The rules committee needs to review this...

[htismaqe]

Let me preface by saying:

I don't care that the Chiefs lost. They aren't a good team and this play really had no bearing on the overall fact that they lost.

The rules committee needs to examine the rules surrounding blocked punts. A blocked punt is an EXTRAORDINARY play that happens just a few times a season for the entire league. So why penalize a team for making an extraordinary play?

It's unexplainable to me how, on a 4th and 12, it's possible for the punting team to fall on the ball short of the 1st down and GET A 1ST DOWN.

The solution is simple. Instead of making the touch rule apply beyond the LOS, make it apply beyond the 1st down marker. The punting team should only be able to get a 1st down if the ball is advanced beyond the 1st down marker.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

What about a tipped punt? How much "block" does one have to have before it's "blocked" .... By wanting to change the rule, you would be adding problems with interpretation and judgement. Do we need more judgement calls added for the refs to interpret? I don't think so.

Treat it like a fumble? No. It's not a fumble. It's a change of possession play.

It's a VERY simple rule. The ball travelled beyond the LOS, a receiving player touched it, and then recovered by the kicking team. It's a muff.

Simple.

You're flat out wrong. I'm not complication anything. I'm not ADDING any problems, I'm not relying on interpretation or judgement.

I'm simply saying that the magical line of demarcation should be the FIRST DOWN MARKER, not the LOS, thus preventing a team from getting rewarded for a mistake. It's not a muff. A muff occurs when a player on the receiving team is the FIRST TO TOUCH the ball beyond the LOS. When the ball is touched behind the LOS, it's a block.

[bkkcoh]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

The rule should be changed because it's stupid. A team should never receive a first down for making a negative play.

At the instant the punt is BLOCKED, the whole idea of muffing the punt should go out the window. A blocked punt should be treated exactly like a fumble.

Kind of like a tipped pass and pass interference. But if the first down is not successful, possession should be turned over as a result of downs....

[Shamrock]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You're flat out wrong. I'm not complication anything. I'm not ADDING any problems, I'm not relying on interpretation or judgement.

I'm simply saying that the magical line of demarcation should be the FIRST DOWN MARKER, not the LOS, thus preventing a team from getting rewarded for a mistake. It's not a muff. A muff occurs when a player on the receiving team is the FIRST TO TOUCH the ball beyond the LOS. When the ball is touched behind the LOS, it's a block.

If a tipped ball travels 30 yards, and is muffed by the punt returner (and recovered by the kicking team), under your theory, the ball would then still be awarded to the receiving team.

The first down marker has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. It's a change of possession play. Once the ball is punted, or figgie kicked (as in the Leon Lett play) the first down marker is immaterial. The ONLY important line is the original line of scrimmage on determining change of possession status on a kicked ball.

If it was fourth and one, or fourth and 50, it makes no difference on change of possession.

A muff is fielding a downfield kick, regardless if it was tipped or blocked and still traveled downfield.

Again, interpretation would come into this to change the rule. A "block" can be one finger tipping a ball or a whole hand, but it matters not if the ball STILL travels beyond the LINE OF SCRIMMAGE because then it is a CHANGE OF POSSESSION play.

The problem was the Chiefs player not knowing the rules. It's that simple. Educate the player, don't add in more crap to obfuscate the rule book.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Let me preface by saying:

I don't care that the Chiefs lost. They aren't a good team and this play really had no bearing on the overall fact that they lost.

.

I amazed that you said that. Probably one of the biggest single momentum changing plays I can remember. It was at the very least a 10 point swing, maybe more in an 11 point game.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I amazed that you said that. Probably one of the biggest single momentum changing plays I can remember. It was at the very least a 10 point swing, maybe more in an 11 point game.

It's the realization that we would have found some other way to lose had we not screwed up that opportunity.

[Shamrock]

Kicks from scrimmage - NFL.com

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

It's the realization that we would have found some other way to lose had we not screwed up that opportunity.

Yep.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

If a tipped ball travels 30 yards, and is muffed by the punt returner (and recovered by the kicking team), under your theory, the ball would then still be awarded to the receiving team.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have no problem with possession being awarded to the kicking team. I have a problem with them being rewarded with a FIRST DOWN.

This has nothing to do with the Chiefs. It has everything to do with it being a stupid rule.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

It's the realization that we would have found some other way to lose had we not screwed up that opportunity.

oh, thanks for clearing that up.

[Logical]

Parker I have to agree with you. Seems like a logical modification to the rule.

[bigcarson50]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have no problem with possession being awarded to the kicking team. I have a problem with them being rewarded with a FIRST DOWN.

This has nothing to do with the Chiefs. It has everything to do with it being a stupid rule.

You have to define when the ball changes possession for a muff to occur. Right now that is defined as when the ball crosses the line of scrimmage. If you change this to the first down marker only for a blocked kick then you have to define a blocked kick. Does just barely touching the ball with your finger count?

What if on a windy day and the punt is not blocked and is muffed, recovered by the kicking team but they haven't made the line to gain? Should it be the receiving teams ball? Why, they were the one that screwed up, not the fault of the kicking team. You say that the proposed line to gain rule should only apply to blocked punts because the kicking team screwed up. but the logic of the line to gain rule is independant of whether or not the punt is blocked, so on a short kick into the wind that is muffed the logic of the rule should still apply even though it was now the receiving team that screwed up.

To sum up. Once the ball passes the line of scrimmage, the ball has changed possession, the line to gain no longer exists. As I said before (but said the wrong player) the same thing happened against the Cowboys in the thanksgiving game against the Dolphins except it was a FG not a punt, because stupid Lett thought it would be a good idea to slide into the ball after it had been blocked by the Cowboys.

[Shamrock]

Originally Posted by bigcarson50

You have to define when the ball changes possession for a muff to occur. Right now that is defined as when the ball crosses the line of scrimmage. If you change this to the first down marker only for a blocked kick then you have to define a blocked kick. Does just barely touching the ball with your finger count?

What if on a windy day and the punt is not blocked and is muffed, recovered by the kicking team but they haven't made the line to gain? Should it be the receiving teams ball? Why, they were the one that screwed up, not the fault of the kicking team. You say that the proposed line to gain rule should only apply to blocked punts because the kicking team screwed up. but the logic of the line to gain rule is independant of whether or not the punt is blocked, so on a short kick into the wind that is muffed the logic of the rule should still apply even though it was now the receiving team that screwed up.

To sum up. Once the ball passes the line of scrimmage, the ball has changed possession, the line to gain no longer exists. As I said before (but said the wrong player) the same thing happened against the Cowboys in the thanksgiving game against the Dolphins except it was a FG not a punt, because stupid Lett thought it would be a good idea to slide into the ball after it had been blocked by the Cowboys.

Exactly. That's why judgement would come into the issue on a tipped vs. blocked ball.

Using the first down marker as an indicator is trying to add an extra element into the change of possession rules.

Similarly, if a team fumbled, and the defense recovered, then fumbled again with the original offense recovering, the previous poster would only want a first down granted if the recovering team crossed the previous first down marker (by extrapolating his logic).

A muff creates the opportunity for the other team to recover. The first down marker is immaterial to change of possession, since after a muff occurs, possession has changed and the ball is live to both teams. The previous first down marker has absolutely nothing to do with change of possession rules.

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have no problem with possession being awarded to the kicking team. I have a problem with them being rewarded with a FIRST DOWN.

This has nothing to do with the Chiefs. It has everything to do with it being a stupid rule.

The punt, regardless of being blocked or tipped, crossed the line of scrimmage, thus becoming a CHANGE OF POSSESSION.

It's a first down because once the Chief player muffed the ball, it's live.

~~~~~

It's very simple, see if you can follow along.

Team A punts ball. As soon as the ball crosses the line of scrimmage (regardless of tip or block) it is now a change of possession scenario - meaning the previous first down marker has NOTHING to do with anything that happens hereafter. Team B muffs punt, resulting in a free ball. Team A recovers and begins a new drive.

[boltpower 21]

Originally Posted by Shamrock

Exactly. That's why judgement would come into the issue on a tipped vs. blocked ball.

Using the first down marker as an indicator is trying to add an extra element into the change of possession rules.

Similarly, if a team fumbled, and the defense recovered, then fumbled again with the original offense recovering, the previous poster would only want a first down granted if the recovering team crossed the previous first down marker (by extrapolating his logic).

A muff creates the opportunity for the other team to recover. The first down marker is immaterial to change of possession, since after a muff occurs, possession has changed and the ball is live to both teams. The previous first down marker has absolutely nothing to do with change of possession rules.

The punt, regardless of being blocked or tipped, crossed the line of scrimmage, thus becoming a CHANGE OF POSSESSION.

It's a first down because once the Chief player muffed the ball, it's live.

~~~~~

It's very simple, see if you can follow along.

Team A punts ball. As soon as the ball crosses the line of scrimmage (regardless of tip or block) it is now a change of possession scenario - meaning the previous first down marker has NOTHING to do with anything that happens hereafter. Team B muffs punt, resulting in a free ball. Team A recovers and begins a new drive.

Great explanation. I was going to post something very similar but was trying to word it so it would be easy to understand but this is an excellent explanation.

This is not a strange rule situation like the Vincent Jackson spike. The only thing that 'complicated' this scenario is that the kick was partially blocked. Other than that, it was like any other punt once it crossed the line of scrimmage. There is nothing complicated about it.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by boltpower 21

Great explanation. I was going to post something very similar but was trying to word it so it would be easy to understand but this is an excellent explanation.

This is not a strange rule situation like the Vincent Jackson spike. The only thing that 'complicated' this scenario is that the kick was partially blocked. Other than that, it was like any other punt once it crossed the line of scrimmage. There is nothing complicated about it.

You would be bitching to high heaven if this happened to you. Enjoy your playoff collapse and go get your shinebox.

[bigcarson50]

Originally Posted by 'Hummus' Jenkins

You would be bitching to high heaven if this happened to you. Enjoy your playoff collapse and go get your shinebox.

No I wouldn't I yelled "the refs pointing the wrong way" as soon as it happened (when the ref initially pointed first down KC). I knew the rule. I remember the Leon Lett play. I would expect my players to know the rule as well. Though I don't exactly fault the guy for trying to scoop and score cause he had nothing but open field in front of him.