How to fix the FG timeout BS (1 Viewer)

[Jayrod]

Sorry bud but it's absurd.

Ref's are paid well to do their job. I don't like the current rule but you can't have referees bending rules that they think are good or bad.

They have to call it by the book. If they change the rule one day, that's when they'll call it differently.

I think we see some of that already. Some "ticky tack" fouls don't get called, and in the playoffs they often "just let them play." Is it really that different?

Good post. Examples: TO "spiking" the ball last night & the faceguarding & arm grabbing on the two point conversion, as well as the forceout call in the Steelers' game but the non-forceout call last night. Those were very discretionary calls.The "run a play" timeout is something that might be cool in soccer, but it's a pretty crappy way to win a game. The fact that it is becoming standard practice is just an embarrassment to football, dogs, and bacon. I have to say, though, it was fun watching the Bills after they tried to pull that & lost anyway.

As the earlier posting mentioned, having a kicker miss the first & use it to help make the second will help curtail the practice, but it really is lame & I have no doubt that the rules committee will do something about it this offseason. On a field goal, once the kick goes up, it should be non-reversible. Didn't get the timeout in time to stop the snap? Too bad (or good, depending on whether the F hit or missed).

The bolded part is where your wrong.The key is that in every instance the refs blew the whistle to signify the play was dead and a timeout was called.

THERE IS NO PLAY!!! Just because Joe Blow fan in some sports bar thinks the game is over and gets excited and spills his beer doesn't mean the game is actually over.

The only thing they can do to fix this is to disallow the coach timeouts, but what's to keep a linebacker from standing by the ref and doing the same thing?

And to put a "time limit" on timeouts is stupid. What if there is a legit need for a timeout?

"Oh, I know you saved your timeouts for the end of the game coach and I know the ball isn't actually snapped and you've got the wrong formation on the field, but sorry....the other team is lined up in a FG formation so you can't have this timout." That would be more of a BS situation than the current issue.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I don't see why you just can't have a special rule for timeouts when the field goal unit is on the field. When the play clock falls below 10 seconds in such a formation, any defensive timeout draws a penalty of 5 yards.

 

[Jayrod]

I don't see why you just can't have a special rule for timeouts when the field goal unit is on the field. When the play clock falls below 10 seconds in such a formation, any defensive timeout draws a penalty of 5 yards.

So does it count for when they are running onto the field? when they are set in the formation? when the center puts his hands on the ball?Who watches the play clock and stops watching the play on the field to make sure it is under the 10 seconds?Does it only count for the defense but not the offense? If not, then how is that fair?What if the offensive coach wants to stop the clock to give his kicker time?So using a TO you have saved up is now a penalty no matter what you need to call the TO for?That's BS and I'd be way more pissed about this kind of rule than what is currently in place.

 

[B-Deep]

Sorry bud but it's absurd.

Ref's are paid well to do their job. I don't like the current rule but you can't have referees bending rules that they think are good or bad.

They have to call it by the book. If they change the rule one day, that's when they'll call it differently.

I think we see some of that already. Some "ticky tack" fouls don't get called, and in the playoffs they often "just let them play." Is it really that different?

Good post. Examples: TO "spiking" the ball last night & the faceguarding & arm grabbing on the two point conversion, as well as the forceout call in the Steelers' game but the non-forceout call last night. Those were very discretionary calls.The "run a play" timeout is something that might be cool in soccer, but it's a pretty crappy way to win a game. The fact that it is becoming standard practice is just an embarrassment to football, dogs, and bacon. I have to say, though, it was fun watching the Bills after they tried to pull that & lost anyway.

As the earlier posting mentioned, having a kicker miss the first & use it to help make the second will help curtail the practice, but it really is lame & I have no doubt that the rules committee will do something about it this offseason. On a field goal, once the kick goes up, it should be non-reversible. Didn't get the timeout in time to stop the snap? Too bad (or good, depending on whether the F hit or missed).

The bolded part is where your wrong.The key is that in every instance the refs blew the whistle to signify the play was dead and a timeout was called.

THERE IS NO PLAY!!! Just because Joe Blow fan in some sports bar thinks the game is over and gets excited and spills his beer doesn't mean the game is actually over.

The only thing they can do to fix this is to disallow the coach timeouts, but what's to keep a linebacker from standing by the ref and doing the same thing?

And to put a "time limit" on timeouts is stupid. What if there is a legit need for a timeout?

"Oh, I know you saved your timeouts for the end of the game coach and I know the ball isn't actually snapped and you've got the wrong formation on the field, but sorry....the other team is lined up in a FG formation so you can't have this timout." That would be more of a BS situation than the current issue.

Joe Blow fan is what the concern is. Listen, some people think it is fine, but many on here think it is a stupid/silly/cheap way to end the game. Now imagine you are watching the game with a brand new football fan and trying to explain why someone has to make a game winning kick twice, because the other team's coach just wants to make him repeat it. The NFL wants to avoid that, and yes a lot of the solutions have holes in them, but to fix the problem with how this presents to fans they will live with the holes in the rules. If there is a legit need for a timeout and the rules say you cannot call one, you are screwed. Just like if a player is pushed out and the ref does not rule it you cannot review, or like if a player calls timeout and the ref doesn;t see it, or any of a dozen other things that the rules have in them which can screw one team or another.

To present a more polished game to the fans, the NFL is wiling to make rules which are less than perfect. Like the spike rule.

 

[suchislife]

When the opposing coach calls a last second time out, he has no idea if it will work in his favor or against him. The kicker could just as easily miss the first attempt as he could make it. This is a fad. Let it backfire a few times and it will be gone faster than the "crowd noise" rule.

 

[Tom Servo]

How much of this rage and angst about this fad is that Mike Shanahan thought of it first? My guess is that if Chucky Gruden or someone else thought it up, most of you haters on this would be lapping it up with two soup spoons.

 

[suchislife]

Sorry bud but it's absurd.

Ref's are paid well to do their job. I don't like the current rule but you can't have referees bending rules that they think are good or bad.

They have to call it by the book. If they change the rule one day, that's when they'll call it differently.

I think we see some of that already. Some "ticky tack" fouls don't get called, and in the playoffs they often "just let them play." Is it really that different?

Good post. Examples: TO "spiking" the ball last night & the faceguarding & arm grabbing on the two point conversion, as well as the forceout call in the Steelers' game but the non-forceout call last night. Those were very discretionary calls.The "run a play" timeout is something that might be cool in soccer, but it's a pretty crappy way to win a game. The fact that it is becoming standard practice is just an embarrassment to football, dogs, and bacon. I have to say, though, it was fun watching the Bills after they tried to pull that & lost anyway.

As the earlier posting mentioned, having a kicker miss the first & use it to help make the second will help curtail the practice, but it really is lame & I have no doubt that the rules committee will do something about it this offseason. On a field goal, once the kick goes up, it should be non-reversible. Didn't get the timeout in time to stop the snap? Too bad (or good, depending on whether the F hit or missed).

The bolded part is where your wrong.The key is that in every instance the refs blew the whistle to signify the play was dead and a timeout was called.

THERE IS NO PLAY!!! Just because Joe Blow fan in some sports bar thinks the game is over and gets excited and spills his beer doesn't mean the game is actually over.

The only thing they can do to fix this is to disallow the coach timeouts, but what's to keep a linebacker from standing by the ref and doing the same thing?

And to put a "time limit" on timeouts is stupid. What if there is a legit need for a timeout?

"Oh, I know you saved your timeouts for the end of the game coach and I know the ball isn't actually snapped and you've got the wrong formation on the field, but sorry....the other team is lined up in a FG formation so you can't have this timout." That would be more of a BS situation than the current issue.

Joe Blow fan is what the concern is. Listen, some people think it is fine, but many on here think it is a stupid/silly/cheap way to end the game. Now imagine you are watching the game with a brand new football fan and trying to explain why someone has to make a game winning kick twice, because the other team's coach just wants to make him repeat it. The NFL wants to avoid that, and yes a lot of the solutions have holes in them, but to fix the problem with how this presents to fans they will live with the holes in the rules. If there is a legit need for a timeout and the rules say you cannot call one, you are screwed. Just like if a player is pushed out and the ref does not rule it you cannot review, or like if a player calls timeout and the ref doesn;t see it, or any of a dozen other things that the rules have in them which can screw one team or another.

To present a more polished game to the fans, the NFL is wiling to make rules which are less than perfect. Like the spike rule.

I have no doubt the NFL will survive this "travesty".

 

[Jayrod]

Joe Blow fan is what the concern is. Listen, some people think it is fine, but many on here think it is a stupid/silly/cheap way to end the game. Now imagine you are watching the game with a brand new football fan and trying to explain why someone has to make a game winning kick twice, because the other team's coach just wants to make him repeat it. The NFL wants to avoid that, and yes a lot of the solutions have holes in them, but to fix the problem with how this presents to fans they will live with the holes in the rules. If there is a legit need for a timeout and the rules say you cannot call one, you are screwed. Just like if a player is pushed out and the ref does not rule it you cannot review, or like if a player calls timeout and the ref doesn;t see it, or any of a dozen other things that the rules have in them which can screw one team or another.To present a more polished game to the fans, the NFL is wiling to make rules which are less than perfect. Like the spike rule.

This is really the issue?If I was explaining what happened I would tell the truth. The first play didn't count at all. The only reason the guy kicked it and everyone cheered was because no one could hear the whistle. They have to redo it because the play was OFFICIALLY NON-EXISTANT.Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

When the opposing coach calls a last second time out, he has no idea if it will work in his favor or against him. The kicker could just as easily miss the first attempt as he could make it. This is a fad. Let it backfire a few times and it will be gone faster than the "crowd noise" rule.

That's not the point. Whether it "works" or not, is irrelevant. The NFL is entertainment. Bogging the game down with stupid timeouts that no one can see called until after a play weakens the league.Overall, however, such tactic will work more often that not because FG kickers make their kicks more often than not from most ranges. So the odds are in favor of the TO ruining a good kick vs. a bad kick.

 

[Frank Black]

I can't wait for someone to miss then make it on the second try.

 

[Tom Servo]

Sorry bud but it's absurd.

Ref's are paid well to do their job. I don't like the current rule but you can't have referees bending rules that they think are good or bad.

They have to call it by the book. If they change the rule one day, that's when they'll call it differently.

I think we see some of that already. Some "ticky tack" fouls don't get called, and in the playoffs they often "just let them play." Is it really that different?

Good post. Examples: TO "spiking" the ball last night & the faceguarding & arm grabbing on the two point conversion, as well as the forceout call in the Steelers' game but the non-forceout call last night. Those were very discretionary calls.The "run a play" timeout is something that might be cool in soccer, but it's a pretty crappy way to win a game. The fact that it is becoming standard practice is just an embarrassment to football, dogs, and bacon. I have to say, though, it was fun watching the Bills after they tried to pull that & lost anyway.

As the earlier posting mentioned, having a kicker miss the first & use it to help make the second will help curtail the practice, but it really is lame & I have no doubt that the rules committee will do something about it this offseason. On a field goal, once the kick goes up, it should be non-reversible. Didn't get the timeout in time to stop the snap? Too bad (or good, depending on whether the F hit or missed).

The bolded part is where your wrong.The key is that in every instance the refs blew the whistle to signify the play was dead and a timeout was called.

THERE IS NO PLAY!!! Just because Joe Blow fan in some sports bar thinks the game is over and gets excited and spills his beer doesn't mean the game is actually over.

The only thing they can do to fix this is to disallow the coach timeouts, but what's to keep a linebacker from standing by the ref and doing the same thing?

And to put a "time limit" on timeouts is stupid. What if there is a legit need for a timeout?

"Oh, I know you saved your timeouts for the end of the game coach and I know the ball isn't actually snapped and you've got the wrong formation on the field, but sorry....the other team is lined up in a FG formation so you can't have this timout." That would be more of a BS situation than the current issue.

Joe Blow fan is what the concern is. Listen, some people think it is fine, but many on here think it is a stupid/silly/cheap way to end the game. Now imagine you are watching the game with a brand new football fan and trying to explain why someone has to make a game winning kick twice, because the other team's coach just wants to make him repeat it. The NFL wants to avoid that, and yes a lot of the solutions have holes in them, but to fix the problem with how this presents to fans they will live with the holes in the rules. If there is a legit need for a timeout and the rules say you cannot call one, you are screwed. Just like if a player is pushed out and the ref does not rule it you cannot review, or like if a player calls timeout and the ref doesn;t see it, or any of a dozen other things that the rules have in them which can screw one team or another.

To present a more polished game to the fans, the NFL is wiling to make rules which are less than perfect. Like the spike rule.

So you're willing to create more and probably bigger problems to solve this one? Nice...

 

[Tom Servo]

When the opposing coach calls a last second time out, he has no idea if it will work in his favor or against him. The kicker could just as easily miss the first attempt as he could make it. This is a fad. Let it backfire a few times and it will be gone faster than the "crowd noise" rule.

That's not the point. Whether it "works" or not, is irrelevant. The NFL is entertainment. Bogging the game down with stupid timeouts that no one can see called until after a play weakens the league.Overall, however, such tactic will work more often that not because FG kickers make their kicks more often than not from most ranges. So the odds are in favor of the TO ruining a good kick vs. a bad kick.

Like the 2 minute warning, for example?

 

[B-Deep]

Sorry bud but it's absurd.

Ref's are paid well to do their job. I don't like the current rule but you can't have referees bending rules that they think are good or bad.

They have to call it by the book. If they change the rule one day, that's when they'll call it differently.

I think we see some of that already. Some "ticky tack" fouls don't get called, and in the playoffs they often "just let them play." Is it really that different?

Good post. Examples: TO "spiking" the ball last night & the faceguarding & arm grabbing on the two point conversion, as well as the forceout call in the Steelers' game but the non-forceout call last night. Those were very discretionary calls.The "run a play" timeout is something that might be cool in soccer, but it's a pretty crappy way to win a game. The fact that it is becoming standard practice is just an embarrassment to football, dogs, and bacon. I have to say, though, it was fun watching the Bills after they tried to pull that & lost anyway.

As the earlier posting mentioned, having a kicker miss the first & use it to help make the second will help curtail the practice, but it really is lame & I have no doubt that the rules committee will do something about it this offseason. On a field goal, once the kick goes up, it should be non-reversible. Didn't get the timeout in time to stop the snap? Too bad (or good, depending on whether the F hit or missed).

The bolded part is where your wrong.The key is that in every instance the refs blew the whistle to signify the play was dead and a timeout was called.

THERE IS NO PLAY!!! Just because Joe Blow fan in some sports bar thinks the game is over and gets excited and spills his beer doesn't mean the game is actually over.

The only thing they can do to fix this is to disallow the coach timeouts, but what's to keep a linebacker from standing by the ref and doing the same thing?

And to put a "time limit" on timeouts is stupid. What if there is a legit need for a timeout?

"Oh, I know you saved your timeouts for the end of the game coach and I know the ball isn't actually snapped and you've got the wrong formation on the field, but sorry....the other team is lined up in a FG formation so you can't have this timout." That would be more of a BS situation than the current issue.

Joe Blow fan is what the concern is. Listen, some people think it is fine, but many on here think it is a stupid/silly/cheap way to end the game. Now imagine you are watching the game with a brand new football fan and trying to explain why someone has to make a game winning kick twice, because the other team's coach just wants to make him repeat it. The NFL wants to avoid that, and yes a lot of the solutions have holes in them, but to fix the problem with how this presents to fans they will live with the holes in the rules. If there is a legit need for a timeout and the rules say you cannot call one, you are screwed. Just like if a player is pushed out and the ref does not rule it you cannot review, or like if a player calls timeout and the ref doesn;t see it, or any of a dozen other things that the rules have in them which can screw one team or another.

To present a more polished game to the fans, the NFL is wiling to make rules which are less than perfect. Like the spike rule.

So you're willing to create more and probably bigger problems to solve this one? Nice...

The NFL does this quite oftentuck rule

horse collar tackles

instant replay

instant replay even after down by contact is ruled

no spiking

celebration rules

I am just telling you what I think will happen. Listen to the chatter out there, and enough people dislike this that it will be addressed.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

So does it count for when they are running onto the field? when they are set in the formation? when the center puts his hands on the ball?Who watches the play clock and stops watching the play on the field to make sure it is under the 10 seconds?

If the field goal unit is running on to the field with less than 10 seconds left, I really don't think the defense will need to call a TO. lol

Does it only count for the defense but not the offense? If not, then how is that fair?

Only defense. How is that not fair? I've never heard of any motivation for the defense needing to call a timeout just before a kick was made except to throw the kicker off. None.

What if the offensive coach wants to stop the clock to give his kicker time?

See above.

So using a TO you have saved up is now a penalty no matter what you need to call the TO for?

Your rationale for keeping the TO is irrelevant. It's only a penalty if you violate the rule.

 

[Addai's Adidas]

Just don't le tthe coaches call timeout.

 

[chadjohnsonfan]

So does it count for when they are running onto the field? when they are set in the formation? when the center puts his hands on the ball?

Who watches the play clock and stops watching the play on the field to make sure it is under the 10 seconds?

If the field goal unit is running on to the field with less than 10 seconds left, I really don't think the defense will need to call a TO. lol

Does it only count for the defense but not the offense? If not, then how is that fair?

Only defense. How is that not fair? I've never heard of any motivation for the defense needing to call a timeout just before a kick was made except to throw the kicker off. None.

What if the offensive coach wants to stop the clock to give his kicker time?

See above.

So using a TO you have saved up is now a penalty no matter what you need to call the TO for?

Your rationale for keeping the TO is irrelevant. It's only a penalty if you violate the rule.

This doesn't make much logical sense, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be put into place. I just don't like any of the logic and assumptions made by it.And this quote tells me you know very, very little about football:

"I've never heard of any motivation for the defense needing to call a timeout just before a kick was made except to throw the kicker off. None."

 

[chadjohnsonfan]

Just don't le tthe coaches call timeout.

I think this is the only answer.Go back to the "good ole days" of player only timeouts.

 

[Skinsfansince72]

What if its a fake FG? The only thing that actually determines a FG attempt is when the kickers foot strikes the ball. Before that it is just an offensive snap.

Then it is. So what? I've got no problem with a special exception being made for one formation that has the designated place kicker on the field.

You can't say before the snap on a normal play allow the TO, but before the snap on a FG attempt, don't allow it. There is no designation as far as the referee is concerned and he can't be allowed to make an assumption about what kind of play will be ran (no matter how obvious it is).

Of course you can say it. Make a rule based on (a) formation, and (b) kicker being on the field, and POOF! -- it is done.

Also, a team can use their timeouts any way they choose before the snap. As long as the ref gets the whistle blown before the snap, its a legal timeout, regardless of what the players end up doing. The real issue is that none of the players can hear the whistle because it is so freaking loud.

The teams can currently use timeouts any way they choose pre-snap. What I am advocating is having one choice removed -- to call a timeout to force the kicker to attempt a kick twice.

There are plus & minuses to the kicker kicking it twice, so there really isn't a disadvantage to the kicking team.

Disagree vehemently, especially on long kicks.

Well if you want to re-write several parts of the rule book in order to accomodate what is ultimately just an annoyance, I guess that's your perogative.I'd also like to see any supporting arguements that there is a disadvantage to the kicking team.

It's worked a couple of times this year but eventually the coach is going to call a time out on a kick that misses. If the kicker comes back and hits, the coach is going to look like an idiot and this nonsense will stop. No rule change necessary as long as there's risk involved for the team calling the late time out.

 

[suchislife]

When the opposing coach calls a last second time out, he has no idea if it will work in his favor or against him. The kicker could just as easily miss the first attempt as he could make it. This is a fad. Let it backfire a few times and it will be gone faster than the "crowd noise" rule.

That's not the point. Whether it "works" or not, is irrelevant. The NFL is entertainment. Bogging the game down with stupid timeouts that no one can see called until after a play weakens the league.Overall, however, such tactic will work more often that not because FG kickers make their kicks more often than not from most ranges. So the odds are in favor of the TO ruining a good kick vs. a bad kick.

Maybe the refs should do a better job of calling the TO so everyone can hear it? And what do you mean "Bogging the game down with stupid timeouts"? Each team gets 3 per half to use as they see fit. I really don't see what the issue is. So what if a coach calls his TO within the guidelines. If it works in his favor, I call it good coaching.Seriously, the NFL will survive this.

 

[Colin Dowling]

It's annoying, and it seems to be happening more often lately (b/c of the UF/LSU game and then the MNF game). But ultimately, it won't happen as much when coaches realize there isn't near the advantage they are hoping for.

 

[B-Deep]

It's annoying, and it seems to be happening more often lately (b/c of the UF/LSU game and then the MNF game). But ultimately, it won't happen as much when coaches realize there isn't near the advantage they are hoping for.

BUTI think it has happened enough already that the NFL will take action.

 

[Modog814]

I personally don't see a big deal in this, but...

1. Allowing only players (not coaches) to call time outs won't stop this. A coach can instruct a player to stand next to a ref and call time out for him.

2. These coaches are calling timeouts when the play clock is winding down, now when they think the team is about to snap it. (If they knew when they team was going to snap, they'd probably wouldn't be in this situation becuase they'd have an advantage the entire game).

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT.

That simple.

 

[massraider]

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT. That simple.

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout.On the one hand, there is something that kind of bothers me a little bit about coaches conspiring with line judges to call timeouts. But really, what is the difference between a linebacker doing the same thing? No one has a problem with coaches calling timeouts when they are letting the clock run down before they attempt a last second field goal. There really shouldn't be a problem with coaches calling one right before the snap.Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

 

[J R]

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT. That simple.

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout.On the one hand, there is something that kind of bothers me a little bit about coaches conspiring with line judges to call timeouts. But really, what is the difference between a linebacker doing the same thing? No one has a problem with coaches calling timeouts when they are letting the clock run down before they attempt a last second field goal. There really shouldn't be a problem with coaches calling one right before the snap.Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

Aren't the odds of making 2 kicks in a row always going to be worse than making 1 kick in a row? If so, won't it always be the smart call to make them kick twice and there is no easiest way to stop it? Or no, because the odds of making each individual kick are the same?

 

[massraider]

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT. That simple.

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout.On the one hand, there is something that kind of bothers me a little bit about coaches conspiring with line judges to call timeouts. But really, what is the difference between a linebacker doing the same thing? No one has a problem with coaches calling timeouts when they are letting the clock run down before they attempt a last second field goal. There really shouldn't be a problem with coaches calling one right before the snap.Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

Aren't the odds of making 2 kicks in a row always going to be worse than making 1 kick in a row? If so, won't it always be the smart call to make them kick twice and there is no easiest way to stop it? Or no, because the odds of making each individual kick are the same?

As has been brought up before, what if a guy misses the first kick?

 

[Modog814]

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT. That simple.

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout.On the one hand, there is something that kind of bothers me a little bit about coaches conspiring with line judges to call timeouts. But really, what is the difference between a linebacker doing the same thing? No one has a problem with coaches calling timeouts when they are letting the clock run down before they attempt a last second field goal. There really shouldn't be a problem with coaches calling one right before the snap.Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

Aren't the odds of making 2 kicks in a row always going to be worse than making 1 kick in a row? If so, won't it always be the smart call to make them kick twice and there is no easiest way to stop it? Or no, because the odds of making each individual kick are the same?

As has been brought up before, what if a guy misses the first kick?

Good Point about the center raising and lowering his head, I forgot about that. But couldn't have the center do it multiple times. I think the point a lot of people are missing is that the time outs aren't forcing the kicker to make 2 in a row. It's forcing the Kicker to make the 2nd one.

 

[massraider]

Good Point about the center raising and lowering his head, I forgot about that. But couldn't have the center do it multiple times.

Yes, but if the idea is to simulate the snap before they are actually going to snap it, then you are changing the habits of the snapper, the holder, and the kicker.Because for the ruse to work, the kicker and holder would have to be in a position of readiness. As it stands, most teams line up, the holder marks the point, kicker signals he is ready, and holder holds his hand up. The team would have to fake all that stuff, to have the other team call the TO early. Too much disruption of all these people's routines, IMO.

 

[Pound]

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout....Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

Was Dawson mentally weak when his 2nd kick got blocked on the 2nd attempt vs Oak?I think the teams have to adjust to this last second sike-out by changing how they do their procedure. If the long snapper looks behind their legs to line up the snap, do it twice, or 3 times and opposing coaches wont know when the snap is actually coming, and therefore will not know when to call the timeout at the perfect time. These last-second kicks are almost always done after a time-out and with only a few seconds left, so the play clock is the only thing making them kick within a certain time. Mix it up and it wont be an issue. Teams need to adjust to this bush-league technique.

 

[massraider]

Was Dawson mentally weak when his 2nd kick got blocked on the 2nd attempt vs Oak?

No, he wasn't. Well, maybe he was. Maybe the trajectory was too low. Or maybe the line should have blocked better the second time.Also a slight difference between the two games. Everyone knew the TO had been called in the Browns game. Dawson essentially took a practice swing.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I think the point a lot of people are missing is that the time outs aren't forcing the kicker to make 2 in a row. It's forcing the Kicker to make the 2nd one.

Exactly. And so long as it is perceived that having the kicker out there for a long time thinking about the implication of the fg, and thus a negative effect on his game, this practice will continue. Really, there is no reason for it not to because the other team loses nothing by calling the timeouts.

 

[bigfeet_88]

I don't see why you just can't have a special rule for timeouts when the field goal unit is on the field. When the play clock falls below 10 seconds in such a formation, any defensive timeout draws a penalty of 5 yards.

And then hijinx ensues....-- Fourth and 3, defense realizes they have 12 men on the field on a FG attempt? Too bad, you can't call time out.-- Play clock hits 10 on a FG attempt, the offense runs someone in motion to simulate a fake FG. All hell breaks loose but the Def can't call time out.-- Offenses begin lining up QB as the kicker and run offensive plays in the FG position. Defense can't call time out in this formation under 10 seconds, so every team starts doing this.-- Kicker becomes a regular starter on offense as the offense is deemed the "field goal unit" whenever he is on the field.-- Hybrid players become the norm: RB/PK, WR/PK, QB/PK. Yahoo FF sees more complaints than the Coslton WR/TE fiasco.

 

[J R]

This is how a coach can stop it. DON'T WAIT TIL THERE'S 1 SECOND LEFT ON THE PLAY CLOCK TO SNAP THE BALL. SNAP IT WITH 5 SECONDS LEFT. That simple.

Shanahan didn't watch the play clock to call timeout. He watched the long snapper. Long snappers look between their legs to line up the snap, then put their head up right before they snap it. That's when Shanahan called timeout.On the one hand, there is something that kind of bothers me a little bit about coaches conspiring with line judges to call timeouts. But really, what is the difference between a linebacker doing the same thing? No one has a problem with coaches calling timeouts when they are letting the clock run down before they attempt a last second field goal. There really shouldn't be a problem with coaches calling one right before the snap.Janikowski should have made the 2nd kick, that's the easiest way for coaches to stop trying to freeze the kicker. If a kicker isn't mentally strong enough to handle a timeout, he should move on to coaching summer kicking camps. or, in SeaBass' case, DJ'ing at an all-night rave.

Aren't the odds of making 2 kicks in a row always going to be worse than making 1 kick in a row? If so, won't it always be the smart call to make them kick twice and there is no easiest way to stop it? Or no, because the odds of making each individual kick are the same?

As has been brought up before, what if a guy misses the first kick?

Good Point about the center raising and lowering his head, I forgot about that. But couldn't have the center do it multiple times. I think the point a lot of people are missing is that the time outs aren't forcing the kicker to make 2 in a row. It's forcing the Kicker to make the 2nd one.

Not necessarily. You can't know for sure if a timeout will be called, so you have to make the first one. I grant you that if a timeout is indeed called, the only kick that matters is the 2nd one, but you can't know that for sure going in.

 

[amnesiac]

I can't wait for someone to miss then make it on the second try.

lol

 

[GregR_2]

I think the point a lot of people are missing is that the time outs aren't forcing the kicker to make 2 in a row. It's forcing the Kicker to make the 2nd one.

Exactly. And so long as it is perceived that having the kicker out there for a long time thinking about the implication of the fg, and thus a negative effect on his game, this practice will continue. Really, there is no reason for it not to because the other team loses nothing by calling the timeouts.

Jason Elam was once "iced" by the opponent calling a timeout at the end of a game as he was about to attempt a game winning FG. He said that it gave him a chance to better notice what the wind was doing out on the field, which ultimately helped him make his FG.It doesn't always work out. Frankly though I don't see what the problem is with the current system. So what if the coach calls a timeout right before the snap instead of 2 seconds before the snap.

 

[J R]

If this timeout at the last possible second becomes the norm, then here's a question: eventually will it be better strategy to mix it up sometimes and not call the timeout? i ask, because it sounds like people here interpret 'icing' as a mental thing - psyching out the kicker - rather than a physical thing - making the kicker stand around on the field longer.