Not as bad as I thought

[Three7s]

Yes, the Chiefs lost, yes a lot of us were thinking they'd lose, but I was impressed overall by how we played actually. At first, it looked like it was gonna get ugly. After a turnover the Chiefs do nothing with, the Bears drive down the field for the only offensive TD they get. Then right after that, Hester takes it to the house, as well as add on a FG to make it 17-0. I'm just thinking, how bad is this gonna get? Then, the offense suprises me, marches down the field 4 plays which end up with our first TD of the season, with a nice pass to Bowe.(or was it TG?!) The Bears get a FG after yet another good Hester return to make it 20-7. The Chiefs answer right back with a FG of their own after a Grossman pick.
The Bears go 3 and our after that and the Chiefs are marching down the field. Huard throws a strike to Bowe, which would've been a TD to make it 20-17. However, the referees kill us with an Illegal Shift. I call BS. Who actually calls that nowadays anyways? Anyways, the Bears get the ball back, but Grossman gets picked again. A couple plays later, Huard throws a pretty good pass, can't remember to who, but it's batted away thanks to very good coverage, sadly right at another Bear. They go 3 and out once again and Herm decides to put in Croyle. Croyle was pretty impressive, throwing a 30+ yard bomb which got us into the redzone. However, Bennet fumbled a play later after being greedy for yardage. That, was the game.
Yes, we lost, but we played better than we did last week. The offense showed signs of life, and the defense kept us in the game and caused turnovers. One of our turnovers was unlucky, the other was thanks to the shape the game was in already. The referees took a TD away from us, and even if it was a penalty, I still think it's dumb, I see teams get away with it all the time. Overall, the two reasons we lost were that call by the refs and Hester's impact on the game. However, if we play like this for the rest of the season, we may be better than we think.

[Chiefster]

Since drunkhillbilly isn't here right now, I will speak on his behalf.

There are those of us who pride ourselves on our ability to "stir up s***"!!!!! Chiefster, you are walking a thin line with us. How dare you undermine our attempts!!! We will not take these kind of insults lying down!!!

No you'll take 'em standin up, and that's Mr. Chiefster to you! :p

[m0ef0e]

The kickoff penalty was called properly by the rules. I think this is a rule the league needs to review, though. Really, really dumb that they call that kicking out of bounds because the path of the ball was interfered with by a player. It's really no different than batting the ball out of bounds from 5 yards in and blaming the kicker for kicking it out of bounds. It seems the only thing this rule does is force kickers to just kick the ball directly down the center of the field, into the returner's hands. It's just a stupid rule that needs changed.

The illegal shift is totally bogus. The commentators couldn't tell where it was and neither could I. It seems that this is one violation I ONLY see called against the Chiefs. I can't recall seeing any of these called on any other teams off the top of my head but I see this get called probably every other game on the Chiefs. I'm sure other teams get hit with this call every now and then but if you think back to the last couple of years, this is a call we have actually seen quite often against the Chiefs... Bogus.

All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.

[Chiefster]

The kickoff penalty was called properly by the rules. I think this is a rule the league needs to review, though. Really, really dumb that they call that kicking out of bounds because the path of the ball was interfered with by a player. It's really no different than batting the ball out of bounds from 5 yards in and blaming the kicker for kicking it out of bounds. It seems the only thing this rule does is force kickers to just kick the ball directly down the center of the field, into the returner's hands. It's just a stupid rule that needs changed.

The illegal shift is totally bogus. The commentators couldn't tell where it was and neither could I. It seems that this is one violation I ONLY see called against the Chiefs. I can't recall seeing any of these called on any other teams off the top of my head but I see this get called probably every other game on the Chiefs. I'm sure other teams get hit with this call every now and then but if you think back to the last couple of years, this is a call we have actually seen quite often against the Chiefs... Bogus.

All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.

I absolutely agree; in this case if a penalty must be called against the kicking team then back them up five or ten yards and make them kick it again. Or treat it like a kick off that was diverted out of bounds by coming in contact with a member of the receiving team and set up the line of scrimmage where it went out of bounds, and I think you're on to something.

[chief31]

I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.

[luv]

All that being said, probably the main reason we lost is because we could not capitalize off of turnovers. After getting the first fumble early in the game, we should have opened it up and possibly run a trick play to try and get a quick score and early lead. That would have worked well into the gameplan we want to run as the game progressed and getting up early and taking the crowd out of the game is one of the best ways to win on the road in the NFL.

Totally agree 100%. Getting those turnovers is pointless when the other team still seems to be scoring, and you're not capitalizing from them.

[luv]

I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.

When a receiver catches a ball, both feet must touch inbounds for it to be considered complete. It sucks, but I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to returners. If both feet aren't in-bounds, he was out. If anything, I think they should re-kick in that situation.

[m0ef0e]

I'm still not sold on the ruling. As stated, If he were to just slap the ball out of bound... I think I have seen this before and the outcome was different. Once th recieving team makes contact, in bounds, the ball is live. If he should then step ou of bounds, he is down, right there.

If someone has time to find the rulebook, I would love to see this page.

Well, by the rules, if you are in bounds and you slap the ball out of bounds, it is your team's ball where it went out. If you catch the ball while your foot is out of bounds, it is considered kicking it out of bounds. I know that Hester caught the ball, then put his foot down out of bounds. It was so close though that to review it in real time would not have gotten it overturned. Wether called correctly or not, it's a dumb rule that needs changed.

Batting the ball out and catching it while out are not the same, I was just illustrating that catching the ball while out is the same as batting it from in bounds because the path of the ball is interfered with by a player.

[chief31]

When a receiver catches a ball, both feet must touch inbounds for it to be considered complete. It sucks, but I don't see why the same rule shouldn't apply to returners. If both feet aren't in-bounds, he was out. If anything, I think they should re-kick in that situation.

Because of what happens if you bobble the ball.

Well, by the rules, if you are in bounds and you slap the ball out of bounds, it is your team's ball where it went out. If you catch the ball while your foot is out of bounds, it is considered kicking it out of bounds. I know that Hester caught the ball, then put his foot down out of bounds. It was so close though that to review it in real time would not have gotten it overturned. Wether called correctly or not, it's a dumb rule that needs changed.

Batting the ball out and catching it while out are not the same, I was just illustrating that catching the ball while out is the same as batting it from in bounds because the path of the ball is interfered with by a player.

I know about catching the ball while you are out of bounds, But that is not what happened. He cuaght it and stepped out of bounds. You can't use the same rules as a catch, because it isn't a catch. If you bobble it, then there are much different circumstances. So the rules cannot be identicle to the rules about receptions. Now there could be an added rule about getting two feet down, but it can't follow the same guidlines.

[m0ef0e]

Bottom line is that the ruling was completely stupid and bogus. If it was correct and by the book. Then the book needs to be changed. If the refs just screwed us, it's about time they stopped because I'm gonna start blowing up any black vans and helicopters I see.

[Chiefster]

Bottom line is that the ruling was completely stupid and bogus. If it was correct and by the book. Then the book needs to be changed. If the refs just screwed us, it's about time they stopped because I'm gonna start blowing up any black vans and helicopters I see.

Agreed, the rule is stupid, but the refs made the right call according to the stupid rule. The refs didn't screw us on this one; the rule did.