I can see why you don't want to punt

Punter, illegally kicks ball. Safety. 2 points, and give NWE the ball
back.

--
Patriots 63, Coltards 0. *
*again
________________________________
Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003

What I'd like to know is, what was the point of the referee's announcement?
Giving up a safety was what the Colts WANTED to do. What would the call have
been if the penalty were "accepted"?

So what would the officials have done to defeat it? Give the Patriots the ball
at the spot of the kick would be most logical.

Jim R

I am guessing here; but if NWE accepts the penalty, it goes back to 4th
down and IND punts again after a 10 yard penalty. Don't hold me to that
one though. Might be a 5 yarder.

--
Patriots 63, Coltards 0. *
*again
________________________________
Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode test 33Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

1 21st March 02:55 External User Posts: 1	I can see why you don't want to punt Punter, illegally kicks ball. Safety. 2 points, and give NWE the ball back. -- Patriots 63, Coltards 0. * *again ________________________________ Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003

2 21st March 02:56 jrohm68012 External User Posts: 1	I can see why you don't want to punt What I'd like to know is, what was the point of the referee's announcement? Giving up a safety was what the Colts WANTED to do. What would the call have been if the penalty were "accepted"? So what would the officials have done to defeat it? Give the Patriots the ball at the spot of the kick would be most logical. Jim R

3 21st March 02:56 External User Posts: 1	I can see why you don't want to punt I am guessing here; but if NWE accepts the penalty, it goes back to 4th down and IND punts again after a 10 yard penalty. Don't hold me to that one though. Might be a 5 yarder. -- Patriots 63, Coltards 0. * *again ________________________________ Klecko's Komrades. All the way in 2003