The rules committee needs to review this... - Page 5

htismaqe · 12-18-2006, 08:59 AM

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.

Frankie · 12-18-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

I had suggested, in another thread, that the ball should travel 10 yards to be live. But I like your idea much better. It's perfect. Maybe a lot of us should petition this idea to the rules committee.

**Predarat** · 12-18-2006, 12:43 PM

That is a wierd rule but it was called correctly. I agree with what the original poster said, if it doesn't go past the first down marker, no first down.

chiefqueen · 12-18-2006, 12:55 PM

Agreed. The punting team s/b required to move the ball to the first down marker in order to retain possession.

Calcountry · 12-18-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

Which we all now know requires more than securing the ball and planting both feet.

The ref talked Herm out of challenging that one, according to Al Michaels.

Since when was it the Refs prerogative to tell a coach to NOT challenge a call?

Screw it, game over, the chiefs would have lost anyway. NO way they were EVER going to score anything more than a field goal in that game anyway.

Calcountry · 12-18-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

I had suggested, in another thread, that the ball should travel 10 yards to be live. But I like your idea much better. It's perfect. Maybe a lot of us should petition this idea to the rules committee.

Yeah, if you screwed up so bad that it is fourth and 50, and your kicker can't kick that far, then your receiver gets a freebie, if he muffs it then you still get the ball.

Simplex3 · 12-18-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I didnt even get upset over the play. Which is odd. But the fact remains is Ross touched the ball regardless if it was blocked or not. Would be the same as a punt and it is touched by a chief player and SD recovered.

Every coach who has ever coached football knows that you stay away from a blocked punt or a punt that is not fielded...

Looks like Ross isnt coached very well to me.

Amen

BIG_DADDY · 12-18-2006, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunnytrdr

Screw it, game over, the chiefs would have lost anyway. NO way they were EVER going to score anything more than a field goal in that game anyway.

Good thing Herm fixed the offense.

Reerun_KC · 12-18-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankie

I had suggested, in another thread, that the ball should travel 10 yards to be live. But I like your idea much better. It's perfect. Maybe a lot of us should petition this idea to the rules committee.

Not even 10 yards, how about just past the first down marker? That would be good enough.

Simplex3 · 12-18-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowanian

Dumbest Rule in the NFL.

Regardless of touching, the Chiefs didn't establish possession and fumble, and beyond that, Sandy Eggo Never crossed the first down marker.

Ridiculous.

As for blaming Ross.....idiotic. He had a ball bounce in front of him and tried to make a play....I can't imagine that wasn't the instinct of every player on the field in that spot.

If he catches that and runs it in, you're sucking his baows today.

If the punt is blocked, this rule is stupid. If the punt is downfield and the ball touches the gunner or something, it makes sense.

Define "blocked". You're now adding another freaking judgment call by the refs because one player on our team f**ked up and did what you're never supposed to do: Touch a blocked kick.

tk13 · 12-18-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Define "blocked". You're now adding another freaking judgment call by the refs because one player on our team f**ked up and did what you're never supposed to do: Touch a blocked kick.

Not really. If you changed the rule so the ball cannot be retained by the punting team unless it goes past the first down marker... it would usually be a pretty blantantly obvious unless it was like 4th and 26 or something and the punter muffed it.

The most ironic part of this whole deal is that Lamar probably would've been all over getting this rule examined. You can't write that stuff, sad as it is.

And a day later, it still ticks me off. Finally had a momentum changing play to save our season destroyed because something like that. Only the Chiefs.

htismaqe · 12-18-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Define "blocked". You're now adding another freaking judgment call by the refs because one player on our team f**ked up and did what you're never supposed to do: Touch a blocked kick.

It doesn't matter if Ross touched it or not. The rule is stupid. A team should never be rewarded for getting themselves in a 4th and long situation and allowing a punt to be blocked on top of that.

Chargeroo · 12-18-2006, 01:32 PM

I agree with the original post. A team that blocks a punt should be rewarded for it. I'm a long time Charger fan but I agree they need to change this rule. I suppose they do need to word it carefully though because sometimes punts are partially blocked and this same sort of "muff" recovery could occur downfield and in that case the kicking team should be awarded the ball. Perhaps the rule could be modified in a way that includes a clause about the kick traveling a certain distance? Actually, this is just one of several rules that they need to review during this off season.

Shamrock · 12-18-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

The solution is simple.

Educate players not to make a bonehead play by touching the ball when it is past the LOS.

Sour grapes from fans who are blaming long standing rules for their team's failure ..........

picasso · 12-18-2006, 01:43 PM

It doesn't matter if the ball was touched by Ross because Pollard already touched it. The Chargers could have fallen on it regardless if that was the case and it would have still been their recovery . The ball crossing the line of scrimmage shouldn't matter because you can not advance a ball forward on a fumble if that is what became of the loose ball. And since the ball was never lateraled or posessed by a player it never was a fumble in the first place.
Bullshit call!! I was pissed, still am pissed but whawt I am more pissed about is the qualtiy of player that Pollard is and still Wesley is on the field starting.

Shamrock · 12-18-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by picasso

It doesn't matter if the ball was touched by Ross because Pollard already touched it. The Chargers could have fallen on it regardless if that was the case and it would have still been their recovery . The ball crossing the line of scrimmage shouldn't matter because you can not advance a ball forward on a fumble if that is what became of the loose ball. And since the ball was never lateraled or posessed by a player it never was a fumble in the first place.
Bullshit call!! I was pissed, still am pissed but whawt I am more pissed about is the qualtiy of player that Pollard is and still Wesley is on the field starting.

Get a rule book and read it. You're adding and mixing rules (fumble, etc) that have no bearing on this instance.

As one of your own fans said, this is very similar to the Leon Lett blocked figgie vs. Miami.

12-18-2006, 08:59 AM
htismaqe 'Tis my eye! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chiefsplanet Casino cash: $10269900	The rules committee needs to review this... 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.
Posts: 100,022

12-18-2006, 12:43 PM	#62
Predarat Run Chiefs fans, run!! Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Casino cash: $9973863	That is a wierd rule but it was called correctly. I agree with what the original poster said, if it doesn't go past the first down marker, no first down.
Posts: 10,776

12-18-2006, 12:55 PM	#63
chiefqueen On my throne Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $8152060	Agreed. The punting team s/b required to move the ball to the first down marker in order to retain possession.
Posts: 4,179

12-18-2006, 01:32 PM	#72
Chargeroo Rookie Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Salem, Or. Casino cash: $10004900	I agree with the original post. A team that blocks a punt should be rewarded for it. I'm a long time Charger fan but I agree they need to change this rule. I suppose they do need to word it carefully though because sometimes punts are partially blocked and this same sort of "muff" recovery could occur downfield and in that case the kicking team should be awarded the ball. Perhaps the rule could be modified in a way that includes a clause about the kick traveling a certain distance? Actually, this is just one of several rules that they need to review during this off season.
Posts: 16

12-18-2006, 01:43 PM	#74
picasso That's a GOOD boy!! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seattle Casino cash: $10004900	It doesn't matter if the ball was touched by Ross because Pollard already touched it. The Chargers could have fallen on it regardless if that was the case and it would have still been their recovery . The ball crossing the line of scrimmage shouldn't matter because you can not advance a ball forward on a fumble if that is what became of the loose ball. And since the ball was never lateraled or posessed by a player it never was a fumble in the first place. Bullshit call!! I was pissed, still am pissed but whawt I am more pissed about is the qualtiy of player that Pollard is and still Wesley is on the field starting.
Posts: 871