Cutler 4th qtr heroics

[jason]

i do not believe you are interpreting this correctly. PUNT ONLY - the reason for this rule is to prevent the kicking team from purposely knocking the ball into a receiver (NOT downing it) thus making it a live ball or knocking the ball further down the field making the spot of the ball into the advantage of the kicking team. in other words they could virtually keep knocking the ball until it rested on the receiving teams goal line. that is the intent of this rule.

 

On the intent you are right.

 

if there is a foul on the receiving team prior to the ball being downed then the penalty (if it is post kick) is enforced from the point of either where the foul occurred or at the spot of possession by the receiving team. in any case the ball is a free play for the receiving team with no penalty for fumble/turnover or loss of yardage. with loss of yardage the ball returns to the spot of first touch by the kicking team and the same is true on a turnover.

 

now having said that... i do not have a copy of the rules. the rules have changed so much over the years maybe there is merit to your suggestion. please post the rule in reference to your "Note" to give it context.

 

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).

['TD']

I'm reading it quite a bit different.

If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play.

 

The receiving team has the option to pick up the ball and make a play after "first touching" has occurred.

 

 

First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching or at the spot where the ball is dead.

 

I eliminated the sentence you had in bold for a second. I think that is important in the context that I am reading this, and there for my opinion on the subject. I'm reading it as if the receiving team has the option to pick up the ball and try to advance it. An example would be, a first touching violation has occured, the receiving team runs backwards and loses 4 yards. The receiving team can still elect to have the ball placed at the spot of the violation.

 

provided no penalty is accepted on the play

 

As the sentence is specifically talking about ball placement, I think this and the following sentence

 

 

First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers.[/i][/color]

 

Are specifically referring to the placement of the ball and the severity of the violation.

 

If a penalty occurs before the violation, the violation does not hold equal value. The kicking team therefore can elect to take the penalty or let the ball be placed at the spot of the violation. IE, roughing the kicker or offsides are not offsetting fouls with the first touching violation.

 

Once the first touching violation occurs, it becomes a "free play" like when the offense catches the defense off sides. The only difference in this instance is that penalties that occur will be accessed instead of offsetting with the violation.

 

Atleast that is how I am reading it. We should take it to the supreme court of the NFL and argue it lol.

[adam]

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).

 

Something just doesn't sound right.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Atleast that is how I am reading it. We should take it to the supreme court of the NFL and argue it lol.

 

Sooooo....about those Cutler 4th quarter heroics?

 

Who knew this was going to turn into such a head scratcher? LOL!!!

 

[CrackerDog]

Sooooo....about those Cutler 4th quarter heroics?

 

Who knew this was going to turn into such a head scratcher? LOL!!!

 

 

LOL

 

Pretty typical around these parts.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

LOL

 

Pretty typical around these parts.

 

Haha....and to think I may have started it with my question to Brian.

 

But I'm especially convinced now that Weems wasn't thinking about all this when he went for the ball. Trestman couldn't even stand on the rule when asked. It takes our "Mike Perreira" (Jason) to discern the rules, and he is still challenged. Kinda funny...whodathunk?

[CrackerDog]

Haha....and to think I may have started it with my question to Brian.

 

But I'm especially convinced now that Weems wasn't thinking about all this when he went for the ball. Trestman couldn't even stand on the rule when asked. It takes our "Mike Perreira" (Jason) to discern the rules, and he is still challenged. Kinda funny...whodathunk?

 

Yeah, I'm not convinced either way at this point. I was always told what Trestman said, it's a consequence-free pickup. And since there wasn't a penalty on the play anyway, it truly was. Now, I know Weems didn't know that but I think it's still good coaching to tell your guys to go for it in that situation.

 

With that said, picking the ball up and fumbling it is ALWAYS a bad idea, even if the rule is on your side. Because I've seen lots of refs get confusing plays like this wrong. It doesn't help later in the week when the NFL says "The Bears shoulda won but..."

['TD']

Sooooo....about those Cutler 4th quarter heroics?

 

I'm trying to be positive on this season. To comment on that, I would have to comment on negative aspects to put it in perspective. I'll just say, I'm happy to see the Bears starting at 2-0. They have showed major improvement in a lot of aspects of the game. The places they have regressed, there is potential for improvement due to health and getting into a groove with the system. The constants on the team remain constant.

 

I'm really happy with the line and coaching. I'm going to try to avoid the subjects of Cutler and the Urlacher's which I could go pretty negative and start an unneeded heated debate ala the one that went on over a now Vikings offensive lineman that I will not name. It's just a time to be happy to be a Bears fan now.

[madlithuanian]

My wife, a teacher, would just say we're all off topic!

 

LOL

 

Pretty typical around these parts.

 

[CrackerDog]

...over a now Vikings offensive lineman that I will not name. It's just a time to be happy to be a Bears fan now.

 

Ha! He who shall not be named!

 

I agree. The flaws with the team are as obvious as the things that seem to have improved. And as you said, the flaws are things that could be addressed with good coaching, player health, etc. Only time will tell. But at 2-0 it's good to be a Bears fan.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I agree. The flaws with the team are as obvious as the things that seem to have improved. And as you said, the flaws are things that could be addressed with good coaching, player health, etc. Only time will tell. But at 2-0 it's good to be a Bears fan.

 

This x2.

 

I'm still not drinking no stinking Kool Aid....not yet. It'll cloud my judgement.

[Uncle Buck]

This x2.

 

I'm still not drinking no stinking Kool Aid....not yet. It'll cloud my judgement.

 

 

C'mon Grizz you know you want to !!

 

Seriously, you are right, the season needs time to reveal itself and the trends that will develop.

 

But early returns do have some promise.

[madlithuanian]

Stubborn!

 

Like the like regime!

 

I'll still gladly pour you a glass from the pitcher when you finally come around.

 

 

 

I'm still not drinking no stinking Kool Aid....not yet. It'll cloud my judgement.

 

[madlithuanian]

Is that not all we can ask for at the moment?

 

It's far easier to dismiss than have faith.

 

But it's a lot less fun!

 

Go Bears!

 

C'mon Grizz you know you want to !!

 

Seriously, you are right, the season needs time to reveal itself and the trends that will develop.

 

But early returns do have some promise.

 

[jason]

I'm reading it quite a bit different.

 

The receiving team has the option to pick up the ball and make a play after "first touching" has occurred. True

 

I eliminated the sentence you had in bold for a second. I think that is important in the context that I am reading this, and there for my opinion on the subject. I'm reading it as if the receiving team has the option to pick up the ball and try to advance it. An example would be, a first touching violation has occured, the receiving team runs backwards and loses 4 yards. The receiving team can still elect to have the ball placed at the spot of the violation. True, provided there is no penalty.

 

As the sentence is specifically talking about ball placement, I think this and the following sentence

 

Are specifically referring to the placement of the ball and the severity of the violation.

 

If a penalty occurs before the violation, the violation does not hold equal value. The kicking team therefore can elect to take the penalty or let the ball be placed at the spot of the violation. IE, roughing the kicker or offsides are not offsetting fouls with the first touching violation. False. That's why the phrase "provided no penalty is accepted on the play" is so important.

 

Once the first touching violation occurs, it becomes a "free play" like when the offense catches the defense off sides. The only difference in this instance is that penalties that occur will be accessed instead of offsetting with the violation. False. This is one of those rulebook oddities that can't really be compared to other situations. It's unique.

 

Atleast that is how I am reading it. We should take it to the supreme court of the NFL and argue it lol.

 

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."

[adam]

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."

I don't think it is that complicated.

 

It sounds to me that if the receiving team has a penalty on the play, the kicking team can either accept the penalty or decline which would invoke the first touching rule. The only time the kicking team would get the ball would be if the penalty resulted in a first down from the original line of scrimmage. That is why, even with a penalty, the kicking team would never get the ball at the point of the touching, subsequent recovery and fumble spot by receiving team, or have the ability to recover the ball after they touched if first.

[Lucky Luciano]

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).

 

 

i am not sure of how your statement relates to an actual instance (not saying you are wrong just that i don't understand the context of the situation you are stating from this rule).

 

i will try and clarify my thoughts on this.

 

lets call the punting team A and the receiving team B.

 

1. if there is any foul that is called on team B *prior to the ball actually being punted, team A has the 'option' to accept that penalty and replay that down no matter what happens from that point forward (unless there would be offset penalties on both teams prior to the punt and in that case the down would be replayed). this would negate the touch rule we have been discussing due to a *pre-punt penalty if team A accepted the penalty.

 

just a few examples: more players on the field than legal by team B, offsides by team B prior to the snap, *roughing the kicker by team B, personal foul on a player from team B prior to the punt etc.

 

if the roles were reversed and team A caused a foul pre-punt then team B would have the option in most instances of either accepting the penalty and replaying the down or refusing the penalty and accepting the results of what happened post punt.

 

2. post punt: if there is no roughing the kicker penalty (or infraction by team B pre-punt) and the punt was clean past the LOS the touch rule should be in effect from that point forward.

 

once the ball is past the LOS and is touched by anyone on team A first it becomes a live ball for anyone on team B to pick up the ball, unless it is downed by team A, and try to advance it without any loss of yardage or possession from that spot of the touch.

 

there is no downside for team B to do so. at the worst team B will retain possession from the spot of the touched ball by team A even if he loses yardage or fumbles the ball to be recovered by team A. i have seen this rule in effect over the years play out as i have described.

 

in regards to penalties on team B that occur once the punt is past the LOS... as in all instances the penalty invoked will be enforced upon team B either from the spot of initial possession (where touched by team A if the ball is not advanced by team OR the spot of the infraction if the penalty dictates and the ball was advanced past this point by team B.

 

unless there are new rules in effect, there should be no post-punt possession by team A once the touch rule is in effect due to any turnover regardless of rule infractions by team B.

 

it was a smart play by weems in my opinion and trestman was correct in his statement

 

although... i have to say i have never seen a player from team A actually knock the ball out of the endzone into the field of play and create a touch rule scenario that ended up as a team B possession in the endzone and knocked out by a player from team A.

 

it certainly had me scratching my head on what would have happened if weems had retained possession in the endzone. the player from team A actually first touched the ball in the endzone and knocked it out. where would the ball have been spotted? where weems touched it or where it was actually first touched by a player from team A which would have been a touchback?

 

wow, there is something to think about.

 

 

 

 

[CrackerDog]

although... i have to say i have never seen a player from team A actually knock the ball out of the endzone into the field of play and create a touch rule scenario that ended up as a team B possession in the endzone and knocked out by a player from team A.

 

it certainly had me scratching my head on what would have happened if weems had retained possession in the endzone. the player from team A actually first touched the ball in the endzone and knocked it out. where would the ball have been spotted? where weems touched it or where it was actually first touched by a player from team A which would have been a touchback?

 

wow, there is something to think about.

 

I think that one is easy unless I'm not fully comprehending your comments above. It would be touchback. The first touch occurred in the end zone so the receiving team could end up with the ball no worse than a touchback. That would've been the same answer if Weems had fumbled the ball and it was recovered by the defense anywhere on the field. In this case it went out of the back of the end zone but that didn't really matter.

[Lucky Luciano]

I think that one is easy unless I'm not fully comprehending your comments above. It would be touchback. The first touch occurred in the end zone so the receiving team could end up with the ball no worse than a touchback. That would've been the same answer if Weems had fumbled the ball and it was recovered by the defense anywhere on the field. In this case it went out of the back of the end zone but that didn't really matter.

 

i agree that is how i would think it would stand also but as strange as it was, the first touch player was never on the ground. so does it relate to his position in the EZ or where the ball actually was put into play on the turf?

 

as we both surmise i believe it would have been a touchback but with some very unusual circumstances.

 

[jason]

I don't think it is that complicated.

 

It sounds to me that if the receiving team has a penalty on the play, the kicking team can either accept the penalty or decline which would invoke the first touching rule. The only time the kicking team would get the ball would be if the penalty resulted in a first down from the original line of scrimmage. That is why, even with a penalty, the kicking team would never get the ball at the point of the touching, subsequent recovery and fumble spot by receiving team, or have the ability to recover the ball after they touched if first.

 

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.

[jason]

i am not sure of how your statement relates to an actual instance (not saying you are wrong just that i don't understand the context of the situation you are stating from this rule).

 

i will try and clarify my thoughts on this.

 

lets call the punting team A and the receiving team B.

 

1. if there is any foul that is called on team B *prior to the ball actually being punted, team A has the 'option' to accept that penalty and replay that down no matter what happens from that point forward (unless there would be offset penalties on both teams prior to the punt and in that case the down would be replayed). this would negate the touch rule we have been discussing due to a *pre-punt penalty if team A accepted the penalty.

 

just a few examples: more players on the field than legal by team B, offsides by team B prior to the snap, *roughing the kicker by team B, personal foul on a player from team B prior to the punt etc.

 

if the roles were reversed and team A caused a foul pre-punt then team B would have the option in most instances of either accepting the penalty and replaying the down or refusing the penalty and accepting the results of what happened post punt.

 

2. post punt: if there is no roughing the kicker penalty (or infraction by team B pre-punt) and the punt was clean past the LOS the touch rule should be in effect from that point forward.

 

once the ball is past the LOS and is touched by anyone on team A first it becomes a live ball for anyone on team B to pick up the ball, unless it is downed by team A, and try to advance it without any loss of yardage or possession from that spot of the touch.

 

there is no downside for team B to do so. at the worst team B will retain possession from the spot of the touched ball by team A even if he loses yardage or fumbles the ball to be recovered by team A. i have seen this rule in effect over the years play out as i have described.

 

in regards to penalties on team B that occur once the punt is past the LOS... as in all instances the penalty invoked will be enforced upon team B either from the spot of initial possession (where touched by team A if the ball is not advanced by team OR the spot of the infraction if the penalty dictates and the ball was advanced past this point by team B.

 

unless there are new rules in effect, there should be no post-punt possession by team A once the touch rule is in effect due to any turnover regardless of rule infractions by team B.

 

it was a smart play by weems in my opinion and trestman was correct in his statement

 

although... i have to say i have never seen a player from team A actually knock the ball out of the endzone into the field of play and create a touch rule scenario that ended up as a team B possession in the endzone and knocked out by a player from team A.

 

it certainly had me scratching my head on what would have happened if weems had retained possession in the endzone. the player from team A actually first touched the ball in the endzone and knocked it out. where would the ball have been spotted? where weems touched it or where it was actually first touched by a player from team A which would have been a touchback?

 

wow, there is something to think about.

 

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.

[CrackerDog]

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.

 

Not as certain as you were earlier.

 

I'm not even breaking your balls, hell dude, you know a lot more about this than me. And the fact that you're not certain means it's ripe for error by the officials. Those are rules I hope the league has refreshed this week so they're all on the same page. Frankly, with the Weems play last week making the news, it wouldn't surprise me if everyone started doing this with a higher frequency.

[Lucky Luciano]

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.

 

i have been watching NFL football for 40+ years. i have seen the touch rule applied a number of times over that period but in all of that time i have never seen or even heard of a situation where the ball was "touched" and batted back out of the endzone and the receiving team player was tackled in the endzone after an attempt to advance the ball with or without any penalty. it is extremely rare (at least to me).

 

the only estimated conclusion i can come up with is that like i stated in the past post that whatever "post-punt" penalty was enforced on the receiving team would not constitute a turnover (a safety is the only result i could see that could possibly be called in this instance), but would result in any penalty of holding or a block in the back would be enforced from the spot of the touch.

 

in other words if the officials considered the "touch" in the endzone as a touchback then the resulting penalty that happened IN the endzone by the receiving team after a touch rule possession would be enforced from the 20 yard line... ball spotted on the 10.

 

if it was determined the ball was to be spotted on the 2 where it was tried by the receiving team to advance the ball it would be half the distance to the goal with the penalty enforced (i agree with crackerdogs estimation of it being a touchback but am just playing the devils advocate if the ball was considered "touched" on the 2.

 

so this all leads back to whether any penalty can result in a change of possession for the kicking team once the ball leaves the LOS cleanly on a "touch".

 

i am not saying you are wrong about this but would like to read the rule that was stated in the "NOTE" portion of your copy of an actual rule. as i don't have a rule book i can't judge what the "NOTE" ruling pertains to in context with your post. in essence you may be spot on. but...

 

without reading this or an official interpretation to me it seems more logical to assume a change of possession is not warranted once the ball is cleanly punted past the LOS with or without any penalty on the receiving team.

[jason]

Not as certain as you were earlier.

 

I'm not even breaking your balls, hell dude, you know a lot more about this than me. And the fact that you're not certain means it's ripe for error by the officials. Those are rules I hope the league has refreshed this week so they're all on the same page. Frankly, with the Weems play last week making the news, it wouldn't surprise me if everyone started doing this with a higher frequency.

 

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

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I could have swore that this thread was started to talk about how great the Bears' QB has been, not about the intelligence or dumbassness behind a ST player's touching, but maybe I'm wrong?