PDA

View Full Version : The era of weird and obtuse football rules.


Rain Man
12-18-2006, 08:50 AM
Does it seem like we've had a lot of bizarre technical calls in recent times? Off the top of my head, I can recall:

1. The whole blocked punt thing last night that showed that a team can get a first down without the ball ever crossing the first-down mark and without a penalty or giving up possession.

2. We had the Vincent Jackson thing a couple of weeks ago where a player can take a live ball and willingly toss it onto the ground, but if it goes forward, then it's a forward pass and therefore not a fumble.

3. We had the situation with Darren Sproles of the Chargers early this year or late last year where he muffed a punt and the other team recovered, only to be penalized because, even if the returner completely loses control of the ball, the other team still has to wait around to see if he can regain control before it hits the ground.

Are there others? It seems like I've seen more, but if they don't involve the Chiefs I tend to forget them.

(It's probably just a coincidence that all these involve the Chargers and ended up to their advantage, and I'm not being facetious.)

What's up with this? Are we seeing situations that have never, ever occurred before? Or are we seeing situations now where football referees are much "better" at reading rules according to the letter of the law?

I would say they're reading the letter of the rule to the expense of the spirit of the game, but I also realize that ambiguity is also a bad thing. What say ye about this?

Rain Man
12-18-2006, 08:52 AM
Oh, and I forgot the ruling where it's okay to hit Trent Green in the head during a slide, but it's not okay to do it for other quarterbacks (except maybe Charlie Frye).

Ugly Duck
12-18-2006, 08:57 AM
We hadda nuther weird call in Oakland yesterday. Raider TE catches a long pass deep in Rams territory & spikes the ball in celebration. It bounces up & contacts a Rams player. 15 yards for taunting. I guess you can spike the ball unless it touches an opposing player afterwards.... in that case its a personal foul.

ptlyon
12-18-2006, 08:58 AM
That rule of having to have a cover sheet for the TPS reports still boggles my mind.

Frankie
12-18-2006, 08:58 AM
I posted the following (about the blocked punt) in another thread but it fits here too:

"I think they should change the rule so that the ball has to travel at least 10 yards before it can be live by being touched. Such a rule would have rewarded us for the good play and penalized therm for the poor one, instead of the other way around.

But once they adjust the rule like that, watch for us to have our punt blocked and not get the benefit of the current rule. It always seems to go against us and for the other team. In fact, except for the wierd ending in Cleveland a few years ago, I don't recall an obscure rule ever going in favor of the Chiefs."

Rain Man
12-18-2006, 08:58 AM
I didn't see that one, UD, but wasn't there another bizarre penalty against the Raiders in a recent game? I was wracking my brain trying to remember.

DJJasonp
12-18-2006, 09:00 AM
I think referees are intimidated by Marty since he's always on the competition committee and supposedly has a scholar's knowledge of the rules...

He probably pulled the jedi-mind trick a few times this year.

Either way - his luck is about to run out in approximately 4 weeks....

Chief Chief
12-18-2006, 09:03 AM
The following play relates to #2 above:

Colquitt throwing the ball forward shovel-pass style and it's ruled a fumble.

ptlyon
12-18-2006, 09:08 AM
I didn't see that one, UD, but wasn't there another bizarre penalty against the Raiders in a recent game? I was wracking my brain trying to remember.

Seems like every time they play the Chiefs.

TrickyNicky
12-18-2006, 09:08 AM
If the touch is the ruling, then any time anyone first blocks the punt, the ball is live and if the kicking team recovers, they should get the first down. The first contact the receiving team makes is on the block...

And Trent Green slid into a diving lineman. He should have known better. The lineman was giving himself up, much like Bart Simpson windmilling, closing his eyes, and walking forward, if you get hit, it's your fault. (That is sarcasm, so please don't take it seriously).

Ugly Duck
12-18-2006, 09:09 AM
I didn't see that one, UD, but wasn't there another bizarre penalty against the Raiders in a recent game? I was wracking my brain trying to remember.Yeah... we recovered a fumbled kickoff at a critical point, but were flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct because one of our players got pushed out of bounds and "didn't make a strong enough effort" to get back in bounds quickly. Didn't look much different than any other kickoff on the replay. They took away our fumble recovery & penalized us 15 yards.

siberian khatru
12-18-2006, 09:11 AM
The following play relates to #2 above:

Colquitt throwing the ball forward shovel-pass style and it's ruled a fumble.

To me, that one stands out because of the Vincent Jackson play. You can argue that Colquitt fumbled because his arm wasn't going forward enough or whatnot, like a QB tuck rule play. But I don't see how you then turn around and say that Jackson was throwing a forward pass.

Colquitt CLEARLY was attempting to pass. Jackson CLEARLY wasn't attempting to pass. The disparity in the calls is stupid.

boltpower 21
12-18-2006, 09:11 AM
I posted the following (about the blocked punt) in another thread but it fits here too:

"I think they should change the rule so that the ball has to travel at least 10 yards before it can be live by being touched. Such a rule would have rewarded us for the good play and penalized therm for the poor one, instead of the other way around.

I don't think this would work. If it's not a live ball, you could not have blocked punts returned for touchdowns anymore. Just turning it into a dead ball seems to take all the excitement that follows what happens after the blocked punt.

htismaqe
12-18-2006, 09:12 AM
If the touch is the ruling, then any time anyone first blocks the punt, the ball is live and if the kicking team recovers, they should get the first down. The first contact the receiving team makes is on the block...

Yep.

ptlyon
12-18-2006, 09:14 AM
Yeah... we recovered a fumbled kickoff at a critical point, but were flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct because one of our players got pushed out of bounds and "didn't make a strong enough effort" to get back in bounds quickly. Didn't look much different than any other kickoff on the replay. They took away our fumble recovery & penalized us 15 yards.

That happened in the Giants game yesterday too - but what he did was blatant. He ran like 25 yards out of bounds down the sideline.

cdcox
12-18-2006, 09:20 AM
If the touch is the ruling, then any time anyone first blocks the punt, the ball is live and if the kicking team recovers, they should get the first down. The first contact the receiving team makes is on the block...



Nope. It depends on where the ball is:

When touched behind the LOS the ball is not live (Pollard's touch did not make the ball live)

When touched beyond the LOS the ball is live (Ross' touch made the ball live)

In short summary, the fact that the punt was blocked changes nothing as to when and where the recieving team can touch it.

JonesCrusher
12-18-2006, 09:21 AM
I think that the schitzophrenic officiating is a result of the Instant Replay implimentation. Officials feel like they are being second guessed and over-analyzed. They are asked to be judges at high speed and then are scrutinized in slow-motion.

I am in no way defending the officials, this is their job and they are paid very well. I am just explaining my take on human nature.

Now to tie back to thread topic, the officials are using these "weird and obtuse" rules to show flaws in system. It is like if my boss became very critical of every move I made and created a committee to review my faults I would become hostile and a stickler for every rule and regulation that I think shows flaws in company policy.

digi2fish
12-18-2006, 09:21 AM
I would like to mention the penalty of the tackle LJ played to Polamanu.
I strongly suggest Carl to sign ZZ Top as our RBs.

Bearcat
12-18-2006, 09:21 AM
What's up with this? Are we seeing situations that have never, ever occurred before? Or are we seeing situations now where football referees are much "better" at reading rules according to the letter of the law?


1 & 2 have to do with players not paying attention/knowing the rules, and I think that's the biggest issue (I don't remember #3). Just Plaxico Burress' spiked ball that was ruled a fumble. Granted, #1 is different because you could argue "it happened so quickly blah blah blah".... maybe the refs are getting smarter or the players are just getting stupider.

big nasty kcnut
12-18-2006, 09:26 AM
LOL digi

noa
12-18-2006, 09:28 AM
How about Colquitt's "fumble" that was returned for a TD against the Seahawks? I still don't understand how the official interpreted what he did as a fumble rather than a sissy throw.

morphius
12-18-2006, 10:13 AM
Yeah... we recovered a fumbled kickoff at a critical point, but were flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct because one of our players got pushed out of bounds and "didn't make a strong enough effort" to get back in bounds quickly. Didn't look much different than any other kickoff on the replay. They took away our fumble recovery & penalized us 15 yards.
I have seen that called a few times, and the Oakland guy never really tried to get back onto the field of play for 40 yards.

morphius
12-18-2006, 10:14 AM
How about Colquitt's "fumble" that was returned for a TD against the Seahawks? I still don't understand how the official interpreted what he did as a fumble rather than a sissy throw.
Yup, how is a spike going forward a fumble and a soft toss (okay it was more like a layup) going forward a fumble?

Frankie
12-18-2006, 11:09 AM
I don't think this would work. If it's not a live ball, you could not have blocked punts returned for touchdowns anymore. Just turning it into a dead ball seems to take all the excitement that follows what happens after the blocked punt.
so let's make the recovery within 10 yards unreturnable.

Frankie
12-18-2006, 11:10 AM
Nope. It depends on where the ball is:

When touched behind the LOS the ball is not live (Pollard's touch did not make the ball live)

When touched beyond the LOS the ball is live (Ross' touch made the ball live)

In short summary, the fact that the punt was blocked changes nothing as to when and where the recieving team can touch it.
Good point.

Fire Me Boy!
12-18-2006, 11:22 AM
That rule of having to have a cover sheet for the TPS reports still boggles my mind.
ROFL

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=64124&stc=1

trndobrd
12-18-2006, 11:38 AM
Teams should start bringing in an attorney as part of their special teams packages.

Demonpenz
12-18-2006, 11:51 AM
Madden is always talking about this one, but what about the cards rams game earlier this year where the rams were punting and there was an offsides on the cards and the rams declined it and since the game can end on a defensive penalty the cards would have had a shot at an untimed freekick down. Then when they were lining up for a field goal the refs said wait... now they want to accept the penalty game over.

AZORChiefFan
12-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Troy Palumaluloalaola's interception that wasn't. Against the Colts in the playoffs last year.

Rain Man
12-18-2006, 12:12 PM
Anyone else remember the Sproles play? That one really got me. A punted ball bounced off his chest and caromed forward right into the arms of a punt coverage guy who caught it and kept going. The punt coverage guy then got penalized for "interfering with a punt return" or some such thing, because apparently it's not a muffed punt until it hits the ground. Jeepers - the guy couldn't even dodge the ball.

Shamrock
12-18-2006, 12:47 PM
Oh, and I forgot the ruling where it's okay to hit Trent Green in the head during a slide, but it's not okay to do it for other quarterbacks (except maybe Charlie Frye).

There should have been a penalty on that Trent Green slide .... on the KC WR for a block in the back.

Funny how Squaw fans ignore that.

Buck
12-18-2006, 12:52 PM
Yeah all of those benefitted (is that even a word?) the Chargers, but as a Chargers fan, watching every single game and every single play, I can remember some very wack calls that helped the other team.

Last year in our first game against Dallas, Luis Castillo made a crucial sack on Bledsoe. However one of his fingers BARELY, and I mean barely, tipped Bledsoe in the Helmet, 15 Yard Penalty, Dallas drives down the field for the game winning drive.

Another couple that happened during the Pittsburgh game this year were the "IN THE GRASP" plays where when we barely grabbed Roethlisberger they called the play dead even though he fumbled on both of them.

Now I've seen Vince Young be "IN THE GRASP" of Mathias Kiewenuka and he didn't get called down. WTF?

The Refs really need to focus on being more precise and call all the plays that are the same with the same rulings.

PHANTOM
12-18-2006, 01:15 PM
Tuck rule needs to go. It happened again in the Broncos v Cards game. How can a QB draw his arm back in attempt to pass, change his mind and bring his arm back down, then get hit and fumble - but no fumble - its a TUCK. Makes no sense.

Halfcan
12-18-2006, 01:47 PM
This wouldn't have been an issue if he would have just caught the damm blocked punt and ran it into the endzone. That was a weak attempt. Looked like he saw he had a wide open space to score and was thinking about running. What a bonehead.

Halfcan
12-18-2006, 01:50 PM
Don't forget the Faders getting screwed on that weird play that not only gave the ball back to the Chargers it gave them a first down and essentially the game.

Chargers have been lucky, but will pay for it by an early exit out of the Playoffs.

ChiefFripp
12-18-2006, 02:31 PM
As soon as I saw Jeff Triplett's ugly mugg, I knew their was going to be some controversial call/s going against The Chiefs. I hate that guy and he obviously hates The Chiefs.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-18-2006, 02:38 PM
Triplette, Mike Carey, and Larry Nemmers.

Three examples for a eugenics program if there ever were.

Dartgod
12-18-2006, 02:45 PM
Anyone else remember the Sproles play? That one really got me. A punted ball bounced off his chest and caromed forward right into the arms of a punt coverage guy who caught it and kept going. The punt coverage guy then got penalized for "interfering with a punt return" or some such thing, because apparently it's not a muffed punt until it hits the ground. Jeepers - the guy couldn't even dodge the ball.
I remember that one. It had to be one of the worst interpretations of a rule I've ever seen.

Calcountry
12-18-2006, 03:12 PM
Does it seem like we've had a lot of bizarre technical calls in recent times? Off the top of my head, I can recall:

1. The whole blocked punt thing last night that showed that a team can get a first down without the ball ever crossing the first-down mark and without a penalty or giving up possession.

2. We had the Vincent Jackson thing a couple of weeks ago where a player can take a live ball and willingly toss it onto the ground, but if it goes forward, then it's a forward pass and therefore not a fumble.

3. We had the situation with Darren Sproles of the Chargers early this year or late last year where he muffed a punt and the other team recovered, only to be penalized because, even if the returner completely loses control of the ball, the other team still has to wait around to see if he can regain control before it hits the ground.

Are there others? It seems like I've seen more, but if they don't involve the Chiefs I tend to forget them.

(It's probably just a coincidence that all these involve the Chargers and ended up to their advantage, and I'm not being facetious.)

What's up with this? Are we seeing situations that have never, ever occurred before? Or are we seeing situations now where football referees are much "better" at reading rules according to the letter of the law?

I would say they're reading the letter of the rule to the expense of the spirit of the game, but I also realize that ambiguity is also a bad thing. What say ye about this?We need more subjectivity in NFL football.

When it is night time, it is o.k. to do on sides kicks in the second quarter, only if the referee believes it is the right thing to do.

Calcountry
12-18-2006, 03:16 PM
Tuck rule needs to go. It happened again in the Broncos v Cards game. How can a QB draw his arm back in attempt to pass, change his mind and bring his arm back down, then get hit and fumble - but no fumble - its a TUCK. Makes no sense.I have never been able to figure out, how a QB who's arm motion is going forward sufficient enough that the ball goes forward when a guy hits his arm from the blind side, isn't an incomplete forward pass.

Shamrock
12-18-2006, 03:21 PM
Kicks from scrimmage (http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/kicksfromscrimmage) - NFL.com

Pretty simple .....

Calcountry
12-18-2006, 04:39 PM
Kicks from scrimmage (http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/kicksfromscrimmage) - NFL.com

Pretty simple .....So that was not a blocked punt, but a 2 yard punt that was muffed.

Shamrock
12-18-2006, 05:19 PM
So that was not a blocked punt, but a 2 yard punt that was muffed.

Once it crosses the LOS, it falls under the change of possession part of the rules.

If SD's David Binn had recovered the punt - prior to the KC player touching it - then it would have resulted in a downed punt at the 15, and KC would have been awarded the ball.

Had the ball NEVER crossed the LOS, and a Chargers player picked up the blocked punt, then it would NOT have been a change of possession. The Chargers player would then have to run past the 1st down marker in order to extend that current drive.

Maybe one of you KC fans can remember ( sometime in the 90's) this situation happened in a KC vs SD game. SD blocked a punt, and a KC player picked up the ball - behind the LOS - and ran it about 70 yards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The first down marker matters on a punt block ONLY if the ball never travels beyond the LOS before it is touched.

Rain Man
12-18-2006, 05:57 PM
Maybe one of you KC fans can remember ( sometime in the 90's) this situation happened in a KC vs SD game. SD blocked a punt, and a KC player picked up the ball - behind the LOS - and ran it about 70 yards.

Greg Manusky. Greatest blocked punt offensive recovery and run ever.

It doesn't change the fact that this call is bogus. The facts are that a team ran a play where they started the ball on offense and ended up with a first down after the ball never at any time crossed the first-down marker. Is that something that you think is reasonable?

I still think the rule was either misinterpreted or, at best, was not designed to apply to this scenario. The founding fathers of football required the ball to pass the first-down marker in every other situation for a first down. This cannot and should not be an exception to that guiding principle of football, lest fanship of the people, by the people, and for the people disappear from the earth.

I'm looking forward to the following play in the next few weeks.

1. Team A is punting on 4th and 30, and snaps the ball.
2. Team B does the normal setup for a return - minor rush, and then turn around and run.
3. Team A puts three of their biggest guys on one rusher and knock him down and sit on him one yard past the line of scrimmage. All of their other players peel toward this pileup.
4. The punter runs up and kicks the ball very softly, bouncing it gently off the downed player and catching it.
5. The punter then falls down, confident that he got the first down since all he had to do was get the ball back. After all, there's no need to gain 30 yards on 4th and 30.

This scenario is quite plausible with the interpretation of the rules that is being proposed. I would love to see the Chiefs pull it off.

Shamrock
12-18-2006, 06:21 PM
Greg Manusky. Greatest blocked punt offensive recovery and run ever.

It doesn't change the fact that this call is bogus. The facts are that a team ran a play where they started the ball on offense and ended up with a first down after the ball never at any time crossed the first-down marker. Is that something that you think is reasonable?

I still think the rule was either misinterpreted or, at best, was not designed to apply to this scenario. The founding fathers of football required the ball to pass the first-down marker in every other situation for a first down. This cannot and should not be an exception to that guiding principle of football, lest fanship of the people, by the people, and for the people disappear from the earth.

I'm looking forward to the following play in the next few weeks.

1. Team A is punting on 4th and 30, and snaps the ball.
2. Team B does the normal setup for a return - minor rush, and then turn around and run.
3. Team A puts three of their biggest guys on one rusher and knock him down and sit on him one yard past the line of scrimmage. All of their other players peel toward this pileup.
4. The punter runs up and kicks the ball very softly, bouncing it gently off the downed player and catching it.
5. The punter then falls down, confident that he got the first down since all he had to do was get the ball back. After all, there's no need to gain 30 yards on 4th and 30.

This scenario is quite plausible with the interpretation of the rules that is being proposed. I would love to see the Chiefs pull it off.

Thanks for the Manusky reference. BTW: He's really done a great job as LB coach in San Diego, and IMO he'll be a defensive coordinator in the very near future.

First, I don't think your scenario is plausible or realistic. Similarly, if something like that was easy to arrange, you'd see kickers "aim" at the first line of defense on every kickoff to get an instant recovery and new possession.

On your first point regarding it being "bogus" .... Again, once a change of possession occurs (the ball crossing the line of scrimmage) the first down marker is immaterial, since the kicking team no longer has possession. Normal punt rules now apply, both in terms of the kicking and receiving teams touching the ball. If the kicking team touches it first, the ball is downed. If the receiving team touches it first (without gaining control) it's a muff. Simple.

If the ball had never crossed the LOS, then the first down marker would still be significant, because no change of possession had yet to occur.

Change of possession ELIMINATES any reference to the previous first down marker.