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.

[Hootie]

Agreed 100%.

[StcChief]

Agreed. When I saw that last nite several of us were like WTF. That doesn't seem right at all.

[ROYC75]

Agreed .......... that was costly and degrading as a player to make a play.

[bkkcoh]

And the kicking team must recovery the balled behind the LOS unless the receiving team touches it first and unless possession of the ball had been established prior to the kicking team recovering the ball.

[ChiTown]

Completely agree!

Unless the receiving team shows possession of the ball, how can that even be close to a turnover. It's a BS rule that drastically altered the course of last nights game.

[Mr. Kotter]

Completely agree!

Unless the receiving team shows possession of the ball, how can that even be close to a turnover. It's a BS rule that drastically altered the course of last nights game.

My thoughts exactly. :clap:

[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.

[Rain Man]

I think you can even apply the touch rule as it is now, but if they don't get a first down, then the ball is turned over on downs. It's the common-sense solution, which wasn't applied last night and cost us a playoff spot.

[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.

[bkkcoh]

I think you can even apply the touch rule as it is now, but if they don't get a first down, then the ball is turned over on downs. It's the common-sense solution, which wasn't applied last night and cost us a playoff spot.


That should have been the ruling in the play last night. Enough yards wasn't gained for a first down, should have been turned over on downs...


:banghead:

And what the hell is a football move defined as???

[htismaqe]

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.

Bullshit.

It's NOT the same as a punt because it's already BEEN TOUCHED by a receiving team player.

You just couldn't resist taking a shot at the coaching staff could you?

[bkkcoh]

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.

not much difference between hero and goat on a play like that.... That was a turning point for the game. Either way it would have gone, it was a turning point....

[ChiTown]

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.

Are you serious?

[JBucc]

They should change the rule completely to where possesion has to be established by the receiving team on a punt before they can turn the ball over. What purpose do muffs and what happened yesterday serve other than another stupid turnover and momentum change that the team that just got stopped doesn't deserve?

[Iowanian]

rerun is a retard.

I don't think I have the demeanor to deal with dumb****ary today.

[CoMoChief]

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.


Agreed. This rule needs to be changed or modified so that teams don't get penalized for a blocked punt.

[Reerun_KC]

Bullshit.

It's NOT the same as a punt because it's already BEEN TOUCHED by a receiving team player.

You just couldn't resist taking a shot at the coaching staff could you?


Bullshit.

could careless about the coaching staff... But the rule is the rule. And Ross touched the ball..

I think it is a pathetic rule, They never reached the first down marker so how could they retain possession?

[Rain Man]

I don't blame Ross at all for this. He was trying to get to a blocked punt, and he has a running back's instincts for the ball. If the rule was enforced correctly, and I still question that, then it was so obtuse and counter-intuitive that he had probably never encountered it at any level of his career.

[Reerun_KC]

rerun is a retard.

I don't think I have the demeanor to deal with dumb****ary today.


I am retarded for having to deal with the rule that cost us field position?


Yeah it sucks, but they called it correct. What do you do? Deal with it and not let LT run 85 untouched for a TD?

Yeah I am retarded....

[King_Chief_Fan]

I think you can even apply the touch rule as it is now, but if they don't get a first down, then the ball is turned over on downs. It's the common-sense solution, which wasn't applied last night and cost us a playoff spot.

losses against Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Miami cost the team a playoff spot, not an enforced rule.

[htismaqe]

Bullshit.

could careless about the coaching staff... But the rule is the rule. And Ross touched the ball..

I think it is a pathetic rule, They never reached the first down marker so how could they retain possession?

So you agree with me.

ROFL

Seriously, take a deep breath and stop acting like an idiot for a few seconds.

[Rain Man]

losses against Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Miami cost the team a playoff spot, not an enforced rule.

Agree with your point, but I also don't say that World War II started with the election of Hitler. Until last night, we were in the running for a playoff spot even with losses to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and (sigh) Miami. After last night,...(sigh).

[Mecca]

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.

Len Dawson basically said Ross was a dumbass for not knowing this rule when every special teams coach in the league drills things like that into guys heads constantly........

[Reerun_KC]

So you agree with me.

ROFL

Seriously, take a deep breath and stop acting like an idiot for a few seconds.


Uh yeah I agree with you..

And yes can careless about the coaching staff we know that. But we are stuck with them for the next 3 years, so I am learning to deal with it...


But I am not blaming Ross, it comes down to situational awareness. Same as flying an airplane. You have to know where you are at, time, fuel and distance. You can imply that to coaching your players.

Ross didnt use good situational awareness on that play. I dont fault him for trying to make a play, but there are times you have to think before reacting.

[Hydrae]

Perhaps where it occurs should not even be a factor. Either make the ball live like on a kickoff or get rid of the touch part of the rule completely.

[Reerun_KC]

Agree with your point, but I also don't say that World War II started with the election of Hitler. Until last night, we were in the running for a playoff spot even with losses to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and (sigh) Miami. After last night,...(sigh).


Good thing we didnt quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor....

[ptlyon]

Until last night, we were in the running for a playoff spot even with losses to Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and (sigh) Miami. After last night,...(sigh).

Sorry Kev - but you can't hang your playoff hopes on going into a game like that against a team on a roll that last lost to you way back in October.

We were in the lead of the wildcard race before the Cleveland game. It was ours to lose, and we did. Succinctly.

[cdcox]

I'm going to put aside the question of whether the rule is a good one or not for a minute.

Let's see. Len Dawson knew the rule immediately. Herm had to have it explained to him by the ref. There is a fundamental problem here.

There are a ton of quirky rules surrounding special teams play (you can fair catch a punt and get a free kick for a FG, you can return a missed FG, the blocked punt rule, all the rules about muffed punts, safeties on kickoffs, etc, etc).

The players on special teams have to know these rules instinctively. Give them a one pager of rules for each specific situation (kickoff, kickoff return, etc) to watch out for. Make it mandetory for them to review each of these rules before they take the field each week. These things come up far too often to ignore. This is a coaching issue plain and simple.

There is no excuse for Ross or the special teams coaches on this one. You have to know your situation and what actions are avaialble at any point on the field. On a blocked punt, there is no immediate need to grab the ball. It can be recovered in a liesurely manner. If you have a play great, but if you don't let the dang thing go, especially if you are anywhere near the LOS. That has to be an automatic response of someone on the punt block team.

[Hydrae]

Bullshit.

It's NOT the same as a punt because it's already BEEN TOUCHED by a receiving team player.

You just couldn't resist taking a shot at the coaching staff could you?


The difference is that Pollard touched it behind the line of scrimmage and Ross touched it beyond the line of scrimmage. Pollard touching it did not make it live, Ross touching it did.

How about the rule be changed so that the down remains 4th (or whatever down you are punting on I suppose) until the recovery takes place? If that recovery is behind the marker, it is a change of possession on downs. This way it would not change a muffed punt or anything because the kicking team would be recovering the ball beyond the 1st down marker.

[Mecca]

I don't think this is that quirky of a rule.....I knew it right away. Len Dawson knew it right away.....it's been a rule forever and it's happened before.

I don't think because our coaching staff/players are to stupid to know the rule doesn't mean it needs to be changed.

[htismaqe]

Can we get this discussion back on track?

Ross made a mistake, we know that already. And no, THAT PLAY didn't cost us a shot at the playoffs.

It doesn't change the fact that the rule NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. It's a dumb rule.

[htismaqe]

It doesn't matter who knew it and who didn't. It doesn't matter that it was the CHIEFS coaches.

A team should NEVER get a free first down after they made a MISTAKE.

[cdcox]

It doesn't matter who knew it and who didn't. It doesn't matter that it was the CHIEFS coaches.

A team should NEVER get a free first down after they made a MISTAKE.

Team A made a mistake (Chargers allowed punt to be blocked)

Team B made another overriding mistake (Ross muffed the punt).

Your arguement would require a fumble of an intereception to be nullified.

[htismaqe]

Team A made a mistake (Chargers allowed punt to be blocked)

Team B made another overriding mistake (Ross muffed the punt).

Your arguement would require a fumble of an intereception to be nullified.

No it wouldn't. Because an interception requires POSSESSION. The intercepting player, just like a WR, has to not only catch the ball but MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE.

[Reerun_KC]

A team should NEVER get a free first down after they made a MISTAKE.


Which is true, The Chiefs player in question muffed the punt and changed the ball from being dead at that spot to a live ball...

[htismaqe]

Which is true, The Chiefs player in question muffed the punt and changed the ball from being dead at that spot to a live ball...

It should not be a muffed punt if the ball doesn't advance beyond the 1st down marker.

[FAX]

I agree that the call was correct, but when you block a punt, you should get the ball. Period. That's only fair.

Bad dang rule.

FAX

[Reerun_KC]

It should not be a muffed punt if the ball doesn't advance beyond the 1st down marker.


I agree. The ball never reached the 22 was it? It was touched by a chiefs player at the 17, then recovered by the chargers at that mark.

Should of been first and 10 KC. But according to the rule it is not.

It is a quarky rule, but called correctly, same as muffing a punt down the field. The ball was touched beyond the LOS by a defensive player, therefore it is a live ball.

Same as the DB's running with the gunner, if the ball hits them in the back and the kicking team recovers, kicking team ball.

I always remember coaches screaming at players to get away from blocked kicks and such. (agian not saying anything about our coaching staff) But remember playing in HS, when we blocked a punt, we were always told to get away from the football...

[Lonewolf Ed]

Since this happened to the Chiefs, and not in their favor, I'd say the rules committee will not address it. If, however, it had happened to Indy or New England instead, then it would be one of the first topics to be discussed.

[Uncle_Ted]

I don't think this is that quirky of a rule.....I knew it right away. Len Dawson knew it right away.....it's been a rule forever and it's happened before.

I don't think because our coaching staff/players are to stupid to know the rule doesn't mean it needs to be changed.

Len didn't know the rule right away ... IIRC while the play was happening he was silent. He didn't mention it until after the play was dead. Usually when something drastic like that is happening Len will start commenting while the play is still live ... and if a player makes a mistake Len will be all over him before the play is finished. IMO if he had had instant recall of the rule, he would have been saying "no no no" or "get away from it" in the background before the play was finished (like he always does).

[Bob Dole]

No it wouldn't. Because an interception requires POSSESSION. The intercepting player, just like a WR, has to not only catch the ball but MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE.

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

[Swanman]

A version of that play happened in the Illinois/Rutgers game this season. Illinois has one of their receivers attempt a rugby punt (due to our freshman punter being the worst in the nation) and kicked it so badly that it hit a Rutgers player in the ass as he was retreating to block for the returner. Illinois recovered the ball and got a first and ten out of it. It was the first onside punt I'd ever seen. It's a rule that defintely needs to be changed. You're basically rewarding the kicking team for screwing up by giving them the ball back in these situations.

[FAX]

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

Good point, Mr. Bob Dole.

What, exactly, is a "football move". Do you have to make the Heisman pose? Shake and Bake? Wiggle your butt in a semi-circular motion like Manning? What?

When a receiver catches the ball on the sidelines, touches his toes, and falls straight backwards out of the boundry, is that a "football move"?

Inquiring minds.

FAX

[BIG_DADDY]

That call may have cost me a first playoff loss in my FFL. I will still probably wing but without the proceeding 89 yard run by LT or would have been all over. NOw I have to sweat out the fact he has Chad Johnson and Vinatieri going tonight. :cuss:

[JazzzLovr]

Woulda/shoulda/coulda's aside... I felt bad for Pollard.

I didn't expect us to win this game. I had hoped I was wrong, but I just didn't see it happening.

But Pollard was one of the few Chiefs that was actually trying to make something happen. This is the second time THIS YEAR he's blocked a punt for us. And he's a rookie. It has to be a little discouraging to go out there and not only do your job, but make a great play, only to have it result in a first down for the opponent.

[Redrum_69]

It was blocked,,,it should have been the Chiefs ball.

That point was the game changer...and why the hell didnt Herm go ahead and review it.

I put in HALO at that point...the wife said "why you doing that?" "Well, I have to vent some frustration between plays"

[htismaqe]

I agree. The ball never reached the 22 was it? It was touched by a chiefs player at the 17, then recovered by the chargers at that mark.

Should of been first and 10 KC. But according to the rule it is not.

It is a quarky rule, but called correctly, same as muffing a punt down the field. The ball was touched beyond the LOS by a defensive player, therefore it is a live ball.

Same as the DB's running with the gunner, if the ball hits them in the back and the kicking team recovers, kicking team ball.

I always remember coaches screaming at players to get away from blocked kicks and such. (agian not saying anything about our coaching staff) But remember playing in HS, when we blocked a punt, we were always told to get away from the football...

Yeah, it was the correct call. That's why I started this thread - the rule needs to be changed.

IMO, a BLOCKED punt should be treated like a FUMBLE, rather than like a muffed punt.

[CoMoChief]

-Ross should not get blamed for that. He was doing what any other player would do on special teams in the heat of the moment and thats trying to pick up a loose ball.

-What I dont get about the rule is that the ball was already touched by Pollard when he deflected it, so does that mean a Chargers player could have picked it up after a punt block and kept possesion and would receive a 1st down???

-The Chargers didn't get past the 1st down maker to begin with, that rule desperately needs to be modified so the team that blocks a punt doesn't get screwed for tryin to go after a loose ball. They didnt get a first down, therefore it should have been turnover on downs if nothing else.

[Hydrae]

-Ross should not get blamed for that. He was doing what any other player would do on special teams in the heat of the moment and thats trying to pick up a loose ball.

He officially got a fumble for touching the ball.

-What I dont get about the rule is that the ball was already touched by Pollard when he deflected it, so does that mean a Chargers player could have picked it up after a punt block and kept possesion and would receive a 1st down???

No, Pollard touched it behind the line of scrimmage, Ross touched it beyond the LOS. Makes all the difference.

-The Chargers didn't get past the 1st down maker to begin with, that rule desperately needs to be modified so the team that blocks a punt doesn't get screwed for tryin to go after a loose ball. They didnt get a first down, therefore it should have been turnover on downs if nothing else.

Could not agree more! If it is a muffed punt, they are recovering it beyond the first down marker, they get a first down. In this case, it should have been a turnover on downs, IMHO.

[L.A. Chieffan]

The rule is the rule but it did piss me off incredibly. However, I'm trying to picture the play in my mind and remember if the ball kinda just came down on Ross and he had no choice about touching it or if he delibritly attempted to catch it. Anybody remember?

[Calcountry]

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.My thoughts as well, aren't they suppose to yell "FIRE" or something when a kick is blocked?

[Hydrae]

The rule is the rule but it did piss me off incredibly. However, I'm trying to picture the play in my mind and remember if the ball kinda just came down on Ross and he had no choice about touching it or if he delibritly attempted to catch it. Anybody remember?


He made an attempt to field the ball but it was too far out of his reach so he basically wound up shovelling it behind himself.

Then he just stood there for a second like, eh, no big deal I don't need to worry about actually recovering the thing.

[ROYC75]

They should change the rule completely to where possesion has to be established by the receiving team on a punt before they can turn the ball over. What purpose do muffs and what happened yesterday serve other than another stupid turnover and momentum change that the team that just got stopped doesn't deserve?

How many muffed punts never have control of the ball........

Just change the rule to where if you recover a blocked punt, you must at least go past the 1st down sticks.

[King_Chief_Fan]

How many muffed punts never have control of the ball........

Just change the rule to where if you recover a blocked punt, you must at least go past the 1st down sticks.

54 posts later to agree with the original post.....

next thread?

[redskin]

-I'm not sure Ross knew that the ball had crossed the line of scrimmage. He was only a couple of yards beyond the line when he tried to field it.

-I officiate high school football and saw a play this year where the team punted into a strong wind and the punt traveled straight up in the air. The punter caught the kick behind the line of scrimmage and ran about 20 yards for a first down. There are a lot of strange rules when it comes to punts and kickoffs.

[Calcountry]

The rule change should simply be, "It is impossible to muff a blocked punt, regardless of where it lands".

If the receiving team gains posession, IOW, is able to make a football move with the ball in his possession, similar to a reception being deemed a legal reception, and then fumbles the ball, it is a fumble, the dude actually possessed the ball.

[Calcountry]

It should not be a muffed punt if the ball doesn't advance beyond the 1st down marker.There shouldn't be any such thing as a muffed punt if the kick was blocked. Same as there is no pass interference when the ball is tipped.

[The Rick]

Here's a related question...

The scenario is it's 3rd and 10. Team A hands off to its running back* who gains 2 yards before fumbling. A player on Team B scoops up the ball, runs 5 yards, then fumbles. Team A recovers. Does that mean it's now first down for Team A?

I absolutely agree that what happened last night should be reviewed for a rule change this offseason. I'm just curious if the same interpretation applies in a different scenario...

* - Okay, we all know Team A is the Chiefs due to the fact that Team A is running on 3rd down with 10 yards to go.

[El Jefe]

I agree how many blocked punts do you see in a year, not many. That is a very stupid rule that probably cost us the game. If Derrick Ross could have caught that he would of scored he had nobody in front of him but lineman.

[Frankie]

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]

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]

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

[Calcountry]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Simplex3]

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.
...unless the other team is dumb enough to give it to them.

[Simplex3]

The thing I don't get is this:

1. There is a rule. It has been there for years.
2. The Chiefs player didn't understand the rule and did something stupid.
3. The Chargers players DID know the rule and took advantage of the situation.
4. The refs got the call right according to the rule.

Solution:

Have players that aren't so dumb on the Chiefs.

[bigcarson50]

It isn't just as simple as changing the rule.

The idea is that once the ball crosses the LOS, it has changed possession. That is why you don't need to make the line to gain if you recover.

This rule applies to FG's as well. (Does nobody remember Leon Lett on Thanksgiving day?) At the end of games or OT, teams often kick on a down other than 4th with 10/12 seconds or so, just in case there is a botched snap. You need a rule that defines when if ever a team can try another kick. That rule is when it crosses the LOS.

Also if you keep the general muff rule, but change the "you need to make the line to gain" what happens then, if on a windy day a guy fields a 7 yard punt and muffs it?

Editted for correct player.

[tk13]

I agree, Ross screwed up. I have no problem with that, but that's no reason not to discuss the validity of the rule. I think the spirit of the rule is kinda whacked out. We never actually had possession of the ball, yet lost possession of the ball on a 4th down play where the offensive team did not advance the football far enough to get a first down. That right there goes against the entire logic of offensive football.

[ptlyon]

The thing I don't get is this:

1. There is a rule. It has been there for years.
2. The Chiefs player didn't understand the rule and did something stupid.
3. The Chargers players DID know the rule and took advantage of the situation.
4. The refs got the call right according to the rule.

Solution:

Have players that aren't so dumb on the Chiefs.

Don't know about the #3 part, but other than that, it sounds simplex3 to me!

[kregger]

I'm going to put aside the question of whether the rule is a good one or not for a minute.

Let's see. Len Dawson knew the rule immediately. Herm had to have it explained to him by the ref. There is a fundamental problem here.

There are a ton of quirky rules surrounding special teams play (you can fair catch a punt and get a free kick for a FG, you can return a missed FG, the blocked punt rule, all the rules about muffed punts, safeties on kickoffs, etc, etc).

The players on special teams have to know these rules instinctively. Give them a one pager of rules for each specific situation (kickoff, kickoff return, etc) to watch out for. Make it mandetory for them to review each of these rules before they take the field each week. These things come up far too often to ignore. This is a coaching issue plain and simple.

There is no excuse for Ross or the special teams coaches on this one. You have to know your situation and what actions are avaialble at any point on the field. On a blocked punt, there is no immediate need to grab the ball. It can be recovered in a liesurely manner. If you have a play great, but if you don't let the dang thing go, especially if you are anywhere near the LOS. That has to be an automatic response of someone on the punt block team.
Good call cdcox. The thread should end here. Al Michaels also knew immediately. Ross has to know the rules if he is on the field during punts and kicks.

[htismaqe]

...unless the other team is dumb enough to give it to them.

You've completely missed the point.

[htismaqe]

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 ..........

Perhaps some people here have problems with reading and comprehension.

I DON'T CARE THAT THE CHIEFS LOST.

I would have posted the SAME POST this morning if the roles had been reversed.

[htismaqe]

It isn't just as simple as changing the rule.

The idea is that once the ball crosses the LOS, it has changed possession. That is why you don't need to make the line to gain if you recover.

This rule applies to FG's as well. (Does nobody remember Leonard Little on Thanksgiving day?) At the end of games or OT, teams often kick on a down other than 4th with 10/12 seconds or so, just in case there is a botched snap. You need a rule that defines when if ever a team can try another kick. That rule is when it crosses the LOS.

Also if you keep the general muff rule, but change the "you need to make the line to gain" what happens then, if on a windy day a guy fields a 7 yard punt and muffs it?

There's a HUGE difference between a blocked punt and a muffed punt, anybody with two eyes and no football knowledge at all can see it.

[Calcountry]

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.You're kidding. We would have been lucky to cash that in for a FG, that would have made it 7-6. The Chargers still had more than enough LT in them to kick our butts at that point.

[Calcountry]

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 ..........Should the rule be changed? Yep.

Would that have made a difference in the outcome of yesterdays game, Nope.

We would still have lost.

[Calcountry]

Freaky rules going in the San Diego SUPER Chargers favor this year: 2-0. Remember the "fumble" that was an incomplete forward pass?

[Hendrix68]

Lighten up, people.

Ross tried to grab the ball and he missed. It was coming at a bizarre angle.

I doubt one player in a hundred would have done anything differently.

The season was already all but mathematically lost by the SD game.

If you have to scapegoat anyone for another non playoffs season, look no further than the morons on the defensive line and in the secondary in that 4th qtr vs Cleveland.

[htismaqe]

Lighten up, people.

Ross tried to grab the ball and he missed. It was coming at a bizarre angle.

I doubt one player in a hundred would have done anything differently.

The season was already all but mathematically lost by the SD game.

If you have to scapegoat anyone for another non playoffs season, look no further than the morons on the defensive line and in the secondary in that 4th qtr vs Cleveland.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE CHIEFS OR THE CHARGERS.

This is about a rule that's counter-intuitive to quality football.

[Calcountry]

I agree, Ross screwed up. I have no problem with that, but that's no reason not to discuss the validity of the rule. I think the spirit of the rule is kinda whacked out. We never actually had possession of the ball, yet lost possession of the ball on a 4th down play where the offensive team did not advance the football far enough to get a first down. That right there goes against the entire logic of offensive football.So does giving an automatic first down to a team for illegal contact on a 3rd and 20 that is away from the play.

[Hendrix68]

I agree totally on that part, htismage.

I hope they change the rule.

Not holding my breath it'll happen, though.

[Calcountry]

Good thing Herm fixed the offense."Thats the same offense you had last year!"

[htismaqe]

So does giving an automatic first down to a team for illegal contact on a 3rd and 20 that is away from the play.

Not at all similar, though.

[tk13]

You're kidding. We would have been lucky to cash that in for a FG, that would have made it 7-6. The Chargers still had more than enough LT in them to kick our butts at that point.
Actually, if Ross picked that ball up, he was gonna score. We might not have scored an offensive touchdown but our defense was playing well enough to make a lead hold up. Especially if we got a lead and forced them to go to the air... we would've won that game. That still ticks me off, haha.

[Shamrock]

Should the rule be changed? Yep.

Would that have made a difference in the outcome of yesterdays game, Nope.

We would still have lost.

Why should the rule be changed?

The important marker is the line of scrimmage, not the first down marker.

When the ball crosses the LOS, and then touched by the receiving team, it is LIVE for anyone to recover. Whether the ball travels one yard past the LOS or 90 yards past the LOS makes no difference.

It's a very simple rule.

Adding in all kinds of contingencies that have been suggested here (travel 10 yards, travel past the first down make, tipped vs. blocked, etc) will make the rule complicated.

How about the ST coaches make sure their players understand the rules of the game? That's the easy solution.

[Calcountry]

If ever we face a fourth and 30, just have a play that has the kicker roll out, run up near the LOS and try to squib it off of a coverage guy that is running up to tackle him. As soon as it bands off guy on other side of LOS, fall on it.

First DOWN!

If there were 5 minutes to go in the 4rth Q of a close game, I might try it if I were OC. Better than throwin a 30 yard pass into a cover 2.

[Calcountry]

Why should the rule be changed?

The important marker is the line of scrimmage, not the first down marker.

When the ball crosses the LOS, and then touched by the receiving team, it is LIVE for anyone to recover. Whether the ball travels one yard past the LOS or 90 yards past the LOS makes no difference.

It's a very simple rule.

Adding in all kinds of contingencies that have been suggested here (travel 10 yards, travel past the first down make, tipped vs. blocked, etc) will make the rule complicated.

How about the ST coaches make sure their players understand the rules of the game? That's the easy solution.See my next post. :D

[Calcountry]

Actually, if Ross picked that ball up, he was gonna score. We might not have scored an offensive touchdown but our defense was playing well enough to make a lead hold up. Especially if we got a lead and forced them to go to the air... we would've won that game. That still ticks me off, haha.If he picks up that ball we aren't having this discussion and the point is moot.

[htismaqe]

Why should the rule be changed?

The important marker is the line of scrimmage, not the first down marker.

When the ball crosses the LOS, and then touched by the receiving team, it is LIVE for anyone to recover. Whether the ball travels one yard past the LOS or 90 yards past the LOS makes no difference.

It's a very simple rule.

Adding in all kinds of contingencies that have been suggested here (travel 10 yards, travel past the first down make, tipped vs. blocked, etc) will make the rule complicated.

How about the ST coaches make sure their players understand the rules of the game? That's the easy solution.

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.

[htismaqe]

If he picks up that ball we aren't having this discussion and the point is moot.

Only because most of us still wouldn't know that such an assinine rule exists.

[tk13]

So does giving an automatic first down to a team for illegal contact on a 3rd and 20 that is away from the play.
I'd agree with that too. But the NFL likes to protect the offense. Just like that "football move" call last night... the NFL is very consistent with that. If you catch the ball and get two feet down, it's a catch. Except when you drop the ball. Then if you don't get two feet down, do the hokey pokey, and write a 300 page paper on economics, it's not a catch and fumble.

[tk13]

If he picks up that ball we aren't having this discussion and the point is moot.
I realize that. I'm just being ticked off. The last two years you literally could've changed one play and it might have changed our playoff outlook each year. That drives me nuts. People complain about a baseball season being too long, but at least it fleshes out who is good and who is bad. Both in the NFL and college football, you play for 4-5 months and literally one single play can be the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. That's why sometimes I think it just comes down to luck. That drives me nuts.

[ptlyon]

This morning when this was brought up I was on the "change the rule" bandwagon. Since I've decided that it was a rule from long ago, perhaps even since the game was made. So now I say leave it alone and properly instruct the players.

Now, this "football move" nonsense, THAT should be changed. Sorry, but if you catch the ball, have established control of it and get smashed and you fumble it, then I say it's a fumble. Tough **** you didn't have a chance to make a move.

This post is for the private use of ptlyon. Any thoughts like this without the written consent of ptlyon, the Kansas City Chiefs, NFL, or Chiefsplanet is strictly prohibited.

[Shamrock]

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.

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.

[Shamrock]

This morning when this was brought up I was on the "change the rule" bandwagon. Since I've decided that it was a rule from long ago, perhaps even since the game was made. So now I say leave it alone and properly instruct the players.

Now, this "football move" nonsense, THAT should be changed. Sorry, but if you catch the ball, have established control of it and get smashed and you fumble it, then I say it's a fumble. Tough **** you didn't have a chance to make a move.

This post is for the private use of ptlyon. Any thoughts like this without the written consent of ptlyon, the Kansas City Chiefs, NFL, or Chiefsplanet is strictly prohibited.

The whole discussion on what is/isn't a catch does need to be addressed. The Neal non-catch was freaking stupid, IMO. I'm all for changing that crap to something realistic.

Also, address the skirts on the QB's. Early in the Jags/Titans game, a Titans DL got a flag for barely touching Garrard near the sideline (the arms extended rule), yet later in the first half, Garrard initiated contact to paste a Titans defender that had let up right near the sideline. QB's are using the rules to gain extra yards, or to hit defenders in a manner that would draw a flag if the hit was reversed. IMO, once a QB breaks the pocket, he should receive ZERO protection that isn't granted to any other player.

[htismaqe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/kicksfromscrimmage) - NFL.com

[htismaqe]

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

Yep.

[htismaqe]

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]

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]

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]

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.



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]

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]

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]

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.

[rad]

Here's a related question...

The scenario is it's 3rd and 10. Team A hands off to its running back* who gains 2 yards before fumbling. A player on Team B scoops up the ball, runs 5 yards, then fumbles. Team A recovers. Does that mean it's now first down for Team A?
I absolutely agree that what happened last night should be reviewed for a rule change this offseason. I'm just curious if the same interpretation applies in a different scenario...

* - Okay, we all know Team A is the Chiefs due to the fact that Team A is running on 3rd down with 10 yards to go.


Yes. I've seen that before.

[Rain Man]

My play scenario on another thread involves the punting team trapping a player on the ground while the punter runs up and gently bounces the ball off of the guy with a soft kick. As long as the punter kicks it back up to himself, he can fall down and it's a first down, even if it was 4th and 50.

[DanT]

The current rule makes a lot of sense. There's an official at the line of scrimmage anyway and that's a natural way to define when the usual punt rules apply, when it's past the line of scrimmage. Defenders are supposed to know not to touch a punt that you can't be sure to take possession of, unless you're going to bat the damn ball out of bounds.

[Shamrock]

My play scenario on another thread involves the punting team trapping a player on the ground while the punter runs up and gently bounces the ball off of the guy with a soft kick. As long as the punter kicks it back up to himself, he can fall down and it's a first down, even if it was 4th and 50.

And the other team is going to let him "run up" and do that? No one is going to tackle him?

What if he misses his aimed punt? What about players downfield before the ball is kicked?

It's not plausible at all.

[C-Mac]

Hmmmmm...per NFL Rules.

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