Quit complaining about the blocked punt

[supercoupe91]

First my Chief brethren complain that the refs screwed it up, now they are crying foul on the rulebook. Both teams play by the same rules, by the way.

Why are you guys complaining? Who started that other thread about this? A blocked punt that goes past the line of scrimmage is no different than a standard 40 yard punt. If Dante touched the ball but the kicking team recovered, then it's their ball. It's simple. The ball went past the line, same deal. If you truly block a punt, it doesn't go forward anyways.

Turn your blame on Derrick Ross, the idiot who touched the ball but didn't grab it. Don't know what's more pathetic, Ross' play or Herm thinking he could challenge the rule. Don't blame the rule book, everyone plays under them the same way.

[Direckshun]

This thread is close to being 24 hours late.

The topic has been discussed. We've been through the circus. The conversation's over.

[noa]

I wish I could sit next to you while I watch Chiefs games so you could tell me how to react to everything.

[KcMizzou]

That was one of the most disappointing plays I've seen in a long time.

The shock of going from that excited and happy, to finding out it was a first down for the Bolts, was just crushing.

[Demonpenz]

People keep on saying how "You would have gone for the ball too" I call bullshit on that. During the state semi finals I was forced out of my middle linebacker spot to try to rush the kicker, even I who wasn't on the punt team told everyone who got out there that when I block it get away from it if it goes past the line of scrimage. The next play I used my swim/rip move to get to the c gap and I was able to get one of my hands on it (scouts said I had div I wingspan) We won luckily because I knew the football rules, ross did not.

[rescueez5]

TAKEN FROM THE NFL OFFICIAL RULE BOOK


4. Any punt that is blocked and does not cross the line of scrimmage can be recovered and advanced by either team. However, if offensive team recovers it must make the yardage necessary for its first down to retain possession if punt was on fourth down.

5. The kicking team may never advance its own kick even though legal recovery is made beyond the line of scrimmage. Possession only.

11. A punted ball remains a kicked ball until it is declared dead or in possession of either team.

12. Any member of the punting team may down the ball anywhere in the field of play. However, it is illegal touching (Official’s time out and receiver’s ball at spot of illegal touching). This foul does not offset any foul by receivers during the down.

13. Defensive team may advance all kicks from scrimmage (including unsuccessful field goal) whether or not ball crosses defensive team’s goal line. Rules pertaining to kicks from scrimmage apply until defensive team gains possession.


Ok, according to the rule book the ball should have been the Chiefs because the recovery and tackle was made behind the 1st down marker. On a forty yard punt that is touched and th epunting team recovers the ball has clearly passed the first down marker, therefore they retain possession.

Puting this all aside we had our chances and we just did not put the ball in the end zone!

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by KcMizzou

That was one of the most disappointing plays I've seen in a long time.

The shock of going from that excited and happy, to finding out it was a first down for the Bolts, was just crushing.

I agree, but the final kick in the nuts was SD snapping the ball (meaning Herm really really wasn't going to challenge) and watching LT take it to the house.

Those two plays back to back are a window into what the Herm years are going to be like IMO.

[chief52]

Originally Posted by rescueez5

Ok, according to the rule book the ball should have been the Chiefs because the recovery and tackle was made behind the 1st down marker. On a forty yard punt that is touched and th epunting team recovers the ball has clearly passed the first down marker, therefore they retain possession.

Puting this all aside we had our chances and we just did not put the ball in the end zone!

Once the ball is touched beyond the LOS it becomes a live ball. Who ever recovers it receives and first and ten. The line to gain has nothing to do with it. Period. Those are the rules of the game.

[thedude]

Yeah, Herm called the dont tackle LT defense. "A WINDOW INTO HERM YEARS" is just the flaming idiocy in comments that I cant bear to stand. If Herm challenged, he would have lost. There was nothing to prove right.

It hurts a lot yeah, but that kind of play is just a larger metaphor for our season. We should go out and kick some butt the next two games for pride.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by thedude

Yeah, Herm called the dont tackle LT defense. "A WINDOW INTO HERM YEARS" is just the flaming idiocy in comments that I cant bear to stand. If Herm challenged, he would have lost. There was nothing to prove right.

What I can't stand is some stupid **** with no comprehension skills.


Herm not challenging meant "Holy crap, that play is going to stand and there's nothing we can do about it".

It hurts a lot yeah, but that kind of play is just a larger metaphor for our season.

Yea that's what I was saying.

We should go out and kick some butt the next two games for pride.

Now there is an intelligent statement. And what would that prove at this point?

The defense is better this year but if you don't face up to what Herm has done to our offense you're the idiot.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

And what would that prove at this point?

Come on, man. By this time, you know the routine. All the worthless baggage will have career days in the last two games, thus convincing the staff that there's no reason to clean house for next year. Everything will click in the last two meaningless games, and we'll end up with a duplicate season for 2007.

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by NewChief

Come on, man. By this time, you know the routine. All the worthless baggage will have career days in the last two games, thus convincing the staff that there's no reason to clean house for next year. Everything will click in the last two meaningless games, and we'll end up with a duplicate season for 2007.

I get it, you get it, but evidently some don't.

I've backed Carl long enough but it's time to cut him off now like a gangenous testacle.

[thedude]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

1.What I can't stand is some stupid **** with no comprehension skills.


Herm not challenging meant "Holy crap, that play is going to stand and there's nothing we can do about it".




2. Now there is an intelligent statement. And what would that prove at this point?

3. The defense is better this year but if you don't face up to what Herm has done to our offense you're the idiot.

1. I think I comprehended just fine, challenging the play would have been absolutely pointless. To compound it by stupidly wasting a timeout to try and prove something would be stupid as well. However, a timeout taken to regroup the defense and give them some rest would have been a good idea. But since there was no explicit mention of this, or an implication either, my comprehension was apt.

2. What happened since I last checked? Was the point of playing football not to win? Is it good for the fan base, the head coach or the players to go in to the offseason on a 5 game losing streak? I think pride is definitely worth playing for, that is unless you prefer finishing third to the Broncos. I'd rather take second though. But seeing as you are indifferent to pride, we may as well just tank the season.

3. Good point, Herm has been a terrible addition to the offensive line. We just may have to go out and find a new tackle to replace Herm Edwards.

[Halfcan]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I agree, but the final kick in the nuts was SD snapping the ball (meaning Herm really really wasn't going to challenge) and watching LT take it to the house.

Those two plays back to back are a window into what the Herm years are going to be like IMO.

Herm is the worst coach we have ever had.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by thedude

1. I think I comprehended just fine, challenging the play would have been absolutely pointless. To compound it by stupidly wasting a timeout to try and prove something would be stupid as well. However, a timeout taken to regroup the defense and give them some rest would have been a good idea. But since there was no explicit mention of this, or an implication either, my comprehension was apt.

Bob Dole mentioned in another thread that a timeout would have been the correct coaching move.

To take it one step further and use a tactic that Sean Payton has mastered, a challenge--while you know it will be unsuccessful--would likely have given the defense even more time to collect themselves.