reason this happened is how wide open it was.

The play I'd love to see is the one the Stamps Dunigan-coached team pulled off in BC Place on the pass and punt but the refs screwed up and their was no Command Centre to override the call. Dunigan was rightfully furious as the play was successful and they scored but didn't count. Dunigan told the officials apparently it was happening.

[Hambone]

It is a risky play because a player with the ball at the line of scrimmage usually has opposing players in close vicinity. There is a high chance of a turnover. Is it worth the risk vs the safer field position play? Depends a lot on circumstances and situational awareness. I’m not sure that it would be used often in any case. With the limited practice availability, teams might be reluctant to devote practice time to such a play.

Maybe not as risky as you think. In the instance I recalled at BC Place it was a 2nd & 16. Apparently it was 2nd & 18 this time. No doubt it was a read-option type play for Antwi. If a defender is coming up fast continue with it as a running play. If there is no defender close then he has the green light to try. Given 2nd & 16 or more situations odds are defenders are backed off some willing to give up a running play or something underneath.