Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71
  1. #11
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    I wonder if this is obscure enough to make NFL's official review.
    It is an obscure rule, and apparently the refs got it right on review, so it is possible...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #12
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "VikingQuest83" wrote:
    Why would they work on this in practice? Why not let it just go out of bounds or into the endzone?
    To ensure it does go out of bounds vice killing on the one.
    If it just goes out of bounds they re-kick over from a longer distance with a penalty. If he catches it with one foot in an one out the team gets it on the 40 yard line. Smart move if it had worked. I think the question is if he had two feet in bounds when he caught it or if one foot was off the ground when he caught it and then he placed that foot out of bounds. If that's what happened, Childress is right.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,602
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "VikingQuest83" wrote:
    Why would they work on this in practice? Why not let it just go out of bounds or into the endzone?
    To ensure it does go out of bounds vice killing on the one.
    If it just goes out of bounds they re-kick over from a longer distance with a penalty. If he catches it with one foot in an one out the team gets it on the 40 yard line. Smart move if it had worked. I think the question is if he had two feet in bounds when he caught it or if one foot was off the ground when he caught it and then he placed that foot out of bounds. If that's what happened, Childress is right.
    Yup, and that's why I want to go back and check it out again.
    I think Childress was arguing that he didn't have possession until after the second foot went out of bounds.

    The rule is a little vague to me.
    So what happens if it hits the returner, he never has possession, and it rolls out of bounds?
    I think the point of it was to make it a penalty if the returned catches it out of bounds, not bobbles it on his way and gains possession out of bounds, and Childress was trying to exploit a loophole.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #14
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    Here's the only rule I can see in the published rule book but it's pretty vague.
    When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
    They get it on the 40 yard line because that would be 30 yards from the spot of the kick.

    I think Childress was arguing that he didn't have possession until after the second foot went out of bounds.
    You don't have to have two feet out -- only one.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    "VikingQuest83" wrote:
    So the rule is if he was standing out of bounds and caught it then it would have been a good play?
    Yes, I think that's it.
    If a player is out of bounds and he possesses the ball, the ball is out of bounds.
    For example, you can't recover a fumble when your feet are out of bounds, even if the ball had been in play.

    As far as I can tell, the whole 'his momentum was carrying him out' thing is irrelevant.


    So, whether AD was trying to do what he was coached to do or not is also irrelevant.
    The fact is that he was in bounds when he touched the ball and then the ball went out of bounds.
    When that happens on a kickoff, the ball is spotted where it goes out of bounds.
    If the ball is not touched by the receiving team but goes out of bounds, then it is placed 30 yards from the spot of the kick (the 40 yard line in most cases).

    So, unless a mysterious 'his momentum was carrying him out rule' exists, and based on Chilly's explanation it doesn't, then the challenge was still a bad call and his justification was completely irrational.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  6. #16
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    Screw it...we lost the game either way.
    If Chilly thinks that practicing this particular situation is gonna get us to win games, then he probably needs to be replaced.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  7. #17
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    Still loks like a bad challenge to me. I understand the rule is that if you catch with one foot out-of-bounds, it goes back to the 40.

    It was pretty clear that AD caught the ball while he was still in bounds.
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  8. #18
    DustinDupont's Avatar
    DustinDupont is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,607

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    rather then cheering when chilly throw the red flag, i think ppl were booing becuse it was clear he caught it in bounds just a another wasted timeout

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "COJOMAY" wrote:
    "Marrdro" wrote:
    "VikingQuest83" wrote:
    Why would they work on this in practice? Why not let it just go out of bounds or into the endzone?
    To ensure it does go out of bounds vice killing on the one.
    If it just goes out of bounds they re-kick over from a longer distance with a penalty. If he catches it with one foot in an one out the team gets it on the 40 yard line. Smart move if it had worked. I think the question is if he had two feet in bounds when he caught it or if one foot was off the ground when he caught it and then he placed that foot out of bounds. If that's what happened, Childress is right.
    Yup, and that's why I want to go back and check it out again.
    I think Childress was arguing that he didn't have possession until after the second foot went out of bounds.

    The rule is a little vague to me.
    So what happens if it hits the returner, he never has possession, and it rolls out of bounds?
    I think the point of it was to make it a penalty if the returned catches it out of bounds, not bobbles it on his way and gains possession out of bounds, and Childress was trying to exploit a loophole.
    It doesn't matter when he had possession.

    "NFL" wrote:
    When a kickoff goes out of bounds between the goal lines without being touched by the receiving team, the ball belongs to the receivers 30 yards from the spot of the kick or at the out-of-bounds spot unless the ball went out-of-bounds the first time an onside kick was attempted. In this case, the kicking team is penalized five yards and the ball must be kicked again.
    So the question is, did he touch the ball before it was out of bounds.
    If he was out of bounds when he first touched the ball and then possessed it, then the ball is out of bounds at the same time.
    But if he was in bounds when he first touched the ball, not actually controlling the ball until he's out of bounds doesn't change anything.
    It would still be down where it went out of bounds.


    So in your hypothetical, where it hits a player and bounces out of bounds without him ever controlling it, the ball is spotted where it went out of bounds.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  10. #20
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Obscure Rule Prompts Childress Challenge

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    Screw it...we lost the game either way.
    If Chilly thinks that practicing this particular situation is gonna get us to win games, then he probably needs to be replaced.
    Your right it probably is pretty stupid to think one play like this could win us a game, heck we all know that a bounce here our way, a call here or there our way wouldn't help a young team in anyway win a game.

    However, to look at it from another standpoint (a grander sense/big picture), doesn't it kindof refute alot of stuff like....

    He is a bad coach....

    He isn't getting them ready for a game.....

    When in fact it shows that he not only has this minute type of stuff worked on, the coaching staff (and not just the Chiller) might in fact not be as big a bunch of dipshits as some on here think.

    Funny how things (i.e. a onside kick that worked) like that get smoothed over when we choose to find fault with the coaching staff (not just the Chiller).
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fowl play prompts unusual court order
    By BadlandsVikings in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 08:39 PM
  2. Brad Childress: Ready for the challenge - VIDEO
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 08:27 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-05-2007, 08:00 PM
  4. Obscure blocked-punt rule bedevils Chiefs
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-20-2006, 12:06 PM
  5. Childress saying hello to a new challenge
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 10:41 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •