jason

That was Lovie Smith's philosophy regarding OL, and we saw how that worked out.

Sorry to tell you, but it's not a bad call. On regular kicks, the philosophy is: A foot down past the free kick line. On onside kicks, the philosophy is: ANY part of the body past the free kick line. There is no debating the fact that Weems had the entire top half of his body beyond the free kick line before the ball was kicked. Blame Weems, not the officials.

Can't play the fade, can't tackle, can't lay a hit in the goal line, and can't play centerfield.

It's the football Gods rewarding us for the lack of QBs.

I remember that vividly, and the reactions were priceless. Before the game Vick was, by many's opinions, too fast to be caught. After Urlacher ran him down a few times, big eyes and dropped jaws everywhere.

Preaching to the choir. But nooooo, Lovie needed Dan Bazuin and that dude who could totally jump out of a pool.

Agreed. I don't buy the "it was a good deal" thing. It was a low-ball offer that he refused. And once the rest of the league saw what was being offered by the home-town team, and the fact that the offer was refused, they didn't want to spend a whole lot more on a veteran with lots of miles on the odometer. Simply put, the Bears could have offered him a little more, fit it easily in the cap, and had the heart of their defense, their team, for one year (maybe two), which would have obviously helped. And then an easy transition to Bostic.

Just got the ESPN ticker...he's gone. Torn pectoral.

This I don't agree with. Franchise player Melton = out New starter DT Collins = out Run stuffing DT Paea = out Losing your top 3 DTs is always going to gut a defense. The fact that Peppers seems to have aged in dog years over the offseason and McClellin is exactly who many thought he was doesn't help. Thank God for Wooten at this point, because he's the only one who appears to have any game-breaking ability. Losing Tillman for a stretch hurts. And regardless of the flack, the Bears miss Urlacher. As for Trestman and the offense, what more do you want? Top ten rushing, passing, and total offense. Cutler has protection. Both WRs are being used. The TE is being used. The balance on offense is keeping opponents off balance. I agree with inconsistency, but to say they're only marginally better is ridiculous. The Bears were bottom five in total and passing offense last year. This turnaround is incredible.

The Giants are 7th in passing offense. The Bears are 27th in passing defense and 30th in sacks. This is a VERY dangerous game. I'm expecting Eli Manning to put up significant numbers. I'm just hoping that Jay can lead the offense to bigger numbers.

No surprise I have a problem with BS stats. How the F can they determine if a QBs footwork changed as a result of the D pressure?! The big things? Sure. But there percentage is way off, and borderline ridiculous. No way it's 40%. And unless the same person reviews ALL the games, human error and bias make this stat virtually meaningless.

68 hurries in four games (or less if I'm reading your replies correctly)? I call BS. There is no freaking way. Cutler has attempted 148 passes. He's rushed 11 times. He's been sacked a total of 6 times. That's 165. Let's just say there are 10 more plays in there for the anomalies. Even at 68 out of 175, that is nearly 40%. Sorry, but I've watched the games, and there is no way in hell he's been hurried or pressured in 40% of his drop-backs. What's their criteria for hurries? Someone within ten feet? I suspect the person doing the analysis for Bears games is a little more loose with his interpretation of "hurry" than the folks doing the analysis on other games.

We all knew Toub was a genius. Seeing him go to KC - not a surprise that they seem to be a team doing all the little things right - was a big loss for the Bears.

Why not? Unless, of course, they feel he's still good enough at CB. I think he is, but there has to be a time when he loses the step. Maybe then?

Next year the Bears should transition to the 3-4. With the potential loss of DJ and Anderson, it makes more sense now than ever. Not only does it get the two young LBs into the game, but it revitalizes McClellin. If they're not sold on Paea at NT, then draft one. Rotate Peppers, Wooten, and Melton DE. The LB corp of Briggs, Greene, Bostic, and McClellin would be nice. That looks like a downright scary defense.

Could this also have something to do with Urlacher missing? I know it's now the popular thing to rag on Urlacher, call him greedy and washed up, say he was horrible last year if not multiple years before, but the simple fact is, the dude was the MLB for a long time. The captain of the team. And was getting better as the season progressed last year. Peppers and Melton being injured affects performance. Same for the coaching changes. But Urlacher's absence hurts. Say what you want, but over the course of four games - an admittedly small sample size - his value appears to be worth a difference of about 60 yards. That's multiple stops per game. Multiple good reads per game. Multiple correct defensive audibles per game.

That is virtually never called. Perrera has been hyper-critical since taking on the job, for what reason I know not.

I'm still as sure, but the likelihood of it is still not overwhelming. But it is certainly not 100% risk free.

Not only that, but Olsen was considered an average to above average TE with a fairly established track record, minimal upside, and sometimes questionable toughness. Richardson, on the other hand, is a 2nd year player with significant upside coming off of a very impressive rookie season on a horrible team.

There is still the very real possibility of Weems picking up the ball, having his momentum carry him into the end zone, and then a foul by the Bears in the end zone. In that case, there is a distinct possibility of a negative for the Bears, because that would be an accepted penalty by A, and it would result in a safety. As for your final scenario, it would depend on whether Weems was judged to have possession at any time. There is a saying in officiating, "A kick is a kick is a kick." The point is to say that it's still a kick if nobody has gained possession. Granted, there is the issue of impetus and momentum, but in general if there has been no obvious batting, the ball is still considered to be moving as a result of a scrimmage kick. I can't recall the play exactly, but I'm seeing a situation where Weems never really had it. In that case, I believe the Bears would have the option of a touchback or the spot of illegal touching, if it just happened to oddly be before the 20.

Even then the kicking team is not getting the ball. Most fouls (I'm summarizing, there are probably a few in the NFL that fall outside this concept) are going to be pre-possession post-scrimmage kick fouls, or post-possession. In case of the former, R gets the ball but is penalized for the foul as if they had the ball the entire time. This was instituted so that a defense that just held strong for three downs is not penalized because a stupid holding penalty while the punt is in the air.

It's difficult to parse the rule and address each issue you bring up. The best I can tell you at this point is that it takes a unique perspective to truly read and understand the more esoteric rules. The verbiage and jargon is confusing even for a veteran official. I've been officiating for over a decade, and I'm currently both a high school and college official. I've consulted with many officials on this type of play, and even had a recent test that was sent in to the conference commissioner with a similar play (where there was majority agreement on the answer). The best I can tell you is that this rule is simply odd, and there are a variety of situations that could make it even more crazy. For instance... I couldn't find the exact same thing in the NFL rulebook, but check out this one from the college rulebook: IV. Team A's punt goes beyond the neutral zone and is first touched by A80, then picked up by B40, who runs five yards and fumbles. B70 holds during B40's run. A20 picks up the fumble and scores. RULING:The score does not count. Five- and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or the succeeding kickoff. Because of the illegal touching the penalty for Team B’s foul may be enforced, per Rule 5-2-4. The ball belongs to Team B, either at the spot of illegal touching if Team A declines the penalty, or at the spot after the enforcement if Team accepts the penalty (Rule10-2-5-a-2). So because 5 and 10 yard penalties are not administered on subsequent plays if committed by the nonscoring team, and because A scored, A is screwed. They have to either accept the penalty on that specific play and give the ball to B, or they decline the penalty and B gets the ball at the spot of illegal touching. Weird right? Imagine a coach seeing his team score in that scenario and then explaining it to him. Not pretty. Coach: "So my team didn't foul, the other team did foul, and I scored, but I don't get the ball or the points?!" Official: "Yep."

On the intent you are right. I'm nearly positive I'm right. It's not interpretation. It's directly quoted from the NFL rulebook. I've consulted the HS, college, and pro rules on this concept. When there is a foul by the receiving team in a first touching (i.e. illegal touching) situation, their privilege of taking the ball at the spot of first touching, or any subsequent illegal touching, is negated. The kicking team is basically forced to accept the penalty by the receiving team if they wish to keep the ball. If the kicking team declines the penalty, then the receiving team automatically gets to take the ball at the most advantageous spot of illegal touching (assuming no other fouls).

First, I'll defend the officials. The rules are TERRIBLY complicated, and there are countless oddball scenarios that could happen in a game of football. There is literally one play per week where most have to dig into their rulebooks to understand the true nuance and interpretation of a rule. Just this past week I had a debate with several officials who have been working nearly 20 years about something as simple as a substitution foul, and the wording of the rules. It gets into some Clintonian "what is the definition of is is"-stuff. Having said that, the article is definitely wrong. (NFL Rules-red, college rules-purple) “First touching” is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers. The key words in all of that are bolded and underlined. If a penalty is accepted, all bets are off for first touching. And in the NFL, this lasts for the entire play, not just the duration of the kick. Note: If the receiving team gains possession, subsequently loses possession, and fouls after the kicking team gains possession, the spot of first touching is disregarded, and the kicking team retains possession. See Rule 14, Section 3, Article 1, Exception 5. The note supports this concept, because the foul clearly occurs after possession. As for college rules, the author of that article is wrong. Again. II. During a scrimmage kick, A1 commits a touching violation, after which B1 recovers, advances and fumbles. A2 recovers the fumble and, during the advance, B2 holds, trips or slugs. RULING: Team A may have the ball where left by the penalty for Team B's foul; but if Team A declines the penalty, Team B will have the ball by electing the touching violation. B2 is disqualified if flagged for slugging.