Cutler 4th qtr heroics

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

According to Scott Kascmar, NFL Writer, Jay Cutler is now 4th in the league among active players with 13 career GW TD passes. He is behind Brady and Manning but in front of Rodgers, Eli, and Brees.

 

He also tweeted a chart that says with a minimum of 30 total games, Cutler is 4th *ALL-TIME* in winning percentage (51.4%) in games that are "kept close in the 4th quarter and OT" (he did not say exactly what 'kept close' is).

[bowlingtwig]

According to Scott Kascmar, NFL Writer, Jay Cutler is now 4th in the league among active players with 13 career GW TD passes. He is behind Brady and Manning but in front of Rodgers, Eli, and Brees.

 

He also tweeted a chart that says with a minimum of 30 total games, Cutler is 4th *ALL-TIME* in winning percentage (51.4%) in games that are "kept close in the 4th quarter and OT" (he did not say exactly what 'kept close' is).

That's awesome to see and to remember back he was the same person who use to melt in 4th qtr but I remember seeing a difference last yr when the 4th was his best qtr

[Stinger226]

That's awesome to see and to remember back he was the same person who use to melt in 4th qtr but I remember seeing a difference last yr when the 4th was his best qtr

Thats a cool stat to hang your hat on.

[CrackerDog]

Thats a cool stat to hang your hat on.

 

I swear I heard one of the Fox announcers say something like Cutler has had a terrible record of bringing his team back in the 4th quarter historically and that he's really come around this season with the two big W's. Maybe I heard them incorrectly. I was giving Trestman and his staff a lot of credit for the improvement but now I'm hearing, based on this thread, his Captain Comeback credentials are better than most QB's?

 

Did anyone else hear what I heard and can help me understand the disconnect?

 

[CrackerDog]

Here are the details: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play...player=CutlJa00

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I swear I heard one of the Fox announcers say something like Cutler has had a terrible record of bringing his team back in the 4th quarter historically and that he's really come around this season with the two big W's. Maybe I heard them incorrectly. I was giving Trestman and his staff a lot of credit for the improvement but now I'm hearing, based on this thread, his Captain Comeback credentials are better than most QB's?

 

Did anyone else hear what I heard and can help me understand the disconnect?

 

I'm not sure about 4th quarter comeback per se but I could have sworn he's been one of the highest rated when performing in the third and fourth quarters. Better in pass completions and yards gained etc. But that is something I've heard "them" say for a couple years now.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

I swear I heard one of the Fox announcers say something like Cutler has had a terrible record of bringing his team back in the 4th quarter historically and that he's really come around this season with the two big W's. Maybe I heard them incorrectly. I was giving Trestman and his staff a lot of credit for the improvement but now I'm hearing, based on this thread, his Captain Comeback credentials are better than most QB's?

 

Did anyone else hear what I heard and can help me understand the disconnect?

Those FOX announcers also didn't know the rules during the game, ripping into Weems when he touched that punt.

[CrackerDog]

Those FOX announcers also didn't know the rules during the game, ripping into Weems when he touched that punt.

 

Don't get me started on announcers, Fox and otherwise. My girlfriend just sits there and laughs when I correct them all game long. I mean, it's only their f*cking job and they can't get the basics down? Drives me crazy. I wish the NFL would go back to the days where we could have homer announcers cover the games. It would at least be entertaining, both teams would get their call (like baseball) and it wouldn't cost the NFL or the broadcasters anything because I'm sure the local guys would be cheaper than the national guys. Anyone else here old enough to remember Johnny Morris and Tim Ryan calling the games?

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Don't get me started on announcers, Fox and otherwise. My girlfriend just sits there and laughs when I correct them all game long. I mean, it's only their f*cking job and they can't get the basics down? Drives me crazy. I wish the NFL would go back to the days where we could have homer announcers cover the games. It would at least be entertaining, both teams would get their call (like baseball) and it wouldn't cost the NFL or the broadcasters anything because I'm sure the local guys would be cheaper than the national guys. Anyone else here old enough to remember Johnny Morris and Tim Ryan calling the games?

At the start of the game, Billick kept calling the Bengals "Kansas City."

 

Last year @ Tennessee, he even called Lance Louis "Louis Lance." I'm not going to say these guys have easy jobs, for f*** me, at least be closER to perfect.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Those FOX announcers also didn't know the rules during the game, ripping into Weems when he touched that punt.

 

You can't believe that Weems actually meant to push the ball out the back of the endzone? Or at least hope it would go that way? He had every intent on trying to return that ball, he'd be lying if he said otherwise.

[CrackerDog]

You can't believe that Weems actually meant to push the ball out the back of the endzone? Or at least hope it would go that way? He had every intent on trying to return that ball, he'd be lying if he said otherwise.

 

True. But I believe per rules, since the ball had already been touched by the kicking team, the worst that could've happened would've been that he got dropped in the end zone for a touchback. Even a fumble and defensive recovery there would've ended up that way.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

True. But I believe per rules, since the ball had already been touched by the kicking team, the worst that could've happened would've been that he got dropped in the end zone for a touchback. Even a fumble and defensive recovery there would've ended up that way.

 

But the way he was headed, and I think his true intent, was to keep the ball in the field of play (he was in the neighborhood of the 2 or 3 yard line when touched by him). I read somewhere that he even considered doing a lateral. Had he picked it up and dropped it, a high probability with as many opponents as were in the area, I would believe they would have gotten the ball somewhere in that area, with a new set of downs....right? Just too risky in my book...regardliess of his thoughts.

[CrackerDog]

But the way he was headed, and I think his true intent, was to keep the ball in the field of play (he was in the neighborhood of the 2 or 3 yard line when touched by him). I read somewhere that he even considered doing a lateral. Had he picked it up and dropped it, a high probability with as many opponents as were in the area, I would believe they would have gotten the ball somewhere in that area, with a new set of downs....right? Just too risky in my book...regardliess of his thoughts.

 

The worst the Bears could end up was where the ball was first touched by the punting team. His play was risk free.

 

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Once the ball was touched by Minnesota, it was dead. The issue was that it was going to be dead where it lay after the ST player flipped it out of the endzone. The smart part was Weems flipped it back into the endzone.

[BearFan2000]

I was a little confused on this.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The first guy down on the kicking team jumps and tips it back into the field of play. However, to be downed the ball must also be touched by another member of the kicking team who's feet are in the field of play. Weems attempts to pick the ball up and run with it before that second kicking team member can get there and down it in the field of play. Weems is unable to control the ball and it goes into the end zone still needing to be downed, and any kicking team player touching the ball while it's in the end zone results in a touchback.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I was a little confused on this.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The first guy down on the kicking team jumps and tips it back into the field of play. However, to be downed the ball must also be touched by another member of the kicking team who's feet are in the field of play. Weems attempts to pick the ball up and run with it before that second kicking team member can get there and down it in the field of play. Weems is unable to control the ball and it goes into the end zone still needing to be downed, and any kicking team player touching the ball while it's in the end zone results in a touchback.

 

I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination. But your analogy is pretty much spot on. The question I have is if Weems grabs it, and it has been pushed back into the field of play then its still a live ball. Even though the opposing team 'touched' the ball, it was while he was in the air. Hence why they jump to put it back into the 'live' field. That being the case, if one of their players touches it, its down. If weems touches it and then drops it, its their ball. And if it rolls into the endzone and they fall on it, a score for them....right? Perhaps we've over analyzed this because now my head hurts.

 

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

After MIN touched it, the possibility of the Bears losing possession was nonexistent. The only question was where the Bears would start from, whether it be the 1, 2, 3 or 20. Had Weems not went and touched it, there's a good chance they would've started that drive inside their own 4. Had Weems actually scooped it cleanly, he could have ran with it. So, if I'm interpreting this rule correctly, the Bears had nothing to lose. Either Weems knocks it into the endzone and gets a touchback (like he did), scoops it up and runs for a few yards, or MIN flips it backwards and they down it inside the 5 like you see a thousand times each year by all teams.

[LT2_3]

I am no expert by any stretch of the imagination. But your analogy is pretty much spot on. The question I have is if Weems grabs it, and it has been pushed back into the field of play then its still a live ball. Even though the opposing team 'touched' the ball, it was while he was in the air. Hence why they jump to put it back into the 'live' field. That being the case, if one of their players touches it, its down. If weems touches it and then drops it, its their ball. And if it rolls into the endzone and they fall on it, a score for them....right? Perhaps we've over analyzed this because now my head hurts.

 

This should clear it up for everyone.....

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/16/hog...gainst-vikings/

 

‘No Consequence Rule’

 

Bears fans were probably confused when special teamer Eric Weems tried to go after a loose ball that the Vikings had saved from going into the end zone on a punt. The ball ended up going out of the back of the end zone and was ruled a touchback.

 

Monday, Trestman explained why Weems went after the ball:

 

“(Special teams coordinator Joe DeCamillis) explains it as ‘no consequence rule’. Once their player touches the football, you have a chance to attack the football, and there’s no consequence other than a touchback so it’s basically our ball or nobody’s ball. In other words, we had a player positioned to pick it up and run with it, it’s still, my understanding it would have gone back to the 20-yard line as a free ball, it would not have been sitting there at the one-yard line, so in or out, we touch the ball the ball’s going back to the 20-yard line.”

 

When asked why more teams don’t go after the ball in that situation then, Trestman said: “That’s a good question, I wouldn’t be ready to answer that one.”

 

I think they don't teach it much because the players are usually told to stay away from the kick initially for fear a bad bounce causing a fumble type situation. That's some advanced special teams sh!t.

[jason]

The worst the Bears could end up was where the ball was first touched by the punting team. His play was risk free.

 

Wrong.

 

If the Bears had committed a foul on that play the illegal touching privilege is cancelled. It could potentially have been a situation where Minnesota accepted a penalty against the Bears negating the illegal touching violation.

 

He would have to have known that the Bears did not foul on the play. I'm not sure if he could have accurately known, while looking up in the air for the punt, whether an official threw a flag for holding a gunner or holding on the offensive linemen running downfield. Given the fact that he touched it just before the end zone, he had no way of knowing the eventual result of that play. Other possibilities:

 

1. He could have been tackled where he touched/recovered it, the penalty would have been enforced half the distance, the Bears lose the illegal touching privilege, and it's Bears 1/10 deep in their own territory.

2. He could have recovered and fumbled it before the goal-line, and the Vikings could have had the ball 1/G.

 

Oddly enough, I think had the Vikings scored a TD on that play (via muff or Weems running with the ball into the end zone) the score would have been negated by rule (5 & 10 yard penalties by the nonscoring team), which would have automatically given the Bears the ball after penalty enforcement like a traditional postscrimmage kick penalty.

 

It was, in fact, a VERY risky, and potentially stupid play. There is a reason why you don't ever see returners do what he did.

[jason]

I was a little confused on this.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong. The first guy down on the kicking team jumps and tips it back into the field of play. However, to be downed the ball must also be touched by another member of the kicking team who's feet are in the field of play. Weems attempts to pick the ball up and run with it before that second kicking team member can get there and down it in the field of play. Weems is unable to control the ball and it goes into the end zone still needing to be downed, and any kicking team player touching the ball while it's in the end zone results in a touchback.

 

You're twisting it up some.

 

Imagine the Vikings kick, they touch it, then the Bears player dives for it, muffs it, then the Vikings recover. Similar to the infamous Leon Lett play (but not exactly). In this case the Bears would take the spot of illegal touching and ignore the action afterwards.

 

In your scenario, because Weems touched it, any ball recovered by the kicking team in the opponent's end zone is a touchdown for the kicking team. HOWEVER, since the illegal touching is still applicable, the Bears would take that spot of illegal touching and negate the rest.

[jason]

After MIN touched it, the possibility of the Bears losing possession was nonexistent. The only question was where the Bears would start from, whether it be the 1, 2, 3 or 20. Had Weems not went and touched it, there's a good chance they would've started that drive inside their own 4. Had Weems actually scooped it cleanly, he could have ran with it. So, if I'm interpreting this rule correctly, the Bears had nothing to lose. Either Weems knocks it into the endzone and gets a touchback (like he did), scoops it up and runs for a few yards, or MIN flips it backwards and they down it inside the 5 like you see a thousand times each year by all teams.

 

That's simply incorrect. If the Bears had fouled, the illegal touching privilege is cancelled.

[jason]

This should clear it up for everyone.....

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/16/hog...gainst-vikings/

 

I think they don't teach it much because the players are usually told to stay away from the kick initially for fear a bad bounce causing a fumble type situation. That's some advanced special teams sh!t.

 

That and because the coaches don't know the rules as well as they should. It's clearly stated in Rule 9 that the play is not risk free.

 

Article 2 “First touching” is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick

that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving

team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team,

it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of

taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted

on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset

a foul by the receivers.

 

[CrackerDog]

That and because the coaches don't know the rules as well as they should. It's clearly stated in Rule 9 that the play is not risk free.

 

Article 2 “First touching” is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick

that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving

team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team,

it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of

taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted

on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset

a foul by the receivers.

 

IMO, the bigger potential issue is the refs getting the call wrong and then the league coming back during the week and saying "Sorry, they got it wrong."

 

Jason, is there a difference on the results of the play if the foul happens before or after the receiving team touches the ball? See this article to understand why I ask the question.

[jason]

IMO, the bigger potential issue is the refs getting the call wrong and then the league coming back during the week and saying "Sorry, they got it wrong."

 

Jason, is there a difference on the results of the play if the foul happens before or after the receiving team touches the ball? See this article to understand why I ask the question.

 

First, I'll defend the officials. The rules are TERRIBLY complicated, and there are countless oddball scenarios that could happen in a game of football. There is literally one play per week where most have to dig into their rulebooks to understand the true nuance and interpretation of a rule. Just this past week I had a debate with several officials who have been working nearly 20 years about something as simple as a substitution foul, and the wording of the rules. It gets into some Clintonian "what is the definition of is is"-stuff.

 

Having said that, the article is definitely wrong. (NFL Rules-red, college rules-purple)

 

“First touching” is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers.

 

The key words in all of that are bolded and underlined. If a penalty is accepted, all bets are off for first touching. And in the NFL, this lasts for the entire play, not just the duration of the kick.

 

Note: If the receiving team gains possession, subsequently loses possession, and fouls after the kicking team gains possession, the spot of first touching is disregarded, and the kicking team retains possession. See Rule 14, Section 3, Article 1, Exception 5.

 

The note supports this concept, because the foul clearly occurs after possession.

 

As for college rules, the author of that article is wrong. Again.

 

II. During a scrimmage kick, A1 commits a touching violation, after which B1 recovers, advances and fumbles. A2 recovers the fumble and, during the advance, B2 holds, trips or slugs.

 

RULING: Team A may have the ball where left by the penalty for Team B's foul; but if Team A declines the penalty, Team B will have the ball by electing the touching violation. B2 is disqualified if flagged for slugging.

[Lucky Luciano]

“First touching” is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers.

 

i do not believe you are interpreting this correctly. PUNT ONLY - the reason for this rule is to prevent the kicking team from purposely knocking the ball into a receiver (NOT downing it) thus making it a live ball or knocking the ball further down the field making the spot of the ball into the advantage of the kicking team. in other words they could virtually keep knocking the ball until it rested on the receiving teams goal line. that is the intent of this rule.

 

if there is a foul on the receiving team prior to the ball being downed then the penalty (if it is post kick) is enforced from the point of either where the foul occurred or at the spot of possession by the receiving team. in any case the ball is a free play for the receiving team with no penalty for fumble/turnover or loss of yardage. with loss of yardage the ball returns to the spot of first touch by the kicking team and the same is true on a turnover.

 

now having said that... i do not have a copy of the rules. the rules have changed so much over the years maybe there is merit to your suggestion. please post the rule in reference to your "Note" to give it context.