Unfortunately, I was unable to watch Sunday's game in person (or even
in real time) and after giving the Fast Forward and Play buttons of my
VCR a workout, here's what I have:

Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the ball,
and the Chiefs end up with the ball. If the officials called it
correctly (the Raiders got the ball on their own five) then why are
players on the receiving team coached to get out of the way in that
situation? I've just spent some time looking through the online NFL
rules, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why Oakland got the
ball at the end of that play. The official NFL Gamebook for the game
describes this as "illegal kick catch interference." What in the hell
is THAT? Whatever else is true, the game could easily have turned on
this single play. If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd be very
interested.

The Chiefs' line play on both sides of the ball was terrible. There
were no holes for Johnson (or anyone else) to run through, and as has
already been pointed out, the Raiders were able to run the ball at
will. Unless this improves, the Chiefs are in for a very long season.

And while we're on the subject of Larry Johnson... the guy STILL
cannot pass block worth a damn. I've now forgotten exactly which play
it was, but one of the sacks given up by the Chiefs was due SOLELY to
Johnson's incompetence in this area. The Chiefs need to teach the guy
how to do it right, or inform him that the salary he gets means he's
supposed to get his uniform dirty even when he ISN'T carrying the
ball. Unfortunately... I'm afraid Johnson is beyond being taught
anything, so the only solution may be to get him off the field for
passing plays. Given this (and his postgame statements) it now
becoming quite clear that signing Johnson to a big money deal was a
mistake. The guy was awesome behind a great line. Otherwise, he
seems to be nothing special... and trouble in the locker room.

I'd also like to personally thank the dozens of columnists across the
country (just some of whom were quoted here in the NG) who decided to
bag on the Raiders this week. The Chiefs didn't play well at all, but
the Raiders played like a team posessed... certainly much better than
last week, and in all probability, better than they had any right to
play. I hope that in the interest of fairness, these same columnists
will spend the next week bagging on the Chiefs.

Going in, I honestly thought the Chiefs would win this game. But the
unexpected is precisely what we're going to have to expect from the
Chiefs this year. They'll play unexpectedly well (like last week) or
look like a sandlot team... as they did this week. It's going to be
an interesting ride.

RDOGuy wrote:
> Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
> third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the ball,
> and the Chiefs end up with the ball.

As I understand it, once the punting team touches the ball, the
receiving team can then touch it, and as long as they don't gain
possession and then fumble it, the ball is dead where the punting team
initially touched it.

The reason coaches coach you to get out of the way is for when the
punting team DOESN'T touch it first. If the receiving team touches it
first, THEN it becomes a live ball.

On Sep 15, 3:56 pm, Tarkus <karnev...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
> RDOGuy wrote:
> > Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
> > third quarter?  The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the ball,
> > and the Chiefs end up with the ball.
>
> As I understand it, once the punting team touches the ball, the
> receiving team can then touch it, and as long as they don't gain
> possession and then fumble it, the ball is dead where the punting team
> initially touched it.
>
> The reason coaches coach you to get out of the way is for when the
> punting team DOESN'T touch it first.  If the receiving team touches it
> first, THEN it becomes a live ball.

I stated this before. But, wouldn't it make sense to trade LJ now, for
some more draft picks. If this is a youth movement we might as well go
all out and get the suffering over with. The way it's going we'd get
Tebow (if things go our way) and some other good players. Maybe the
Fins would bite and since they're going nowhere, the Chiefs would end
up with very high draft picks.

Andre

On Sep 15, 5:09 pm, Andre <ANDREJANSSE...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I stated this before. But, wouldn't it make sense to trade LJ now, for
> some more draft picks. If this is a youth movement we might as well go
> all out and get the suffering over with.

Sure... if it was practical to trade a player under a long-term, high
dollar contract. Except it isn't practical. In most cases, the team
trading away the big name player pays too high a price in cap space to
make it worthwhile. Since Jared Allen wasn't under a current contract,
in his situation this wasn't an issue. With LJ, it is.

So... every time you sign a player to a fat, long-term deal, you're
gambling that the player will be worth it over the life of the
contract. In LJ's case, unless the OL gets it together (and LJ gets
his head out of his butt) it doesn't appear to me that this gamble is
going to pay off.

Besides... given what's happened with him (both on and off the field)
during the last couple of seasons (not to mention the last couple of
games) who is going to be interested enough in Johnson to give the
Chiefs anything in return?

RDOGuy wrote:
> Unfortunately, I was unable to watch Sunday's game in person (or even
> in real time) and after giving the Fast Forward and Play buttons of my
> VCR a workout, here's what I have:
>
> Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
> third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the ball,
> and the Chiefs end up with the ball. If the officials called it
> correctly (the Raiders got the ball on their own five) then why are
> players on the receiving team coached to get out of the way in that
> situation? I've just spent some time looking through the online NFL
> rules, and for the life of me, I cannot figure out why Oakland got the
> ball at the end of that play. The official NFL Gamebook for the game
> describes this as "illegal kick catch interference." What in the hell
> is THAT? Whatever else is true, the game could easily have turned on
> this single play. If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd be very
> interested.
>

I have no idea. It was a pathetic call. I have seen that happen lots of
times and its always, always a turnover.


> The Chiefs' line play on both sides of the ball was terrible. There
> were no holes for Johnson (or anyone else) to run through, and as has
> already been pointed out, the Raiders were able to run the ball at
> will. Unless this improves, the Chiefs are in for a very long season.

Herm isn't planning to win and can't think of anything but run up the middle
and punt.
>
> And while we're on the subject of Larry Johnson... the guy STILL
> cannot pass block worth a damn. I've now forgotten exactly which play
> it was, but one of the sacks given up by the Chiefs was due SOLELY to
> Johnson's incompetence in this area. The Chiefs need to teach the guy
> how to do it right, or inform him that the salary he gets means he's
> supposed to get his uniform dirty even when he ISN'T carrying the
> ball. Unfortunately... I'm afraid Johnson is beyond being taught
> anything, so the only solution may be to get him off the field for
> passing plays. Given this (and his postgame statements) it now
> becoming quite clear that signing Johnson to a big money deal was a
> mistake. The guy was awesome behind a great line. Otherwise, he
> seems to be nothing special... and trouble in the locker room.

I still think he can perform if they try to run some plays besides into the
gut where they have had no success. But he definitely isn't going to get a
hundred yards total for the entire season trying to punch it up the middle.
Its hopeless.
>
> I'd also like to personally thank the dozens of columnists across the
> country (just some of whom were quoted here in the NG) who decided to
> bag on the Raiders this week. The Chiefs didn't play well at all, but
> the Raiders played like a team posessed... certainly much better than
> last week, and in all probability, better than they had any right to
> play. I hope that in the interest of fairness, these same columnists
> will spend the next week bagging on the Chiefs.

They will... but take a lot of time out talking about how the officials love
The Rat. That call in the Denver game to continue a Donkey Drive that should
have died was one of the worst officiating mistakes I have ever seen in my
life. I truly mean it when I say that ref should be fired. Maybe The Rat
will pay his salary.

>
> Going in, I honestly thought the Chiefs would win this game. But the
> unexpected is precisely what we're going to have to expect from the
> Chiefs this year. They'll play unexpectedly well (like last week) or
> look like a sandlot team... as they did this week. It's going to be
> an interesting ride.

I thought the same thing. But after the melt down yesterday I have my doubts
whether we will see much of anything except further degeneration as long as
Edwards seems to have no commitment to winning games.

MartyB in KC

Andre wrote:
> On Sep 15, 3:56 pm, Tarkus <karnev...@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>> RDOGuy wrote:
>>> Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
>>> third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the
>>> ball, and the Chiefs end up with the ball.
>>
>> As I understand it, once the punting team touches the ball, the
>> receiving team can then touch it, and as long as they don't gain
>> possession and then fumble it, the ball is dead where the punting
>> team initially touched it.
>>
>> The reason coaches coach you to get out of the way is for when the
>> punting team DOESN'T touch it first. If the receiving team touches it
>> first, THEN it becomes a live ball.
>
> I stated this before. But, wouldn't it make sense to trade LJ now, for
> some more draft picks. If this is a youth movement we might as well go
> all out and get the suffering over with. The way it's going we'd get
> Tebow (if things go our way) and some other good players. Maybe the
> Fins would bite and since they're going nowhere, the Chiefs would end
> up with very high draft picks.
>
> Andre

He is a huge financial liability who is playing like he couldn't care less.
What would we get, a sixth rounder? There's no point. And if he picks up his
game, then no one will want to trade him. Catch 22.

MBKC

Tarkus wrote:
> RDOGuy wrote:
>> Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
>> third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the
>> ball, and the Chiefs end up with the ball.
>
> As I understand it, once the punting team touches the ball, the
> receiving team can then touch it, and as long as they don't gain
> possession and then fumble it, the ball is dead where the punting team
> initially touched it.
>
> The reason coaches coach you to get out of the way is for when the
> punting team DOESN'T touch it first. If the receiving team touches it
> first, THEN it becomes a live ball.

Hmm... ok. Then I am wondering why it looked so odd to me. That doesn't
sound like a situation that would be all that unusual but I have never seen
this happen before.

MBKC

No, it's never a turnover. I was amazed the TV guys got this totally
wrong, and were ragging on the returner who made the absolute correct
play. Once the kicking team touches a punt FIRST, there is No Downside
to the Returner doing exactly what he did. The worst case scenario is
that the ball is returned to the spot the kicking team touched it first.
The best case is that he grabs it, everyone on the kicking team is
asleep, and he scores a TD. That was a great play by the returner, and
a bad performance by Gannon and his partner.

DaBlueGuy@webtv.net

On Sep 16, 1:02 am, DaBlue...@webtv.net (Da Blue Guy) wrote:

> Once the kicking team touches a punt FIRST, there is No Downside
> to the Returner doing exactly what he did.  The worst case scenario is
> that the ball is returned to the spot the kicking team touched it first.

OK... that would explain what the official said after the play -
something about the receiving team having the option of returning the
ball to the place it was first touched. It also explains some things
I saw Dale Carter while he was returning punts during his first couple
of years in the league, and why players on the kicking team surround
the ball as it rolls to a stop. The reference in the Gamebook to
"kick catch interference" is still a little weird, though.

Thanks, Mr. Blue.

Nunya Bidnits wrote:
> Tarkus wrote:
>> RDOGuy wrote:
>>> Why does Oakland get the ball after the Chiefs' punt at 12:33 of the
>>> third quarter? The Chiefs touch the ball, the Raiders touch the
>>> ball, and the Chiefs end up with the ball.
>> As I understand it, once the punting team touches the ball, the
>> receiving team can then touch it, and as long as they don't gain
>> possession and then fumble it, the ball is dead where the punting team
>> initially touched it.
>>
>> The reason coaches coach you to get out of the way is for when the
>> punting team DOESN'T touch it first. If the receiving team touches it
>> first, THEN it becomes a live ball.
>
> Hmm... ok. Then I am wondering why it looked so odd to me. That doesn't
> sound like a situation that would be all that unusual but I have never seen
> this happen before.

I'm surprised, because I've seen it happen many times. That's the only
reason why I know the rule, as I don't make it a habit to study the NFL
rulebook.