The Punter Play

[AnonymousNolonger]

If he had just kept running, does he make it?

From watching this clip a couple of times this morning:

1). This was definitely the punter going off script, not a called fake.

The punter is doing his normal rugby punt thing, but looks up and sees some open territory and clearly changes how he is carrying the ball momentarily, before deciding to punt it.

2). If it had been a called fake, he easily makes the first down yardage needed, IMO

The left side of Iowa’s Punt Return team was oblivious to the potential fake and had cleared out. There is really only one defender from the middle of the field who reacts quickly enough to potentially make the play.

If it had been a called fake punt, Vanderbilt would’ve had at least 2 players with the opportunity to block him, as he tries to work his way across the field through heavy traffic.

Any special teams gurus out there?

We definitely had called a punt return on that play, because no one had tracked towards the punter early on. Just the one player in the middle of the field appeared to be keeping an eye on the punter.

Back to the original question, I don’t think he makes it because it wasn’t a called fake and he was undecided on whether to run or not for too long.

 

[Anon1750875978]

I believe it was 4th and 23 or 4th and 27.

No way he makes a first down.

 

[r_desihawk]

If he had just kept running, does he make it?

From watching this clip a couple of times this morning:

1). This was definitely the punter going off script, not a called fake.

The punter is doing his normal rugby punt thing, but looks up and sees some open territory and clearly changes how he is carrying the ball momentarily, before deciding to punt it.

2). If it had been a called fake, he easily makes the first down yardage needed, IMO

The left side of Iowa’s Punt Return team was oblivious to the potential fake and had cleared out. There is really only one defender from the middle of the field who reacts quickly enough to potentially make the play.

If it had been a called fake punt, Vanderbilt would’ve had at least 2 players with the opportunity to block him, as he tries to work his way across the field through heavy traffic.

Any special teams gurus out there?

We definitely had called a punt return on that play, because no one had tracked towards the punter early on. Just the one player in the middle of the field appeared to be keeping an eye on the punter.

Back to the original question, I don’t think he makes it because it wasn’t a called fake and he was undecided on whether to run or not for too long.

zero chance he makes it
4th and 8 maybe but it was 4th and mile

 

[10khawk]

The Wetjen effect, seems he was trying to hold it as long as possible to give his cover team time and moved to far ahead to rugby kick

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

Thanks for that info. The clip I was watching on ESPN’s site doesn’t show the down and distance and I couldn’t remember what it was.

If that was the case, it makes it an even more boneheaded decision by the punter to even consider it.

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

The Wetjen effect, seems he was trying to hold it as long as possible to give his cover team time and moved to far ahead to rugby kick

That was the reasoning their head coach gave post game.

The way he repositioned the ball into more of a running position, definitely had me thinking he was considering taking off.

But, now I’m thinking he knew he had some time before he would need to punt it and repositioned the ball because it is just more comfortable to carry it that way, before punting it as the D started to close in.

Interesting and important play in that game, and I think we all learned a new rule. Hope we’re never on the wrong side of that rule.

 

[uihawk82]

If he had just kept running, does he make it?

From watching this clip a couple of times this morning:

1). This was definitely the punter going off script, not a called fake.

The punter is doing his normal rugby punt thing, but looks up and sees some open territory and clearly changes how he is carrying the ball momentarily, before deciding to punt it.

2). If it had been a called fake, he easily makes the first down yardage needed, IMO

The left side of Iowa’s Punt Return team was oblivious to the potential fake and had cleared out. There is really only one defender from the middle of the field who reacts quickly enough to potentially make the play.

If it had been a called fake punt, Vanderbilt would’ve had at least 2 players with the opportunity to block him, as he tries to work his way across the field through heavy traffic.

Any special teams gurus out there?

We definitely had called a punt return on that play, because no one had tracked towards the punter early on. Just the one player in the middle of the field appeared to be keeping an eye on the punter.

Back to the original question, I don’t think he makes it because it wasn’t a called fake and he was undecided on whether to run or not for too long.

It would have been close as the hawks had nobody over there which is strange. It was reported on the hawk radiocast that Wetjen had started running up the field to stop the punter. but at the point he punted it he still had 26 yards to go or about 2 1/2 seconds of running time and I sure hope there was another hawk besides wetjen who could have got him

 

[HawkAlum2002]

He needed to gain 27 yards and get to the 42 (I think it was), Wetjen was on the opposite 40. Pretty sure if Wetjen was the only guy to notice it he's still fast enough to at least try and get to him before the marker. Wetjen going 18 yards and the punter going 27, I like our chances even if he's never made a tackle before.

 

[Bierhalter]

That was the reasoning their head coach gave post game.

The way he repositioned the ball into more of a running position, definitely had me thinking he was considering taking off.

But, now I’m thinking he knew he had some time before he would need to punt it and repositioned the ball because it is just more comfortable to carry it that way, before punting it as the D started to close in.

Interesting and important play in that game, and I think we all learned a new rule. Hope we’re never on the wrong side of that rule.

"Punting beyond the LOS is illegal" has been a thing for as long as "Attempting a forward pass beyond the LOS is illegal"...

 

[KurtWarner]

The Wetjen effect, seems he was trying to hold it as long as possible to give his cover team time and moved to far ahead to rugby kick

Exactly this

 

[oldxbbc]

I know this has been discussed,but I had no idea the penalty was as severe as it was. Game changer from my point of view.

 

[HawkAlum2002]

"Punting beyond the LOS is illegal" has been a thing for as long as "Attempting a forward pass beyond the LOS is illegal"...

This is like when an NFL rookie makes an offsides or false start penalty (or something similarly trivial) and the commentators call it a rookie mistake. That rule hasn't changed in 150 years and it was all the same flag football through college, there is no aspect of being a rookie that would make it different. Kicking or throwing forward past the line of scrimmage is similar. Now if you are Kaleb Johnson and screw up some new NFL kickoff rule, THAT is understandable to a degree.

 

[HawkAlum2002]

I know this has been discussed,but I had no idea the penalty was as severe as it was. Game changer from my point of view.

Five yard penalty and loss of down, same as an illegal forward pass, just those don't often happen on fourth down.

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

"Punting beyond the LOS is illegal" has been a thing for as long as "Attempting a forward pass beyond the LOS is illegal"...

I knew that. But, figured it would be a penalty walkoff and a rekick.

A penalty walkoff and getting the ball, I did not expect. But was pleased as punch to get.

 

[oldxbbc]

Five yard penalty and loss of down, same as an illegal forward pass, just those don't often happen on fourth down.

Thought it was more than five yards

 

[*IncredibleHawk*]

Vanderbilt did a lot of dumb stuff to help Iowa out........Things you don't see KF coached teams do and I've come to appreciate that....

 

[Jonesy5960]

If he had just kept running, does he make it?

From watching this clip a couple of times this morning:

1). This was definitely the punter going off script, not a called fake.

The punter is doing his normal rugby punt thing, but looks up and sees some open territory and clearly changes how he is carrying the ball momentarily, before deciding to punt it.

2). If it had been a called fake, he easily makes the first down yardage needed, IMO

The left side of Iowa’s Punt Return team was oblivious to the potential fake and had cleared out. There is really only one defender from the middle of the field who reacts quickly enough to potentially make the play.

If it had been a called fake punt, Vanderbilt would’ve had at least 2 players with the opportunity to block him, as he tries to work his way across the field through heavy traffic.

Any special teams gurus out there?

We definitely had called a punt return on that play, because no one had tracked towards the punter early on. Just the one player in the middle of the field appeared to be keeping an eye on the punter.

Back to the original question, I don’t think he makes it because it wasn’t a called fake and he was undecided on whether to run or not for too long.

It definitely gave me a 2010 Wisconsin shiver. That 17 yard romp cost Iowa the game.

 

[WeBeHerkin]

There was a Hawk that was on a bee line to him without a Vandy player to block him, so no he don’t make it.

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

"Punting beyond the LOS is illegal" has been a thing for as long as "Attempting a forward pass beyond the LOS

It definitely gave me a 2010 Wisconsin shiver. That 17 yard romp cost Iowa the game.

Yeah, it initially looked like he had a whole lot of running room.

I had forgotten it was 4th and 27, and the clip I watched this morning didn’t show the down and distance. So that changes everything.

With it being a loss of down penalty, definitely is something these rugby style punters that try to delay the punt, should be well aware of.

LOS was about the 15 yard line. The punter received the ball at the 1 yard line and kicked it at about the 17 yard line. I guess he just lost track of where he was on the field. But wow, that’s a long ways to move forward without being concerned you might be crossing the LOS.

 

[nu2u]

As they say in Nashville … “this ain’t rugby, son”.

 

[DukeSlater]

That was the reasoning their head coach gave post game.

The way he repositioned the ball into more of a running position, definitely had me thinking he was considering taking off.

But, now I’m thinking he knew he had some time before he would need to punt it and repositioned the ball because it is just more comfortable to carry it that way, before punting it as the D started to close in.

Interesting and important play in that game, and I think we all learned a new rule. Hope we’re never on the wrong side of that rule.

I had never seen that penalty before, and didn't know what the penalty was, before yesterday despite watching football for decades.

 

[DukeSlater]

"Punting beyond the LOS is illegal" has been a thing for as long as "Attempting a forward pass beyond the LOS is illegal"...

Of course. But I've NEVER seen it before in decades of football viewing.

 

[Burghawk87]

Has everyone forgotten Tory's punt off the deck in 2020? Not quite the same thing but still an illegal kick/spot foul/loss of down.

 

[DukeSlater]

I know this has been discussed,but I had no idea the penalty was as severe as it was. Game changer from my point of view.

Yes. It seems like the penalty is WAY too severe for the infraction, kinda like getting the death penalty for jay walking. It seems like the penalty should be ten yards and punt again.

 

[Bierhalter]

Has everyone forgotten Tory's punt off the deck in 2020? Not quite the same thing but still an illegal kick/spot foul/loss of down.

I will die on the hill that that shouldn't even be illegal, because it was the punter kicking and it was off the ground. Not in a "normal" punting stance as in the OP, so no unfair advantage gained.

 

[Lindemann]

The penalty was 5 yards and loss of down. Unfortunately for Vandy it was 4th down.

As far as the punter making it, no way. He still had 20+ yards to go when he kicked. One of our guys would have cleaned him out before the marker. It would have been worth seeing, that punter's probably never been hit.

 

[Anon1750875978]

I had never seen that penalty before, and didn't know what the penalty was, before yesterday despite watching football for decades.

I learned something yesterday as well...if the announcers know what they're talking about.
After Vandy had those two offside penalties at the goal line, the guy says the officials can declare a touchdown if a team continues to be offside.

 

[Chuck Norris’s Mustache]

Yes. It seems like the penalty is WAY too severe for the infraction, kinda like getting the death penalty for jay walking. It seems like the penalty should be ten yards and punt again.

Nah. It’s the correct call. Otherwise you open up a whole other can of worms and shenanigans. You would see teams attempting fake punts all the time and then if it’s apparent it won’t work just doing a quick little pooch punt so they can get another try at the kick. Same with illegal forward passes. That’s why it’s a loss of down. The penalty was only a 5 yard penalty, it’s the loss of down on the 4th down that was the real kick in the nuts for them.

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

Off of this topic.

But, has anyone ever seen a college football player get so high off the ground as the Vandy player that attempted to hurdle our player on the sideline?

He ended up getting hit and soared even higher than the initial hurdle would have been.

 

[Palmerhawk]

Re- watched the game today.
One little scene really struck me...when molton broke his big run down inside the 5, #3 of vandy and Moulton were hand fighting as the guy took him out of bounds and #3 was getting in kamari's face..taunting him.
Then trevor lauk arrived to get between the two and he just stared at #3 who calmed down immediately....I want Trevor as sergeant - in- arms at our next home- owners association meeting!

 

[Ripcord]

He needed to gain 27 yards and get to the 42 (I think it was), Wetjen was on the opposite 40. Pretty sure if Wetjen was the only guy to notice it he's still fast enough to at least try and get to him before the marker. Wetjen going 18 yards and the punter going 27, I like our chances even if he's never made a tackle before.

excellent points, HawkAlum2002.

 

[WeBeHerkin]

Yes. It seems like the penalty is WAY too severe for the infraction, kinda like getting the death penalty for jay walking. It seems like the penalty should be ten yards and punt again.

Oh so let the punter take off running and if not looking like he can make first down he can just kick it. lol. No.

 

[Burghawk87]

Re- watched the game today.
One little scene really struck me...when molton broke his big run down inside the 5, #3 of vandy and Moulton were hand fighting as the guy took him out of bounds and #3 was getting in kamari's face..taunting him.
Then trevor lauk arrived to get between the two and he just stared at #3 who calmed down immediately....I want Trevor as sergeant - in- arms at our next home- owners association meeting!

Wasn't he the same weiner that peeled off on Gronowski's long run and blindsided moulton after the play? (Or one of the running backs). What's with DB's and being an actual db?

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

Re- watched the game today.
One little scene really struck me...when molton broke his big run down inside the 5, #3 of vandy and Moulton were hand fighting as the guy took him out of bounds and #3 was getting in kamari's face..taunting him.
Then trevor lauk arrived to get between the two and he just stared at #3 who calmed down immediately....I want Trevor as sergeant - in- arms at our next home- owners association meeting!

#3 definitely appears to be Vandy’s douchebag player. He was chippy the whole game.

There was a Vandy fan complaining about him on their own board. And it sounded like it is typical behavior for him.

 

[HawkAlum2002]

I will die on the hill that that shouldn't even be illegal, because it was the punter kicking and it was off the ground. Not in a "normal" punting stance as in the OP, so no unfair advantage gained.

Don't think you could do that because anyone behind the line can technically be a punter on any play, and a fumble can't be kicked (or batted) intentionally without a penalty. I guess it could count as a really bad dropkick style FG attempt, but of course that would be spotted from where you missed it so ends up in the same place.

 

[airhawk]

Thanks for that info. The clip I was watching on ESPN’s site doesn’t show the down and distance and I couldn’t remember what it was.

If that was the case, it makes it an even more boneheaded decision by the punter to even consider it.

It was 4th and about 25 after a big sack of Pavia. No way he was going to make it

 

[AnonymousNolonger]

Off of this topic.

But, has anyone ever seen a college football player get so high off the ground as the Vandy player that attempted to hurdle our player on the sideline?

The Hawks hit him and turned him from a football player into a gymnast.

 

[rfgiowa]

Vandy's punter averaged only two punts per game. That play shows he wasn't out on the field much. Cheers and great win for the HAWKS!

 

[Rambler Hawk]

There was a Hawk that was on a bee line to him without a Vandy player to block him, so no he don’t make it.

I saw that too….and no way that punter makes a ‘juke’ move to make that Iowa player whiff…

 

[Rambler Hawk]

Yes. It seems like the penalty is WAY too severe for the infraction, kinda like getting the death penalty for jay walking. It seems like the penalty should be ten yards and punt again.

Agreed 100%, the only worse ‘penalty’ I can think of is when a player fumbles out of bounds hitting the pylon…