It was nice to see the Hawks win on Sunday, but up until Earl Thomas picked off that last pass, I swore the play where Deion Branch was heading into the end zone and had the ball poked out and through the back of the end zone was going to decide the game for the Chargers. If not for two miraculous returns by Leon Washington, that would have been the case. It didn't help at all the way the Hawks managed the clock in the last possession before halftime, but I was sick over that play the rest of the game. I also was not particularly convinced by the "overwhelming video evidence" that the fumble occurred before the ball crossed the plane, so I thought overturning the call on the field was questionable.

The other thing that drove me nuts was listening to Dan Fouts making the call for the officials repeatedly in an excited tone of voice as the replays were shown. I understand that Fouts's rooting interests lie with his former team, but his elated, overzealous assessment of the situation seemed a bit unprofessional to me.

So what's up with the rule that a ball fumbled out the back of the end zone results in a turnover and touchback for the other team? Anywhere else on the field, the only way a fumble results in a change of possession is when a defensive player recovers the fumble in bounds. Is everybody else OK with that rule? Personally, I think the ball should be spotted at the point where it was fumbled, and the offensive team should retain possession. That would be more consistent with the way other types of fumbles that end up off the field of play are ruled.

This is not to absolve Branch of his share of the blame; knowing the rule, as close as the defenders were to him, he should have tucked that ball under both arms for the last step or two into the end zone.

On a side note, I think the Hawks, despite being far from great, are giving us a lot of reasons to be hopeful for their chances to make the post-season this year. Minus a few mistakes, they would probably be 3-0 right now. I know, I know, and if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his a$$ a-hoppin', but it seems clear they are capable of being a lot better than what they have shown so far, and they've been good enough to win two out of three as it is. Granted, if they make it, they will go down like dogs in the first round of the playoffs, but hey, playoff parties are fun, and one is better than none.

I dont know, if we managed a home game we could possibly get into the second round.......maybe. The home feild is huge and even bigger for us than most.

As far as the rule, I think it is good most of the time. I was not very impressed when Branch crapped down his leg but it should be that way since otherwize they could just kick it out of the end zone to avoid the safety. Could you see a punter/QB or even running back in the zone just fumbling/kicking it out and not giving the other team the safety as they were closing in.

For that reason I think it just has to be the way it is. Fumble out of the zone.....sorry dumby.....2 points and the ball. Hurts more when you are about to score but what do you do.

Fouts......He should not be on national television doing Chargers game. Bottom line. Kind of like watching Bill Walton doing lakers games with his son playing. STFU Bill. You too Dan. I need an announcer not a cheerleader. If I want a cheerleader I will watch the ones on the sideline.......much more interesting.

Branch did his best Leon Lett impression. Shoulda squeezed that thing.

I'm no fan of Fouts calling Chargers games against my team, but hey, whatcha gonna do?

As far as the rule is concerned I'm a little torn. On one hand if a team causes a fumble in the end zone they should be rewarded for causing the lose ball. On the other it seems a bit much to change possession when no possession was established. I think the rule exists because it makes end zone fumble recovery honest. If you were the offensive team and you fumbled in the end zone the prudent thing to do would be to just kick the ball out of the back of the EZ to prevent the other team from getting the ball. That way you would just get it back on their 20 with a new set of downs. Could get pretty frustrating for a defense to cause consecutive fumbles in the end zone, only to see the opposing team get a new set of downs at your 20 every time.

The way it stands now, you better fight for that ball or you lose possession. I like that better.

Didn't see your post, but I'll clarify.

It wouldn't be a safety on the side of the field being discussed, it's a touchback.

On the other side of the field if the offense fumbles in their own EZ it's definately the smart thing to do to kick it out of the back of the EZ and take the safety.

Giving up 2 is better than giving up 6.

I thought the ball clearly came out of Branch's hands before it crossed the plain.

my greatest pet peeve is the quarterback ball spike to stop the clock. why isn't this intentional grounding? the QB throws the ball down on purpose inside the hash marks. any other time thats a automatic flag.

no flag... now a flag.

You both raise a good point in that we don't want to see players batting the ball out the back of the end zone to retain possession and try again. To counter that, I would submit two points:

1. I doubt most offensive players would seek to bat the ball out the back of the end zone when a fumble occurred there, even if the rule were different. If they make the recovery in the end zone, it's a guaranteed touchdown. If not, retaining possession may not result in any points. Foregoing guaranteed points in favor of the possibility of earning points on a future play would probably not sit well with many coaches.

2. Have you ever seen a defensive player try to take advantage of this rule by batting a loose ball out the back of the end zone? I haven't. Seems to me that any time a fumble occurs, every player anywhere near it swarms to the ball, as it should be.

I still say the rule stinks. Until the ball has physically changed possession, the ball should stay with the team that had it to begin with. So who cares what I think? Good question.

I never understood....Unnecessary Roughness. Huh ?

I thought they played in Seattle.

Should have been the chargers ball where it came out of branch's hands.1st down on the one yard line.I also thought it was to close to over turn,but hey,I'm a hawk fan and Yes, Fouts sucks right along with the other guy.Wish I got good reception on the mountain so I could have listened to Raible & Moon.Had to give up my seats for this game do to a family wedding in Salem.Kinda weird watching it from home and not being there.Good luck,
SZ

Dumbest rule in football? I think it's Sudden Death (some interesting proposals circulating on this, guaranteeing each team a touch of the ball in OT). Coin flips shouldn't matter so much after a hard fought game. I personally love the college tie-breaker and fail to see why so many people are so against it. Seems the least "random" of the choices, but I've never played so take that with a grain of salt.

Oh, and while I'm at it, Touchbacks should be called Safetys and Safetys should be called Touchbacks.

I think the QB protection rules are getting out of hand. I mean if the defender is flying through the air when the QB releases the ball, is he going to defy the laws of physics and stop? I realize that QBs are the NFL, but I hate to see LBs and Safeties having to hold off playing as hard as they can because of penalties.

I also don't like professional OT, I like college it is fun to watch.

The tuck rule. Stupid hair Tom Brady.

Dumbest rule in football....helmet to helmet contact for a 15 yard personal foul penalty.
Anyone who played football knows how difficult it is to avoid when going full speed.

RR & stonefish,............. agree and agree. Tom Brady 12yr old haircut included.

Helmet to helmet contact does have to be one of the stupidest rules. Although I will admit, in high school football the likelyhood of injury is far less due to helmet to helmet than in the pros.

When a 260lb man beast is flying at you at mach 3, a helmet becomes a weapon. I like seeing big hits as much as any football fan but, at some point, the safety of the players has to take precedent. Some of the late hit PF's on QB's are totally uncalled for though. It is football afterall.

I've always thought OT in the pros should be the Texas Tie-Breaker format. You would figure the league sponsors would be all over it considering it would allow more time for beer commercials

IMO, the dumbest rule is Sudden-Death Overtime.
Here you have two reams that have slugged it out to a draw for 4 quarters and then the team that gets the ball first in OT kicks a FG and wins.

I want the slugfest to continue into an overtime period so both teams have a chance at victory.

Long over due.

The helmet-to-helmet rule is redundant.

Unncessary roughness already was available for any headhunting defensive player.

The h-to-h rule reminds me of zero-tolerance rules. More like zero-brainpower-required rules.

However, the dumbest rule in football is the one that allows the QB to run two steps to the left and throw the ball out of bounds as long as it goes past the LOS, rather being forced to make an attempt, run, or take the sack. F'n pansies.

I don't like the out of pocket no grounding rule...grounding is grounding.
Another thought....I think there should be a maximum weight...say, 250 (maybe more)....if you can't make weight, you don't play.....too many injuries from the sheer force of weight, IMO.

Sounds like you would stand in line to suck him off.