jason

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.

That and because the coaches don't know the rules as well as they should. It's clearly stated in Rule 9 that the play is not risk free. Article 2 “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.

That's simply incorrect. If the Bears had fouled, the illegal touching privilege is cancelled.

You're twisting it up some. Imagine the Vikings kick, they touch it, then the Bears player dives for it, muffs it, then the Vikings recover. Similar to the infamous Leon Lett play (but not exactly). In this case the Bears would take the spot of illegal touching and ignore the action afterwards. In your scenario, because Weems touched it, any ball recovered by the kicking team in the opponent's end zone is a touchdown for the kicking team. HOWEVER, since the illegal touching is still applicable, the Bears would take that spot of illegal touching and negate the rest.

Wrong. If the Bears had committed a foul on that play the illegal touching privilege is cancelled. It could potentially have been a situation where Minnesota accepted a penalty against the Bears negating the illegal touching violation. He would have to have known that the Bears did not foul on the play. I'm not sure if he could have accurately known, while looking up in the air for the punt, whether an official threw a flag for holding a gunner or holding on the offensive linemen running downfield. Given the fact that he touched it just before the end zone, he had no way of knowing the eventual result of that play. Other possibilities: 1. He could have been tackled where he touched/recovered it, the penalty would have been enforced half the distance, the Bears lose the illegal touching privilege, and it's Bears 1/10 deep in their own territory. 2. He could have recovered and fumbled it before the goal-line, and the Vikings could have had the ball 1/G. Oddly enough, I think had the Vikings scored a TD on that play (via muff or Weems running with the ball into the end zone) the score would have been negated by rule (5 & 10 yard penalties by the nonscoring team), which would have automatically given the Bears the ball after penalty enforcement like a traditional postscrimmage kick penalty. It was, in fact, a VERY risky, and potentially stupid play. There is a reason why you don't ever see returners do what he did.

Year Wins Opp. Pts. Opp.Tot.Yds. Opp.Pass.Yds. Opp.Rush.Yds. 2013 2 51 690 504 186 2012 1 44 677 508 169 2011 1 42 768 540 228 2010 2 34 578 522 56 2009 1 35 534 353 181 2008 1 34 509 342 167 2007 1 24 544 397 147 2006 2 7 512 363 149 2005 1 15 557 364 193 2004 1 30 666 437 229 Looks like the defense doesn't matter as much. 1. Most points in ten years 2. Second most yards in ten years 3. Fourth most passing yards in ten years + 4. Fourth most rushing yards in ten years Two wins

I'm not sure it's fair to call Lovie a bad coach. Granted, I was never really a Lovie fan, but he had consistently competitive teams, a more often than not competitive defense, and a philosophy that kept most games close, giving the Bears a chance to win. Personally I hate his style of coaching, the "play not to lose"-approach, but it was moderately successful. Having said all that, Trestman > Lovie, for a variety of reasons.

It just goes to prove what I have been saying over and over for so long. The OL sucked. It was always the problem. The fact that 4 out of 5 guys got replaced - not to mention 2 replacements being rookies - and there has been considerable improvement without deficiencies in anything similar to cohesion speaks volumes about how bad the previous players were/are.

@ Steelers - W @ Lions - W vs. Saints - W vs. Giants - L @ Redskins - W @ Packers - L vs. Lions - W vs. Ravens - W @ Rams - W @ Vikings - L vs. Cowboys - W @ Browns - HAHA W @ Eagles - W vs. Packers - W That puts the Bears at 13-3. I'm figuring they have bad luck against either the Redskins, Cowboys, or Eagles. Final record 12-4.

Year Wins Points Tot. Yds. Pass. Yds. Rush. Yds. 2013 2 55 734 524 210 2012 1 51 596 388 208 2011 1 43 623 475 148 2010 2 46 771 632 139 2009 1 32 627 497 130 2008 1 46 575 277 298 2007 1 23 441 254 187 2006 2 60 744 546 198 2005 1 45 502 274 228 2004 1 37 649 339 310 Notice anything? 700+ yards of offense = win. Over 250 yards of passing per game = win. In today's NFL, offense wins games. I'm so happy the Bears got rid of Lovie and his offensively-challenged style of drafting/coaching. Long live Trestman!

Exactly. If anything a tipped pass is 50% QB and 50% OL. When a DLineman goes up, that means he was either not being driven back or not engaged enough. If it's a passing down, then the OL should make sure to engage so that the DT's don't just sit back and try to tip balls.

I don't disagree about the fine amount dissimilarity, but you're wrong about the Bostic hit. It was perfectly illegal, and a nearly textbook case of leading with the crown of the helmet (i.e. spearing). http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-footba...-him-21k-anyway Look at the second shot in that link.

Momma said they's my magic cleats.

Vick has always, and will always, be a fairly inaccurate passer. That will not magically change. Add in the punishment, and it'll continue to degrade.

The bolded part made me think of what happened to the 85 Bears team when they ran into Marino. If the Eagles continue to send the house on D, there are multiple teams with very accurate QBs who will pick them apart. This is not 1985, and the level of QB play - not to mention the league's tendency to promote passing in general - is better than it was in years past. This double-edged sword will be dull by midseason when players are worn out, injuries pile up, and teams force Vick to actually throw the ball more.

If by figure it out you mean, hit Michael Vick every freaking play until he either doesn't want to run or gets injured, then I completely agree. That's what the NFL defenses will do. And it will drastically alter the Eagles' offense, because, let's be honest, the running prowess of Nick Foles and/or Matt Barkley scares nobody.

These are outstanding http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/c...ngals-pictures/ I really like the one where Long is making Burfict soil himself.

Look when the post was made: early in the game or around halftime. Early on, it did feel like Shoop and Matthews. I'm the biggest proponent of OL overhaul for nearly ten years now, so that's nothing new to me. And I'm a Cutler defender. But that first half was VERY close to the vest.

Cool picture comparison, but that's borderline blasphemous.

One can't read a live-game thread post-game and expect to understand or judge. It's just like being at a game. When bad things happen, negativity comes out. When good things happen, cheers. Reading everything post-game makes no sense. Particularly when the play difference between halves is so different.

It was a bad throw, but Bush had no damn clue the ball was even thrown. Pretty clear Bush was out on a pass route since he didn't block anyone, but he wasn't turned yet.

Looked like miscommunication and the receiver wasn't on the same page. And cutler was turned.