That play by Weems on the punt, near the goal line...

[richig07]

One of the dumbest things I've seen on a football field in a while.

Seriously?

I knew better than to do shit like that when I was playing in grade school.

What does this guy do again? He's our backup kick returner, and an okay kick/punt coverage guy? A WR that will never see the field

Wouldn't shed one tear if he got let go. I wish Aromashodu could play SPT's. He's twice the receiver Weems is... but I guess for a reserve WR, you have to keep the guy who can do the most on SPT's. Still, that was awful, and Weems really hasn't contributed much of anything since he's got here.

At the very least, he deserves an ass reaming from whoever our new SPT's coach is (forgot his name). I've noticed a few things in the first couple games that never happened under Toube.

 

[RaptorII]

A Viking had touched it first, so after that, it really doesn't matter what happens on Weems' attempted recovery.
There is no downside to what Weems does or doesn't accomplish there, -only upside potential.
He made a good decision to go after it, -he just didn't get it.
Nothing could come of it that could have hurt us.

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

It was a smart play if you know the rules. Even if he fumbled the ball, it still would go back to us at the point Minnesota touched it. The only way it could hurt us is if he touched it and fumbled and there was also a penalty on us. Then they get the ball. Weird rule.

 

[richig07]

It was a smart play if you know the rules. Even if he fumbled the ball, it still would go back to us at the point Minnesota touched it. The only way it could hurt us is if he touched it and fumbled and there was also a penalty on us. Then they get the ball. Weird rule.

Oh shit, wow. I actually only saw the replay of it, and I was told by a friend that he touched it first.

Nevermind. Smart play. I actually do know that rule.

 

[richig07]

I wish I could just delete this useless thread now. lol

I didn't know the Vikings player touched it first.

 

[anotheridiot]

and if he would have been able to pick it up and run with it and got tackled in the end zone, the vikings would not have gotten 2 points and bears have lost the game?

I get all the anal-ists, if you were to bat the ball into the end zone, but weems made a concerted effort to pick the ball up and run with it. It was only a smart play because he was not able to get possession of the ball, but if he did pick it up and make a football move, then drop it in the end zone, it would have been a touchdown.

Smart play is one handed trying to swat the ball into the end zone. Weems did not try to do that. He tried to get the ball and run. It was a second of possession that would have been a bonehead move.

 

[blh7068]

and if he would have been able to pick it up and run with it and got tackled in the end zone, the vikings would not have gotten 2 points and bears have lost the game?

I get all the anal-ists, if you were to bat the ball into the end zone, but weems made a concerted effort to pick the ball up and run with it. It was only a smart play because he was not able to get possession of the ball, but if he did pick it up and make a football move, then drop it in the end zone, it would have been a touchdown.

Smart play is one handed trying to swat the ball into the end zone. Weems did not try to do that. He tried to get the ball and run. It was a second of possession that would have been a bonehead move.

First touching is a violation, so based on what I know/read, the only way the Vikings would have been able to get possession of the football in the manner you described is via Bears penalty that occurs after the Vikings regained possession- that offsets the first touching. As long as no penalty occurs in that fashion, the receiving team has the option of accepting the ball at either the spot of first touching, or where the play is ruled dead.

 

[beardown07]

It was actually a brilliant play, and one of many reasons Weems is a multiple Pro Bowler.

 

[anotheridiot]

First touching is a violation, so based on what I know/read, the only way the Vikings would have been able to get possession of the football in the manner you described is via Bears penalty that occurs after the Vikings regained possession- that offsets the first touching. As long as no penalty occurs in that fashion, the receiving team has the option of accepting the ball at either the spot of first touching, or where the play is ruled dead.

So if weems was tackled with possession in the end zone it would not have been a safety?

All I am saying is Weems tried to pick it up and run not bat it away.

 

[beardown07]

So if weems was tackled with possession in the end zone it would not have been a safety?

No.

All I am saying is Weems tried to pick it up and run not bat it away.

wrong.

 

[noonthirtyjoe]

Weems clearly tried to bat it out of the back of the end zone. He did make a fake grab attempt, for some reason.

 

[RaptorII]

From Chalk Talk;
~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you further explain the Eric Weems touchback play against the Vikings?

Mike F.
Ashville, Pennsylvania

Eric Weems wisely took advantage of an obscure rule that few people seem to know. That includes Fox announcer Thom Brennaman, who described the play as "a near disaster" for the Bears. Here's the deal: After the kicking team touches a punt, the receiving team cannot lose possession regarding of what transpires. I'm guessing the rule was instituted to prevent the kicking team from trying to bat the ball off a member of the receiving team to create a turnover. Anyway, Weems knew that there was no risk in going after the ball after the Vikings touched it and the result would either be a touchback if he knocked it into the end zone or a long return. Bears special teams coordinator Joe DeCamillis showed me a play on tape when he was with the Cowboys in 2010 where a Lions player batted the ball back into the field of play on a punt and Bryan McCann returned it 97 yards for a touchdown. Kudos, by the way, to Fox analyst Tony Siragusa, who knew the rule. Here's a link to a video of McCann's return.

 

[Sportsmen]

I was at the game, and did not see the Vikings touch the ball first. I was one of the first to say Weems should be cut after watching that crazy play. However now knowing the vikings touched it first, then great play!

 

[63bears40]

From Chalk Talk;
~~~~~~~~~~~
Can you further explain the Eric Weems touchback play against the Vikings?

Mike F.
Ashville, Pennsylvania

Eric Weems wisely took advantage of an obscure rule that few people seem to know. That includes Fox announcer Thom Brennaman, who described the play as "a near disaster" for the Bears. Here's the deal: After the kicking team touches a punt, the receiving team cannot lose possession regarding of what transpires. I'm guessing the rule was instituted to prevent the kicking team from trying to bat the ball off a member of the receiving team to create a turnover. Anyway, Weems knew that there was no risk in going after the ball after the Vikings touched it and the result would either be a touchback if he knocked it into the end zone or a long return. Bears special teams coordinator Joe DeCamillis showed me a play on tape when he was with the Cowboys in 2010 where a Lions player batted the ball back into the field of play on a punt and Bryan McCann returned it 97 yards for a touchdown. Kudos, by the way, to Fox analyst Tony Siragusa, who knew the rule. Here's a link to a video of McCann's return.

Larry Mayer is as big a dick as Brennaman. Siragusa wasn't even at the game. Billick made the right call.
Who'd a thunk it? After he (Billick) said we played KC last week, and Ponder lead our Bears to a scoring drive w/ a pass to Marshall.
Just think FOX SUCKS. They have the worst announcers in the game. And in a multi billion $ market , can't deliver a clean product. I didn't see the end of the first half.Because they went to the half time report w/ a good minute plus on the clock. Again FOX SUCKS.
Just wish the Bears were in the AFC. so we could get good coverage of them.

 

[blh7068]

So if weems was tackled with possession in the end zone it would not have been a safety?

All I am saying is Weems tried to pick it up and run not bat it away.

No. Its essentially a free play for the Bears UNLESS they were to fumble, Vikings recover, *and* there is a penalty on the Bears *after* the Vikings have possession.

Yes- Weems did the right thing- he saw the ball touched a Viking player and obviously knew the rule. If he would have been tackled in the endzone it would have been a touchback. As I said, they had the option to either take the ball at either the spot of first touch or where the play was ruled dead, which would be the endzone per your example. In that case, its a touchback so they would get the ball at the 20. Does this help?

 

[richig07]

No. Its essentially a free play for the Bears UNLESS they were to fumble, Vikings recover, *and* there is a penalty on the Bears *after* the Vikings have possession.

Yes- Weems did the right thing- he saw the ball touched a Viking player and obviously knew the rule. If he would have been tackled in the endzone it would have been a touchback. As I said, they had the option to either take the ball at either the spot of first touch or where the play was ruled dead, which would be the endzone per your example. In that case, its a touchback so they would get the ball at the 20. Does this help?

Sorry, having a talk about this rule again today, and made me want to revisit this thread to make sure I was right.

So... For example... because the Vikings had touched the ball, even if Weems picks the ball up, runs 15 yards, then gets hit and fumbles, and the fumble is then recovered by Minnesota. It's still the Bears ball. Correct?

The only way the Vikings can regain possession of the football, would be... for example... if Weems picks the ball up, runs with it, there is a flag DURING the return (block in the back, holding, etc...), and THEN Weems fumbles the football and Minnesota recovers.

The only reason I would still be confused, is because I don't see why a block in the back, holding, etc... should be the exception to the rule. It doesn't make much sense as to why that should denote the rule in place. However, I'm sure there's an explanation, and I'm sure it's quite obvious. As this whole rule is really confusing. lol

 

[blh7068]

Sorry, having a talk about this rule again today, and made me want to revisit this thread to make sure I was right.

So... For example... because the Vikings had touched the ball, even if Weems picks the ball up, runs 15 yards, then gets hit and fumbles, and the fumble is then recovered by Minnesota. It's still the Bears ball. Correct?

The only way the Vikings can regain possession of the football, would be... for example... if Weems picks the ball up, runs with it, there is a flag DURING the return (block in the back, holding, etc...), and THEN Weems fumbles the football and Minnesota recovers.

The only reason I would still be confused, is because I don't see why a block in the back, holding, etc... should be the exception to the rule. It doesn't make much sense as to why that should denote the rule in place. However, I'm sure there's an explanation, and I'm sure it's quite obvious. As this whole rule is really confusing. lol

Hey Rich- Not quite...there has to be a penalty on the Bears *after* the opponent recovers the ball. First touching is a violation, but not a penalty. Now, your scenario involves penalties that are enforced from the spot of the foul, and as a guess would be enforced on the Bears. However, the opponent still wouldnt get the football in that instance because as I said, the penalty must occur after the opponent recovers the ball.

 

[richig07]

Hey Rich- Not quite...there has to be a penalty on the Bears *after* the opponent recovers the ball. First touching is a violation, but not a penalty. Now, your scenario involves penalties that are enforced from the spot of the foul, and as a guess would be enforced on the Bears. However, the opponent still wouldnt get the football in that instance because as I said, the penalty must occur after the opponent recovers the ball.

Okay, I think I finally get it.

I thought you originally said it had to be after the BEARS recovered, but it was after Minnesota recovered. Thanks.

Wow, yeah. That's about as low risk as you can get. I'll bet there are a lot of people who should know that rule that don't. I'd bet that there are High School referees that would blow that call, and cost a team a game. Meanwhile, the head coach of the team that got screwed wouldn't even know the rule himself, in order to argue.

 

[JDM]

I don't understand the penalty exception (maybe so you can't illegally block someone into touching it?), but yes, my understanding of the rest of the rule matches your post. Once it is touched first by the punting team, it's hard to lose the ball. I honestly don't get that either. Making it impossible to lose it at that spot makes sense, but if you fumble later in the play it's unrelated.

 

[55briggs]

Yeah they touch it its still live for us, but we can't lose possession because of that. we have nothing to lose. weeems coulda took it to the house, Minn shoulda downed it, then they wouldn't have had to worry about it. But they didnt they just touched it.