LoudMouth12thMan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 A ref called in on a radio show in DC the following day when someone brought this up. He said that it doesn't matter if the kickers body goes ahead of the line while he's in the process of kicking the ball off. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docsandy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I talked to my brother, who is a college FB coach.. and while I realize NFL rules don't match college rules, he said that the plant foot and holder (if necessary) can be beyond the line of scrimmage. This makes sense physics-wise. Try to kick with your plant foot behind your center of gravity... not saying it isn't possible, but it's awkward. I've never heard an offsides called on a kicker so I'm not 100% sure of this, but common sense and anatomy mechanics makes it common sense (I know, since when does the NFL rules committee have common sense:laugh:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docsandy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I talked to my brother, who is a college FB coach.. and while I realize NFL rules don't match college rules, he said that the plant foot and holder (if necessary) can be beyond the line of scrimmage. This makes sense physics-wise. Try to kick with your plant foot behind your center of gravity... not saying it isn't possible, but it's awkward. I've never heard an offsides called on a kicker so I'm not 100% sure of this, but common sense and anatomy mechanics makes it common sense (I know, since when does the NFL rules committee have common sense:laugh:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 A ref called in on a radio show in DC the following day when someone brought this up. He said that it doesn't matter if the kickers body goes ahead of the line while he's in the process of kicking the ball off. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. :2cents: Answered on the 4th question down: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-061003askjerrymarkbreit,1,7605740.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 A ref called in on a radio show in DC the following day when someone brought this up. He said that it doesn't matter if the kickers body goes ahead of the line while he's in the process of kicking the ball off. I don't know if that's accurate or not, but he seemed to know what he was talking about. :2cents: Answered on the 4th question down: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-061003askjerrymarkbreit,1,7605740.story?coll=cs-bears-asktheref-headlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballfan1 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballfan1 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. What a pointless post. The poster made it abundantly clear that all he was looking for was a rules clarification, no more no less. I wish more people would actually take the time to read posts before trying to beat them over the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. What a pointless post. The poster made it abundantly clear that all he was looking for was a rules clarification, no more no less. I wish more people would actually take the time to read posts before trying to beat them over the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballfan1 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It's not unusual for any post to evolve into a broader discussion, is it? I certainly meant no mal-intent to the orginal poster. Asking about rules clarification is always beneficial, but that point has already been addressed in this thread. I'm just curious to know if others reading this thread saw the bigger picture the same as I did. If so, then the points I have made should cause concern for 'Skins fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballfan1 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It's not unusual for any post to evolve into a broader discussion, is it? I certainly meant no mal-intent to the orginal poster. Asking about rules clarification is always beneficial, but that point has already been addressed in this thread. I'm just curious to know if others reading this thread saw the bigger picture the same as I did. If so, then the points I have made should cause concern for 'Skins fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 7. All players of offensive team must be stationary at snap, except one back who may be in motion parallel to scrimmage line or backward (not forward). I have another rules question that had me wondering if the officials blew a call on Sunday. On the Cardinals first touchdown that came on the last play of the half, Warner was bouncing around in the shotgun formation while one of the receivers was clearly in motion in the backfield. If anyone has the play on Tivo I'd like to hear if I saw things correctly. To me it was clearly two backs moving in the backfield at the same time, at the time of the snap. This would be a violation of the rule listed above which is under the "position of offensive players at the snap" category..... I know we won, but, I'd like to know the rule on that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 7. All players of offensive team must be stationary at snap, except one back who may be in motion parallel to scrimmage line or backward (not forward). I have another rules question that had me wondering if the officials blew a call on Sunday. On the Cardinals first touchdown that came on the last play of the half, Warner was bouncing around in the shotgun formation while one of the receivers was clearly in motion in the backfield. If anyone has the play on Tivo I'd like to hear if I saw things correctly. To me it was clearly two backs moving in the backfield at the same time, at the time of the snap. This would be a violation of the rule listed above which is under the "position of offensive players at the snap" category..... I know we won, but, I'd like to know the rule on that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight4oldc Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It was legal. They got and should have won. We should be 3-3 right now. Well not exactly, sellers did rip the ball out of that little girls hand. And she was still trying to secure the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fight4oldc Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 It was legal. They got and should have won. We should be 3-3 right now. Well not exactly, sellers did rip the ball out of that little girls hand. And she was still trying to secure the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. I have to disagree that Arizona was the better team on Sunday. They were the better team in the second half and that's in large part because of our coaching decisions to sit on the ball. In the first half we dominated them and you must count both halves. Even not playing their best football, the Skins still did enough to win against the weaker Arizona Cardinals on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The facts have to be faced...the Skins were beaten badly on both sides of the ball by the Cardinals, on-side kick or not, fumble or not. At least on this past Sunday, it was evident the Cardinals were the better team, but sometimes the lesser team gets away with one. No one should expect that to be the norm. Given the chance to play the Cardinals 10 times, if this last game was any indication, that would be 1 of only 2 or 3 games the Skins would win. Both teams were missing key players. However, bringing everybody back probably doesn't change much. There should even be concerns about the defense. Inspite of Warner's left arm being the same size from shoulder to wrist, and offensive line injuries of their own, they put up nearly 400 yards. Not a sign of a good defense, and the Skins need a dominate defense, not just a good one. I have to disagree that Arizona was the better team on Sunday. They were the better team in the second half and that's in large part because of our coaching decisions to sit on the ball. In the first half we dominated them and you must count both halves. Even not playing their best football, the Skins still did enough to win against the weaker Arizona Cardinals on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFan48 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 does not matter if the kicker was offsides....We should of never let them get the onsides kick in the first place but lets move on with the WIN...HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFan48 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 does not matter if the kicker was offsides....We should of never let them get the onsides kick in the first place but lets move on with the WIN...HTTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Mike Sellers had the ball before the whistles were blown. I've watched the play 20 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkHog Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Mike Sellers had the ball before the whistles were blown. I've watched the play 20 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Here is the rule regarding offsides on the kickoff. After the referee's whistle, prior to a free kick, all kicking team players must be inbounds and behind the ball when it is kicked. The holder of the kick, if he is necessary, may be beyond the line. The kicker may be beyond the line, with his plant foot, but his kicking foot may not be beyond the line until the ball is actually kicked. What you describe is perfectly legal. His plant foot was beyond the line, but his kicking foot was not. :applause: :applause: Fantastic post. I coach youth league and middle school football. I also referee at the high school level. I've often thought about how many parents need football rules 101. A parent was ****ing the other night because the clock wasn't running during a conversion try. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Here is the rule regarding offsides on the kickoff. After the referee's whistle, prior to a free kick, all kicking team players must be inbounds and behind the ball when it is kicked. The holder of the kick, if he is necessary, may be beyond the line. The kicker may be beyond the line, with his plant foot, but his kicking foot may not be beyond the line until the ball is actually kicked. What you describe is perfectly legal. His plant foot was beyond the line, but his kicking foot was not. :applause: :applause: Fantastic post. I coach youth league and middle school football. I also referee at the high school level. I've often thought about how many parents need football rules 101. A parent was ****ing the other night because the clock wasn't running during a conversion try. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinaz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 you now i agree with the origional post on a rule clareification and only half of that was clarified but some people seem to look at it as he is looking for reason to say refs porked us again but i think it is just the other as a fan wanting to expand his knowledge of football but the second part of his question is intriging to me yes we know he can have his plant foot in front of the ball if the ball was kicked and then hit his plant foot is that illigal touching of the ball? i think it is a good question to ask for thouse who are willing to learn more of the game and not think they know it all mainly those who are comenting who cares we won ya we all now we won just looking for clarification on a play and what the rules state give the man a break and i wish i new tha answere for i read every thread looking for the answere to his second part of his question and not to many people even hit one bit of his question and to those that did give some insight show class as a true redskin the others well that just shows the narrow minded fans that we do have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinaz Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 you now i agree with the origional post on a rule clareification and only half of that was clarified but some people seem to look at it as he is looking for reason to say refs porked us again but i think it is just the other as a fan wanting to expand his knowledge of football but the second part of his question is intriging to me yes we know he can have his plant foot in front of the ball if the ball was kicked and then hit his plant foot is that illigal touching of the ball? i think it is a good question to ask for thouse who are willing to learn more of the game and not think they know it all mainly those who are comenting who cares we won ya we all now we won just looking for clarification on a play and what the rules state give the man a break and i wish i new tha answere for i read every thread looking for the answere to his second part of his question and not to many people even hit one bit of his question and to those that did give some insight show class as a true redskin the others well that just shows the narrow minded fans that we do have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.