ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Explain This (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=170251)

Chief Chief 09-17-2007 11:14 AM
Explain This
 
KC @ Chicago, less than 2 minutes in the 1st half:

We kick-off and the Bears return man catches the ball on the bounce near the sideline with one foot in and then his other foot lands out.

The ref calls a penalty on KC for kicking the ball out of bounds and gives the Bears the ball at the 40.

WTF?

Also, there was another play inside 2 minutes of the first half which I thought was worthy of a review but it didn't happen.

Anyone recall that one?

KcMizzou 09-17-2007 11:16 AM
That was new to me as well.

I thought he'd be down where he stepped out.

MGRS13 09-17-2007 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Chief
KC @ Chicago, less than 2 minutes in the 1st half:

We kick-off and the Bears return man catches the ball on the bounce near the sideline with one foot in and then his other foot lands out.

The ref calls a penalty on KC for kicking the ball out of bounds and gives the Bears the ball at the 4o.
Great play, good coaching. Heads up play, you gotta know the rules.

BigRedChief 09-17-2007 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Chief
KC @ Chicago, less than 2 minutes in the 1st half:

We kick-off and the Bears return man catches the ball on the bounce near the sideline with one foot in and then his other foot lands out.

The ref calls a penalty on KC for kicking the ball out of bounds and gives the Bears the ball at the 40.

WTF?

Also, there was another play inside 2 minutes of the first half which I thought was worthy of a review but it didn't happen.

Anyone recall that one?
Perfectly legal. It's in the rule book. If a player catches the ball with one foot out of bounds the ball will be ruled out of bounds. They talked about it on the broadcast, about coaches trying to teach that move to players.

Third Eye 09-17-2007 11:17 AM
I was just going to post the same question. I was in a noisy bar and couldn't hear the announcers well. All I could hear was "it's a little known rule.."

BigChiefFan 09-17-2007 11:19 AM
I've never heard of that rule in all of my life. Whatever. It was legit and our kicker shouldn't have been kicking to him in the first place. Did we forget that during the game? The ineptness has spread like wildfire.

Fish 09-17-2007 11:24 AM
So.... could a player catch the ball on one foot while leaping out of bounds? Because his second foot(out of bounds) wasn't down when he caught the ball.

This seems it would be easy to exploit....

Shag 09-17-2007 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MGRS13
Great play, good coaching. Heads up play, you gotta know the rules.
I think that was a long way from a good play - Hester got a lucky break, IMHO. If you watch him after he notices he's out of bounds, he looked upset - I don't think he planned that. He benefited from a really stupid rule...

What possible logic is there for that rule, anyway?

OnTheWarpath15 09-17-2007 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC Fish
So.... could a player catch the ball on one foot while leaping out of bounds? Because his second foot(out of bounds) wasn't down when he caught the ball.

This seems it would be easy to exploit....
That's what I didn't understand.

I understand the rule to mean that Hester could have established position OOB before he touched the ball.

That didn't happen. He touched the ball before he established position OOB.

Chest Rockwell 09-17-2007 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC Fish
So.... Because his second foot(out of bounds) wasn't down when he caught the ball.
I noticed he caught the ball before his foot was down out of bounds too, and it confused me. Seemed like all the explanations were saying it was because he had one foot out of bounds when the ball was caught, which technically wasn't true...

OnTheWarpath15 09-17-2007 11:55 AM
FWIW, I'd rather have an explanation about the obvious missed block in the back on Bennett during Hester's TD.

greg63 09-17-2007 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief
Perfectly legal. It's in the rule book. If a player catches the ball with one foot out of bounds the ball will be ruled out of bounds. They talked about it on the broadcast, about coaches trying to teach that move to players.
This is, in fact, the case.

donkhater 09-17-2007 11:57 AM
Hester got very lucky. He caught the ball when he had only one foot on the ground then the other came down out of bounds. Personally, I don't think he meant to do that.

In a Cowboys/Giants Monday night game a few years back, the Giants squib kicked late in the game and it went toward the sideline. The Cowboy return man got out of bounds (inside the 10, I think), reached back in bounds to pick up the ball. Penalty on the kicking team. Ball placed at the 40. THAT was a heads up play. Hester's was a lucky mistake IMO.

OnTheWarpath15 09-17-2007 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg63
This is, in fact, the case.
I don't think anyone is arguing that.

He wasn't OOB when he first touched the ball.

He caught the ball, THEN stepped OOB with his right foot.

I could be wrong, but he needs to establish position with one foot OOB BEFORE he touches the ball.

Wouldn't be at all surprised to get another "we ****ed up" letter from the league this week.

Fish 09-17-2007 12:01 PM
My old man and I rewound it several times, and it was very clear that his foot was not down out of bounds before he had possession of the ball. He caught the ball, had possession, and then his right foot came down OOB.

By that logic, there are a number of ways you could use that to your advantage anytime the ball comes down close to the sideline on a kickoff.

donkhater 09-17-2007 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58
I don't think anyone is arguing that.

He wasn't OOB when he first touched the ball.

He caught the ball, THEN stepped OOB with his right foot.

I could be wrong, but he needs to establish position with one foot OOB BEFORE he touches the ball.

Wouldn't be at all surprised to get another "we ****ed up" letter from the league this week.
In fact it is the opposite. He has to catch the ball and establish both feet INBOUNDS for it to be a legal catch, just as if he was recieving a pass. The fact that his second foot landed out of bounds meant that the kick was out of bounds as well.

It was the right call. Clearly Hester thought he f**ked up. He got lucky.

Groves 09-17-2007 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC Fish
By that logic, there are a number of ways you could use that to your advantage anytime the ball comes down close to the sideline on a kickoff.
Yes, that's what this whole thread is about.

bkkcoh 09-17-2007 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58
FWIW, I'd rather have an explanation about the obvious missed block in the back on Bennett during Hester's TD.
I thought that is what I saw also.


But if Hester would have had a knee down when caught the KO, would it have been consdered out of bounds at that point. You know the 1 knee equals 2 feet......

PastorMikH 09-17-2007 12:21 PM
From now on, if a return man catches the ball outside of the hashmarks, he should quickly hop on one foot towards the sidelines and put the second foot down only after he crosses the sideline.

Herm should be having one-footed-catching and hopping drills in practice for the return men.

kc rush 09-17-2007 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkhater
In fact it is the opposite. He has to catch the ball and establish both feet INBOUNDS for it to be a legal catch, just as if he was recieving a pass. The fact that his second foot landed out of bounds meant that the kick was out of bounds as well.

It was the right call. Clearly Hester thought he f**ked up. He got lucky.
I know that this sounds ridiculous, but does that mean a return man could bat the kickoff to someone standing out of bounds and it would be a penalty on the kicking team?

I guess I should try to find the rulebook to see how things are worded, it may negate my scenario above, but if not, KC Fish is right, there are a number of things you could do to take advantage of the situation.

bkkcoh 09-17-2007 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastorMikH
From now on, if a return man catches the ball outside of the hashmarks, he should quickly hop on one foot towards the sidelines and put the second foot down only after he crosses the sideline.

Herm should be having one-footed-catching and hopping drills in practice for the return men.
that would probably be considered a football move though and wouldn't count.

PastorMikH 09-17-2007 12:25 PM
If Hester had established himself out of bounds before the catch, wouldn't he be an in-eligable player first to touch the ball with a penalty going against him?



Stupid rule.

The Rick 09-17-2007 12:25 PM
Exactly, what's the point of this rule? Who's to say the ball doesn't land in the field of play near the out of bounds line and bounce away from the line, towards the field?

PastorMikH 09-17-2007 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rick
Exactly, what's the point of this rule? Who's to say the ball doesn't land in the field of play near the out of bounds line and bounce away from the line, towards the field?


Actually, with the way he was running towards the sideline to catch the ball, who's to say that the ball wouldn't have hit near, at or beyond the goal line just inside the pylon?

Uncle_Ted 09-17-2007 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastorMikH
From now on, if a return man catches the ball outside of the hashmarks, he should quickly hop on one foot towards the sidelines and put the second foot down only after he crosses the sideline.

Herm should be having one-footed-catching and hopping drills in practice for the return men.
Catch it while hopping on one foot, then lateral it to a guy standing out of bounds! Though I guess the lateral might be a "football move" :banghead:

donkhater 09-17-2007 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kc rush
I know that this sounds ridiculous, but does that mean a return man could bat the kickoff to someone standing out of bounds and it would be a penalty on the kicking team?

I guess I should try to find the rulebook to see how things are worded, it may negate my scenario above, but if not, KC Fish is right, there are a number of things you could do to take advantage of the situation.
That would be illegal batting of the ball out of bounds and be a penalty. Selvin Young (Broncos) was called for that last week on a dropped lateral he batted OoB. A heads up play on his part, but still a penalty.

bkkcoh 09-17-2007 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastorMikH
If Hester had established himself out of bounds before the catch, wouldn't he be an in-eligable player first to touch the ball with a penalty going against him?



Stupid rule.

Someone should have stomped on his left foot then...... :banghead:

morphius 09-17-2007 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkcoh
that would probably be considered a football move though and wouldn't count.
One foot touching multiple times would count as multiple steps in bounds.

I still don't like the incomplete call on Webb, I think if a player catches the ball, takes two steps and his knees touch the ground then has it knocked out it should still be a catch. With each knee counting as 2 feet, that is a lot of touches to the ground.

donkhater 09-17-2007 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastorMikH
If Hester had established himself out of bounds before the catch, wouldn't he be an in-eligable player first to touch the ball with a penalty going against him?



Stupid rule.
No. Because he is OoB when he touches the ball. If he goes out of bounds THEN re-establishes himself inbounds and touches the ball first it is illegal touching of the ball.

donkhater 09-17-2007 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morphius
One foot touching multiple times would count as multiple steps in bounds.

I still don't like the incomplete call on Webb, I think if a player catches the ball, takes two steps and his knees touch the ground then has it knocked out it should still be a catch. With each knee counting as 2 feet, that is a lot of touches to the ground.
I wasn't really all that pissed off that it was called incomplete. But it sure verified that my opinion of the Wilson 'fumble' from last week was complete hogwash. It's nearly the same situation. Once it was a fumble, the other time it wasn't.

kc rush 09-17-2007 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkhater
That would be illegal batting of the ball out of bounds and be a penalty. Selvin Young (Broncos) was called for that last week on a dropped lateral he batted OoB. A heads up play on his part, but still a penalty.
Thanks for clarifying.

Fish 09-17-2007 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkhater
No. Because he is OoB when he touches the ball. If he goes out of bounds THEN re-establishes himself inbounds and touches the ball first it is illegal touching of the ball.
The moment before the catch, both Hester and the ball are inbounds.
The moment he catches the ball, both Hester and the ball are still inbounds, and neither have established any contact with OoB yet.

But yet, he's still considered OoB when neither Hester nor the ball had yet touched OoB.

That really seems contradictory. How can the kicking team be assessed a penalty when the flight of the ball is affected by the opposing team?

What if it would have been the same exact situation, but Hester muffed the catch and the ball lands inbounds and stays inbounds? How could they possibly justify that? Would Hester still have been considered OoB?

The point is that the player(Hester) affected the outcome of a rule that shouldn't have had anything to do with the guy catching the ball. If the player touches the ball before going OoB, logic would dictate that there couldn't be a penalty on the kicking team because the ball has already been affected by the opposing team.

donkhater 09-17-2007 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KC Fish
The moment before the catch, both Hester and the ball are inbounds.
The moment he catches the ball, both Hester and the ball are still inbounds, and neither have established any contact with OoB yet.

But yet, he's still considered OoB when neither Hester nor the ball had yet touched OoB.

That really seems contradictory. How can the kicking team be assessed a penalty when the flight of the ball is affected by the opposing team?

He hasn't put both feet down yet. Therefore he hasn't technically established possession. It's the same as a receiver catching a pass and putting both feet down before he goes OoB.

What if it would have been the same exact situation, but Hester muffed the catch and the ball lands inbounds and stays inbounds? How could they possibly justify that? Would Hester still have been considered OoB?

If his foot was on the line when he dropped the ball, then he is OoB and the ball is OoB. If has yet to touch the Oob marker before he drops the ball, then it is a live ball.

A more interesting scenario is if he muffed the catch before he came down OoB and the ball landed OoB. My guess is that it is ruled a live ball fumbled OoB. The offense takes over from that spot.

The point is that the player(Hester) affected the outcome of a rule that shouldn't have had anything to do with the guy catching the ball. If the player touches the ball before going OoB, logic would dictate that there couldn't be a penalty on the kicking team because the ball has already been affected by the opposing team.
This is why it is dangerous to kick near the sideline and, from a returner's perspective, to field a kick near the sideline. Any number of game changing plays can happen just by accidient.

Bugeater 09-17-2007 04:05 PM
I have a headache from reading this thread.

shyguyms 09-17-2007 04:12 PM
it's just like baseball it's where the ball is going out of bounds when he touches, the officials blew this call. A few plays in this game should of been reviewed we also got a few bad spots off by over a yard.

Mecca 09-17-2007 04:12 PM
This rule has been in place forever, I remember seeing it in another game a few years ago.

In the grand scheme it didn't lead to anything so it didn't matter.

Rain Man 09-17-2007 04:14 PM
Post #32 pretty much summarizes my opinion on this. It's ludicrous. I'm sure there's some legitimate reason why this rule was created, but I'm hard-put to figure out what it was.

I guess they're treating fielding a kick to be the same as catching a pass, but I would posit that they're two very different things. A kick is a live ball and a pass isn't. A kicking play doesn't stop once the ball hits the ground.

JohnnyV13 09-17-2007 05:13 PM
I think this rule exists to be consistent with the sideline catch rules. Second, it also discourages teams from kicking to the sidelines. The league wants to ENCOURAGE kick returns because they are exciting plays.

That's why we have K balls to reduce the length of kickoffs and have moved the kickoff point to the 30. Heck, if kickers start putting it into the end zone from the 30, they'll move it back to the 25.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.