Play at end of St. Louis/Seattle game (1 Viewer)

[pinequick]

In this thread Wheelhouse said:

"I don't like that rule that kept STL from winning the game. At the end of the game, SEA was hurrying to the line to spike the ball so they could attempt a game-winning FG. There was less than 10 sec left and the ball was spiked, but there was a flag. The offense was called for illegal formation at the line of scrimmage. A false start penalty with less than 10 sec left would end the game, due to a 10 sec penalty, however an illegal formation call does not have such a clock penalty. What's to keep a team from purposefully lining up illegally to save a down, but lose 5 yards when a similar circumstance presents itself? SEA went on to kick the game-winning 54 yd FG and the Rams lost. I don't like that call and I'm not even a Rams fan."

So would smart coaches tell their players the following?

"When we're down by a field goal and time is running out, if we hit something in field goal range then two players--any two players--need to run up to where the ball has just been spotted and snap the ball. Just snap it and kill the clock. It doesn't matter if we're lined up correctly--just get that ball snapped and kill the clock before time runs out."

Clock stops, ball moves back 5 yards, and kicker comes on to win/tie the game, right?

 

[Ears]

Agreed. Was at the game yesterday, and discussed that exact scenario at the post-game tailgate. I'd have to think the rules committee will address that next year; don't know if there's a way to close the loophole for this season.

 

[mad sweeney]

Is an illegal man downfield a 10 second run off penalty? All th WRs have as much trouble as lineman behind the line of scrimmage do in getting up to the ball.

Or could they tack on an unsportsmanlike conduct for a 2 man snap? Which might not be a run off but will severely impair any last second heroics.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I don't see the loophole.

If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off.

And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time.

The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

 

[Two Deep]

plus tacking on 5 yards to a FG is not always a good thing. Case in point yesterday a 49 yarder would be alot more makeable than a 54 yarder.

 

[Ears]

I don't see the loophole. If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off. And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time. The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Say its 4th down, less than 10 seconds to go, and you're out of timeouts. You can't spike to stop the clock, a false start runs the rest of the time off. This would be one way to get the clock stopped without loss of down -- provided there aren't other, equally obscure rules to prevent this. How many people knew that there were only certain offensive penalties that resulted in the 10 second run-off?Hochuli is one of the better refs, and the call was the correct one. The confusion (in the stands, at least) arose from not being aware of the rule.

 

[Fruitbat]

I don't see the loophole. If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off. And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time. The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Say its 4th down, less than 10 seconds to go, and you're out of timeouts. You can't spike to stop the clock, a false start runs the rest of the time off. This would be one way to get the clock stopped without loss of down -- provided there aren't other, equally obscure rules to prevent this. How many people knew that there were only certain offensive penalties that resulted in the 10 second run-off?Hochuli is one of the better refs, and the call was the correct one. The confusion (in the stands, at least) arose from not being aware of the rule.

In that case, the defense would just decline the penalty and take over on downs.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

That definitely has big loophole potential. Team down a TD or FG with no timeouts completes a big play downfield. They don't have enough time to get everyone down and set to spike the ball, but they do have enough time to have a speedy WR/RB run downfield and meet up with whomever completed the big play. Ball is hiked causing a penalty and clock stoppage.

 

[The Rook]

I don't see the loophole. If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off. And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time. The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Say its 4th down, less than 10 seconds to go, and you're out of timeouts. You can't spike to stop the clock, a false start runs the rest of the time off. This would be one way to get the clock stopped without loss of down -- provided there aren't other, equally obscure rules to prevent this. How many people knew that there were only certain offensive penalties that resulted in the 10 second run-off?Hochuli is one of the better refs, and the call was the correct one. The confusion (in the stands, at least) arose from not being aware of the rule.

I don't believe an illegal formation penalty would stop the clock. I think that is the point. If you couldn't spike the ball and tried to run a play with illegal formation, they let you run the play, throw the flag, but the clock keeps running. In the case of the illegal formation call, they didn't stop the clock because of the penalty. They stopped it because of the spike that ended the play. If it was a false start penalty, that stops the clock and the play. I know this is splitting hairs, but it's the only logic I could come up with for why illegal formation isn't penalized with the run off of the clock

 

[pinequick]

I don't see the loophole.

If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off.

And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time.

The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Who said the call was incorrect?

 

[mcjc4]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I don't see the loophole.

If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off.

And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time.

The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Who said the call was incorrect?

In this thread Wheelhouse said:

I don't like that call and I'm not even a Rams fan.

If you don't like a call, you have to believe that its not right, don't you?

 

[apalmer]

That definitely has big loophole potential. Team down a TD or FG with no timeouts completes a big play downfield. They don't have enough time to get everyone down and set to spike the ball, but they do have enough time to have a speedy WR/RB run downfield and meet up with whomever completed the big play. Ball is hiked causing a penalty and clock stoppage.

Except:1. Everyone else on the team has to be motionless so that it's not also an illegal procedure call; and2. They still have to wait for the ref to mark the ball ready for play, which isn't going to happen until the defense is back in place; it's not like 2 guys can sprint downfiled and snap the ball no matter where the defense is. If there's time for the defense to get back, there's time for the offense to get there.

 

[pinequick]

I don't see the loophole.

If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off.

And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time.

The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the call was incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Who said the call was incorrect?

In this thread Wheelhouse said:

I don't like that call and I'm not even a Rams fan.

If you don't like a call, you have to believe that its not right, don't you?

Read his first sentence--it's clear that his issue is with the rule, not the call. And so is this thread.ETA: If you really want a final clarification on Wheelhouse's thoughts, you could PM him, too.

 

[pinequick]

That definitely has big loophole potential. Team down a TD or FG with no timeouts completes a big play downfield. They don't have enough time to get everyone down and set to spike the ball, but they do have enough time to have a speedy WR/RB run downfield and meet up with whomever completed the big play. Ball is hiked causing a penalty and clock stoppage.

Except:1. Everyone else on the team has to be motionless so that it's not also an illegal procedure call; and

2. They still have to wait for the ref to mark the ball ready for play, which isn't going to happen until the defense is back in place; it's not like 2 guys can sprint downfiled and snap the ball no matter where the defense is. If there's time for the defense to get back, there's time for the offense to get there.

1. That's what the call was yesterday, wasn't it?2. Marking the ball ready for play has nothing to do with where the defense is.

 

[perry147]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

Exactly.

 

[pinequick]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

Does an illegal motion call stop play?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I don't see the loophole.

If you actually hut the ball, how are you trying to save time at the end of the game? An illegal formation penalty does not occur before the snap. Its only penalties which occur before the snap which would cause a 10 second run off.

And for those who say you can run up with the centre adn QB and hut the ball real quick and just get a 5 yard penalty and save the time of having everyone line up, who's to say they don't have a rule in effect which allows the referee the judgment of whether the team was causing a penalty to save time.

The penalty in the Seattle game was certainly not to save time at the end of the game so I fail to see the problem with the call. Just cause there MAY be a loop hole, doesn't mean the RULE is incorrect. The spirit of the rule was upheld in that scenario because the Seahawks were not trying to purposely kill the clock with a penalty.

Who said the call was incorrect?

In this thread Wheelhouse said:

I don't like that call and I'm not even a Rams fan.

If you don't like a call, you have to believe that its not right, don't you?

Read his first sentence--it's clear that his issue is with the rule, not the call. And so is this thread.ETA: If you really want a final clarification on Wheelhouse's thoughts, you could PM him, too.

OK, editted to say RULE...better?From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

 

[chihawk]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

Exactly. I was just scrolling down the thread to see if anyone posted this. If you have two guys run up and snap the ball to take an illegal formation penalty, the rest of the players can't be scrambling to get back to the line of scrimmage or they would get illegal motion, offsides, etc.It would be interesting if a team ever attempted that to gain an advantge, but this was clearly not the case yesterday as the seahawks were lined up and standing still before the snap...one guy just messed up and had lined up a foot off the line. It's not like he didn't have the time to get the line and they snapped it before he had a chance to get lined up.

 

[pinequick]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

Exactly. I was just scrolling down the thread to see if anyone posted this. If you have two guys run up and snap the ball to take an illegal formation penalty, the rest of the players can't be scrambling to get back to the line of scrimmage or they would get illegal motion, offsides, etc.It would be interesting if a team ever attempted that to gain an advantge, but this was clearly not the case yesterday as the seahawks were lined up and standing still before the snap...one guy just messed up and had lined up a foot off the line. It's not like he didn't have the time to get the line and they snapped it before he had a chance to get lined up.

See my last question above--I'm almost certain that I've seen a play *called back* because the offense had two men in motion at the same time. That is, the play *was allowed to continue*, and then the penalty was assessed. Hence, no 10-second runoff. (This is putting aside the offsetting defensive offsides penalties, for the moment).

 

[Wheelhouse]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

 

[pinequick]

If you send a WR and RB downfield to spike the ball, everyone else 30yards back would have stand very still. Any movement in the "backfield" would result in illegal motion and a 10 second run off.

Does an illegal motion call stop play?

Anybody have a firm take on this, one way or the other? I don't think that illegal motion stops a play.

 

[Wheelhouse]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

 

[joffer]

The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

this is what it comes down to for me. that was the intent of the rule. i have no problem with the call or the rule.

 

[bigfishboy]

I have always disagreed with the 10 second runoff. At no other time in the game does this happen. Why was that ever installed? The offense is already being penalized yards, why did someone feel they needed extra penalty in the final minutes?

 

[Wheelhouse]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Neither does a false start, but that costs them time. I just think any offensive penalty should result in a 10 sec clock penalty with less than 2 mins remaining.

 

[joffer]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Neither does a false start, but that costs them time. I just think any offensive penalty should result in a 10 sec clock penalty with less than 2 mins remaining.

snapping the ball while 2 offensive lineman and a fullback are still running up the field isn't the result of not having enough time??? that was the intent of the rule.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I have always disagreed with the 10 second runoff. At no other time in the game does this happen. Why was that ever installed? The offense is already being penalized yards, why did someone feel they needed extra penalty in the final minutes?

I think I agree with this post. The penalty should be the added yards.

 

[pinequick]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Neither does a false start, but that costs them time. I just think any offensive penalty should result in a 10 sec clock penalty with less than 2 mins remaining.

snapping the ball while 2 offensive lineman and a fullback are still running up the field isn't the result of not having enough time??? that was the intent of the rule.

That wouldn't be called a false start, would it?

 

[joffer]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Neither does a false start, but that costs them time. I just think any offensive penalty should result in a 10 sec clock penalty with less than 2 mins remaining.

snapping the ball while 2 offensive lineman and a fullback are still running up the field isn't the result of not having enough time??? that was the intent of the rule.

That wouldn't be called a false start, would it?

i don't know what they would call it, they'd probably have their choice of a few penalties, but they would for damn sure run off 10 seconds. the refs aren't idiots.

 

[Wheelhouse]

The question was - Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Having a false start penalty is mistake not an intention. If it were intended purposefully the team should be penalized. Hence the 10 sec clock penalty and I believe loss of down.

I just think any other offensive penalty, which likely is a mistake, should have the same result with less than 2 mins remaining. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it was a mistake and the offense should suffer for it, jut as they would if it were a false start.

 

[pinequick]

From reading Wheelhouse's quote, it seems that he thinks the Rams should have won and the rule kept them from doing so. I feel the complete opposite and think the call and rule is proper.

Yes, this is my feeling on this topic. I thought any offensive penalty involving formation or motion would result in the 10 sec clock penalty. I was surprised that the illegal formation call didn't have this penalty. I think any offensive penalty with less than 10 secs remaining should effectively end the game.

Do you think the Seahawks were trying to stop the clock with a penalty?

No, but I think a penalty should've cost them a chance at another play. So did Scott Linehan. Linehan must've mentioned this in his post-game press conference. Anyone have access to that?

Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.

Neither does a false start, but that costs them time. I just think any offensive penalty should result in a 10 sec clock penalty with less than 2 mins remaining.

snapping the ball while 2 offensive lineman and a fullback are still running up the field isn't the result of not having enough time??? that was the intent of the rule.

That wouldn't be called a false start, would it?

i don't know what they would call it, they'd probably have their choice of a few penalties, but they would for damn sure run off 10 seconds. the refs aren't idiots.

Based on the call yesterday, I'm not sure how you could possibly know that.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

The question was - Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.Having a false start penalty is mistake not an intention. If it were intended purposefully the team should be penalized. Hence the 10 sec clock penalty and I believe loss of down.I just think any other offensive penalty, which likely is a mistake, should have the same result with less than 2 mins remaining. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it was a mistake and the offense should suffer for it, jut as they would if it were a false start.

True, but why the 10 second run off??? The team should be punished the yards like on any other play. I know it may look ridiculous to snap a ball with people moving, but I think it is equally stupid to have a team rush to the line have a single guy flinch slightly with 8 seconds remaining in the game and his team lose because of it. The penalty should be the yards like on any other play.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I 100% agree with the OP here, in fact after just now seeing the highlights of the game for the first time I came here specifically to see if there was already a thread on this. The rule should run off 10 seconds, and I am no Rams fan.

For those saying it "was not Seattle's intent" to bend the rule to stop the clock yesterday, so what? It often (pretty much always) is not the intent of the person that false starts with under a minute left to try and stop the clock, yet they're still penalized the 10 seconds.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Linehan put this into his gameplan (heck I'm surprised every coach isn't already doing it). Just designate two players (two fastest perhaps) before the game that are going to be the emergency guys and make sure everyone else on the team knows that when whatever signal is given they are to stand still while those two guys run up and kill the clock, just so the rule will be changed.

I believe this actually happened to a lesser extent in an Ohio State game a few years back when they needed to kill the clock to kick a FG and 1 or 2 of the linemen were slow getting upfield so they just went ahead and spiked it with 1 second left, took the 5 yard penalty, and kicked the FG.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The question was - Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.Having a false start penalty is mistake not an intention. If it were intended purposefully the team should be penalized. Hence the 10 sec clock penalty and I believe loss of down.I just think any other offensive penalty, which likely is a mistake, should have the same result with less than 2 mins remaining. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it was a mistake and the offense should suffer for it, jut as they would if it were a false start.

True, but why the 10 second run off??? The team should be punished the yards like on any other play. I know it may look ridiculous to snap a ball with people moving, but I think it is equally stupid to have a team rush to the line have a single guy flinch slightly with 8 seconds remaining in the game and his team lose because of it. The penalty should be the yards like on any other play.

Seriously? Without the rule there the ability to abuse it would be insane. You could flinch to save time before everyone is lined up, or take a false start to stop the clock on 4th down when you can't spike it, etc.

 

[Wheelhouse]

The question was - Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.Having a false start penalty is mistake not an intention. If it were intended purposefully the team should be penalized. Hence the 10 sec clock penalty and I believe loss of down.I just think any other offensive penalty, which likely is a mistake, should have the same result with less than 2 mins remaining. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it was a mistake and the offense should suffer for it, jut as they would if it were a false start.

True, but why the 10 second run off??? The team should be punished the yards like on any other play. I know it may look ridiculous to snap a ball with people moving, but I think it is equally stupid to have a team rush to the line have a single guy flinch slightly with 8 seconds remaining in the game and his team lose because of it. The penalty should be the yards like on any other play.

I gotcha - you think that the game shouldn't end because one guard flinched and there was :09 left at the time, correct? I see your point, I kinda agree too, BUT the rule is there for false starts, but not illegal formations? Why?

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

The question was - Why should it cost them a chance at another play? The penalty had nothing to do with them trying to save time.Having a false start penalty is mistake not an intention. If it were intended purposefully the team should be penalized. Hence the 10 sec clock penalty and I believe loss of down.I just think any other offensive penalty, which likely is a mistake, should have the same result with less than 2 mins remaining. Regardless of whether or not it was intentional, it was a mistake and the offense should suffer for it, jut as they would if it were a false start.

True, but why the 10 second run off??? The team should be punished the yards like on any other play. I know it may look ridiculous to snap a ball with people moving, but I think it is equally stupid to have a team rush to the line have a single guy flinch slightly with 8 seconds remaining in the game and his team lose because of it. The penalty should be the yards like on any other play.

I gotcha - you think that the game shouldn't end because one guard flinched and there was :09 left at the time, correct? I see your point, I kinda agree too, BUT the rule is there for false starts, but not illegal formations? Why?

I agree with you as well as far as it should be a run off for both. Like already mentioned wether Seattle knew they were in an illegal formation or not it was still a mistake which is similiar to a guard or Wr flinching usually being a mistake in that situation as well.

 

[joffer]

can someone find and copy/paste the actual rule into the thread?

 

[pinequick]

can someone find and copy/paste the actual rule into the thread?

I went to that crappy rules page on NFL.com but, as usual, couldn't find anything useful.

 

[joffer]

can someone find and copy/paste the actual rule into the thread?

I went to that crappy rules page on NFL.com but, as usual, couldn't find anything useful.

i'm curious to see if only penalties like false start/illegal procedure are covered or if there is discretion to allow the refs to determine whether the team's intent is to snap the ball before that team would otherwise have enough to time to get legally set. sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

[Wheelhouse]

can someone find and copy/paste the actual rule into the thread?

I went to that crappy rules page on NFL.com but, as usual, couldn't find anything useful.

That page is horrendous if you want an actual rule, LOL. We need the $9.99 book you can buy at the bookstore. Either that or Red Cashion on speed-dial.

 

[yetiknight]

Here is my best logic to understand the play in question:

When a ball is spiked to stop the clock, there must be parameters to properly spike a ball to stop the clock. I can't find any to substantiate my theory, but lets just assume there are. Especially since it is technically an excused grounding penalty with a loss of down.

Obviously, this would prevent any use of a formation penalty to stop the clock. If the referee can subjectively flag you for unsportsmanlike conduct, or something along those lines, than you at least have to make an effort to run a legal formation. And if you are doing that you might as well just snap the ball and spike it without losing the yards as well.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-r...p&type=lgns

Linehan didn't question the ruling, just the rule.

"I think the integrity of the 10-second runoff is in question here because the whole idea is you can't have an illegal play of any kind without any timeouts while the clock is running to ensure that you get a chance to get a kick," Linehan said.

Teams could use the loophole to their advantage, Linehan said. For example, a trailing team that completes a long pass might not have time to get the rest of the team to the ball in the waning seconds. So why not just have the receivers who are downfield run a play and take the illegal formation penalty?

"If you have a long play now, what I would say is I think Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce should run up and snap the ball to each other," Linehan said. "Everybody stand still. It's an illegal formation -- there's only one guy on the ball and an ineligible taking the snap. Snap the ball and clock it. It's only a five-yard penalty, right?"

Linehan admitted the scenario isn't likely to play out often, but if it does, "you save approximately 10 to 15 seconds.

"I promise you they're going to have to figure out a way (to look at the rule) because that's what we're going to do," he said.

Supposedly...the rule lists two or three specific penalties that require the runoff, then state that any offensive penalty done "with the intention of stopping the clock" triggers the 10 second runnoff.

 

[The Man With No Name]

As far as the play, which I have not seen, I thought all offensive penalties in the final 2:00 were a 10 second runoff. Anyway, for those saying a team should have two fast players run down and hike the ball, there would be an illegal formation penalty on that, because they have to have 7 players on the line of scrimmage for a legal play.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Pic of the formation

Burleson was too far back so that Jones was left uncovered - Burleson needed to be set up at the 32, not the 33.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Question: What was the nature of the penalty called on Seattle?

HOCHULI: It was an illegal formation. The players were all set, but the widest receiver, instead of being up on the line of scrimmage, he was in the backfield, putting only six men on the line of scrimmage. So it's an illegal-formation foul. With the players all set, it's simply an illegal formation. And that's a situation where there is no 10-second runoff. The 10-second runoff people are familiar with is a false start, or when the players never get set before the ball gets snapped. This is not a 10-second runoff situation.

 

[joffer]

Question: What was the nature of the penalty called on Seattle?

HOCHULI: It was an illegal formation. The players were all set, but the widest receiver, instead of being up on the line of scrimmage, he was in the backfield, putting only six men on the line of scrimmage. So it's an illegal-formation foul. With the players all set, it's simply an illegal formation. And that's a situation where there is no 10-second runoff. The 10-second runoff people are familiar with is a false start, or when the players never get set before the ball gets snapped. This is not a 10-second runoff situation.

so according to this, the "everybody freeze while Holt and Bruce snap the ball to one another" play could conceivably work and successfully stop the clock. i'd love to see some team try it.

 

[pinequick]

Question: What was the nature of the penalty called on Seattle?

HOCHULI: It was an illegal formation. The players were all set, but the widest receiver, instead of being up on the line of scrimmage, he was in the backfield, putting only six men on the line of scrimmage. So it's an illegal-formation foul. With the players all set, it's simply an illegal formation. And that's a situation where there is no 10-second runoff. The 10-second runoff people are familiar with is a false start, or when the players never get set before the ball gets snapped. This is not a 10-second runoff situation.

so according to this, the "everybody freeze while Holt and Bruce snap the ball to one another" play could conceivably work and successfully stop the clock. i'd love to see some team try it.

This has "off-season rule change" written all over it.