The era of weird and obtuse football rules.

[Rain Man]

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?

[Shamrock]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Triplette, Mike Carey, and Larry Nemmers.

Three examples for a eugenics program if there ever were.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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]

Originally Posted by PHANTOM

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]

Kicks from scrimmage - NFL.com

Pretty simple .....

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

Kicks from scrimmage - NFL.com

Pretty simple .....

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

[Shamrock]

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

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]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

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]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.