The Chargers punt was partially blocked by a Chief. Then another chief tried to pick it up, but never got posession before a Charger revcovered the ball.
Maybe the rule is written differently, but shouldn't the call have rightfully been chargers ball and then turnover on posession as it was 4th down and the recovery spot didn't give them enough for a first? Since the punt was blocked did that make it a live ball and why did it give the chargers a 1st and 10 when there was no change in posession. The chiefs only touched it, they never posessed it. If thats the rule, I disagree with the rule.
2006-12-18 01:46:53 · 13 answers · asked by Lane 4 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Yeah, but the Chiefs can't just leave the live ball laying on the ground- so, its not like downing a punt. Either team can recover it. What I'm saying is not that it shouldn't have been Chargers ball- they rightfully recovered it. I am saying it shouldn't have been a new set of downs because the chiefs never posessed the ball, and the spot of recovery by the chargers wasn't enough for a first down on yards.
2006-12-18 02:20:54 · update #1
Okay, I'm not questioning the call I guess, but the rule. My contention is that without a change of posession it isn't right to give the Chargers a new set of downs for recovering a blocked punt just because it was touched. How is this a good rule? On what grounds can it be justified? Just because the blocked ball touches a defender (it could've hit him one in the back) why should that give the recovering team , the Chargers a first down? I feel there must be posession and fumble on a blocked punt before a new set of downs can be awarded UNLESS the ball is recovered ahead of what would have been a first down on yards.
2006-12-18 03:48:17 · update #2
The call may have been technically correct, but that does not make it right. There should be a rule that a team that has a kick blocked should not benefit just because the opposing team touches it after it crosses the line of scrimmage, unless a player attempts to advance it and fumbles. The NFL should take a look at this rule, along with the ridiculous "tuck" rule and that other call involving the Chargers when its wide receiver spun the ball on the ground without being touched and it was ruled a forward pass.
2006-12-18 04:24:00 · answer #1 · answered by turkey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a weird call because usually blocked punts go backwards (behind the punter) not forwards. In essence it is the same thing as if the punt was down the field 50 yards and the chiefs touched it and missed and the chargers picked it up and ran it into the end zone for a td. As long as the ball crossed the line of scrimmage (which it did) and was touched by a chief, it is a live ball. It is the same thing as a normal punt just 50 yards closer to the punter. In a normal punt does the recieving team have to have possesion if they drop it and the other team recovers? Not usually, so it is the same thing. Sorry to say it but you sound like a bitter Chiefs fan, and yes the call was odd but it was the right call. Sorry. Hope your Chiefs make the play offs. I'm pullin for them, even as a Charger fan, cuz I live in Chief country.
2006-12-18 03:00:02 · answer #2 · answered by Ryne's proud mommy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Think of it this way. If the punt hadn't been blocked and the person catching the punt doesn't actually make possession but just touches the ball as he drops it or gets hit, that makes it a live ball since the Chiefs touched it and if the Chargers would have picked it up at that spot, it would have been a first down. Same way here. The Chiefs didn't have possession but touched it making it a live ball and the Chargers picked it up giving them the first down. Hope it helps.
2006-12-18 01:58:30 · answer #3 · answered by frijol7877 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The outcome was the same as if the punt returner would of touched the ball on an unblocked punt and the kicking team recovers. As long as the punted ball crosses the line of scrimmage and then touched by the recovering team it is fair game for the kicking team to recover. Just picture it as if it was a badly punted ball and not blocked. The key here is that it has to pass the line of scrimmage then it is classified as a punt and not a blocked punt.
2006-12-18 02:04:32 · answer #4 · answered by Brian 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the ball is touched as it is punted then its a live ball. Yes you have to have possesion of the ball and that awarded the chargers the ball and get it on the spot. I don't know how you can disagree with that rule because thats like saying if a wideout touches the ball he automaticly gets it at the spot even if he doesnt catch it. But i assure you there is no better way than they have it.
2006-12-18 02:02:46 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The key to that ruling was this.....the punt was blocked, the ball traveled PAST the original line of scrimmage where a KC player touched it, a SD player then recovered the ball, result Charger ball. IF the KC player had not touched the ball OR if the ball had not traveled past the original line of scrimmage then KC would have had the ball. OK?
2006-12-18 05:37:17 · answer #6 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The call was right. As long as the ball travels past the line of scrimmage, when the receiving team touches the ball then it becomes live. If the ball stays behind the line of scrimmage and they touch it and the kicking team recovers it, then they would have to advance it past the first down marker in order to retain possession. The Chiefs player should have just fallen on it instead of trying to run it in.
2006-12-18 03:29:37 · answer #7 · answered by Dah veed 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Once the Chief touched it AFTER THE BLOCK, it is a live ball - a muffed punt. The rule is Chargers ball and 1-10.
2006-12-18 01:49:44 · answer #8 · answered by Beast8981 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because it was touched by a defender, it makes it a live ball, the same as if the punt returner were to touch it and fumble the ball. The Chargers recovered and the ruling was correct.
2006-12-18 02:06:03 · answer #9 · answered by Dave K 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Since the ball crossed the line of scrimmage, and was touched by a Chief, it was a live ball. Had the ball stayed behind the l.o.s., it would not have mattered who touched it and been Chiefs ball.
It's one of those stupid NFL rules.
2006-12-18 02:36:59 · answer #10 · answered by clone1973 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋