Did the coaches had a hand-shake ?

[Bungarian]

Sooner or later a coach will cause his team to lose this way. He calls the timeout and the kicker misses but gets another chance and hits it.

 

[DallasEast]

That is flat out ridiculous, there is no possibility of calling a timeout DURING A PLAY. When the ball is snapped, no timeouts can be called.

Otherwise, coaches could call timeouts right before a player crosses the goal line.

There is virtually no way to define prohibiting timeouts right before a snap. The best I can think of is that coaches must be allowed to call a timeout at the instant they want it, not phrase it as, "I want a timeout right before the ball is snapped" Then the official waits until the ball is snapped, and halts the play.

This way, the coach must decide about when the ball is being snapped, then call the timeout right then. If he can't get the words out before the ball is snapped, the game is over. None of this "I want a timeout right before the ball is snapped!"

[edit] Technically, a timeout begins immediately when the whistle is blown.

Question.

When Folk attempted his first field goal kick, do you believe the whistle was blown before or after the ball was snapped AND he proceeded into his kicking motion? Just curious.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Just go back to making the players call the timeouts. We went forever without coaches being able to call them. Does letting the coaches do it really improve the game anyway?

 

[joseephuss]

That is flat out ridiculous, there is no possibility of calling a timeout DURING A PLAY. When the ball is snapped, no timeouts can be called.

Otherwise, coaches could call timeouts right before a player crosses the goal line.

There is virtually no way to define prohibiting timeouts right before a snap. The best I can think of is that coaches must be allowed to call a timeout at the instant they want it, not phrase it as, "I want a timeout right before the ball is snapped" Then the official waits until the ball is snapped, and halts the play.

This way, the coach must decide about when the ball is being snapped, then call the timeout right then. If he can't get the words out before the ball is snapped, the game is over. None of this "I want a timeout right before the ball is snapped!"

But that is not what happened or is happening. The coach is calling for a timeout and is guessing as to when the snap is going to occur. Jauron called for the timeout a few times before the ref actually signaled it and blew his whistle. Jauron may have told the ref to "be ready because we are going to try and get one called before they snap the ball", but the ref still has to wait for the coaches to call it. How can a ref know when the ball is snapped? They don't. They aren't calling it on the first motion of the ball being snapped.

The replay shows Jauron talking to the ref about the timeout. He yells out now and then go, go, go. The assistant coaches were also yelling go. The ref was very slow in actually making the signal. If he went on the first now, I doubt the ball ever gets snapped.

The only time there is a predetermined time out is when a coach or player specifies that they want the timeout at a certain time on the play clock or game clock such as 1 second left or something.

 

[Doomsday101]

Sooner or later a coach will cause his team to lose this way. He calls the timeout and the kicker misses but gets another chance and hits it.

I agree but as it is right now it is ridicules, hell no one knows when the timeout has even been called until after the fact. Players are starting to run off the field and all of a sudden you’re told the coach called timeout as the ball was snapped?

 

[Doomsday101]

But that is not what happened or is happening. The coach is calling for a timeout and is guessing as to when the snap is going to occur. Jauron called for the timeout a few times before the ref actually signaled it and blew his whistle. Jauron may have told the ref to "be ready because we are going to try and get one called before they snap the ball", but the ref still has to wait for the coaches to call it. How can a ref know when the ball is snapped? They don't. They aren't calling it on the first motion of the ball being snapped.

The replay shows Jauron talking to the ref about the timeout. He yells out now and then go, go, go. The assistant coaches were also yelling go. The ref was very slow in actually making the signal. If he went on the first now, I doubt the ball ever gets snapped.

The only time there is a predetermined time out is when a coach or player specifies that they want the timeout at a certain time on the play clock or game clock such as 1 second left or something.

There was 8 sec on the play clock so he did not wait until the play clock went down to 1 sec he called as the ball was snapped and he may have been saying now now now but the ball was snapped just as it happend in 2 other games this season.

 

[DallasEast]

But that is not what happened or is happening. The coach is calling for a timeout and is guessing as to when the snap is going to occur. Jauron called for the timeout a few times before the ref actually signaled it and blew his whistle. Jauron may have told the ref to "be ready because we are going to try and get one called before they snap the ball", but the ref still has to wait for the coaches to call it. How can a ref know when the ball is snapped? They don't. They aren't calling it on the first motion of the ball being snapped.

The replay shows Jauron talking to the ref about the timeout. He yells out now and then go, go, go. The assistant coaches were also yelling go. The ref was very slow in actually making the signal. If he went on the first now, I doubt the ball ever gets snapped.

The only time there is a predetermined time out is when a coach or player specifies that they want the timeout at a certain time on the play clock or game clock such as 1 second left or something.

:signmast:

 

[joseephuss]

There was 8 sec on the play clock so he did not wait until the play clock went down to 1 sec he called as the ball was snapped and he may have been saying now now now but the ball was snapped just as it happend in 2 other games this season.

That is on the refs. He called for the timeout and the ref was slow to blow his whistle. It is also good timing on Jauron to have an idea as to when Dallas was snapping the ball. What if the Cowboys waited another 3 or 4 seconds to kick it since as you say there were 8 seconds on the clock? There would be no issue at all because the refs would have been able to make everyone aware there was a timeout way prior to the snap of the ball.

 

[kevwun]

The free throw analogy would work if the opposing coach waited until Shaq was about to shoot a free throw and then called timeout. Shaq gets fouled because he can't shoot free throws and gives the other team the best shot at getting the ball back without running time off the clock or extending their opponents lead. If Shaq was a good free throw shooter, he wouldn't get fouled at the end of games. The other team is exploiting a flaw in his game. It's like picking on a bad cornerback. Coaches calling a timeout a split second before the snap are exploiting a loophole in the rules. The two situations aren't really similar.

 

[Doomsday101]

That is on the refs. He called for the timeout and the ref was slow to blow his whistle. It is also good timing on Jauron to have an idea as to when Dallas was snapping the ball. What if the Cowboys waited another 3 or 4 seconds to kick it since as you say there were 8 seconds on the clock? There would be no issue at all because the refs would have been able to make everyone aware there was a timeout way prior to the snap of the ball.

I like many others just think it is a bad rule and needs to be changed. Waiting until the snap and calling TO is BS and that is exactly what happened in 3 games this season. There is no way the HC knows exactly when that ball is going to be snapped yet these TO are happening right when the ball is being snapped. I hope the rule committee changes this next season until then teams will have to tolerate it.

 

[aikemirv]

The free throw analogy would work if the opposing coach waited until Shaq was about to shoot a free throw and then called timeout. Shaq gets fouled because he can't shoot free throws and gives the other team the best shot at getting the ball back without running time off the clock or extending their opponents lead. If Shaq was a good free throw shooter, he wouldn't get fouled at the end of games. The other team is exploiting a flaw in his game. It's like picking on a bad cornerback. Coaches calling a timeout a split second before the snap are exploiting a loophole in the rules. The two situations aren't really similar.

You make a good point because once the ref gives the BBall to the player on the free throw line, no one can move and no timeouts can be called. On a last second kick, only players on the field should be able to call a timeout once the ball is put in play and I only say that in case of too many men on the field or the possibility of a fake that the defense should be able to call a timeout for.

 

[coach316]

It's simple....for situations like this one, change the rule so that time outs must be called before a specific time left on the play clock...like 10 or 15 seconds...after that no time outs will be allowed.

 

[kevwun]

I don't think a time limit like that will work. As the poster above said, time outs are legit in cases when there are two many men on the field or in response to a possible fake. The easiest way to fix this is to take away the coaches ability to call a timeout. Teams got along just fine for decades without the coaches being able to call timeout. In addition, players on the field shouldn't be allowed to schedule a timeout with the ref for right before the snap of the ball. This would still allow teams to call a late legitimate timeout and prevent the current shenanigans.

 

[Idgit]

A change needs to be made for no other reason than what goes on now is confusing to the audience. It looks for all intents and purposes like a legitimate play, and you only see that it is not if you notice the refs not reacting to the kick.

I get the stuff about strategy, and I agree with it, but the goal for the NFL is to have a good product and too many re-kicks, like too much instant replay, is not going to be a good thing.

 

[joseephuss]

A change needs to be made for no other reason than what goes on now is confusing to the audience. It looks for all intents and purposes like a legitimate play, and you only see that it is not if you notice the refs not reacting to the kick.

I get the stuff about strategy, and I agree with it, but the goal for the NFL is to have a good product and too many re-kicks, like too much instant replay, is not going to be a good thing.

Is it really that confusing? No one is still confused as to what happened. You aren't. I'm not.

How many re-kicks are going to occur during an entire season? It seems like a big deal right now because there have been all of 3 separate incidents in the first 5 weeks. How many more can we expect the rest of the year? I doubt it is going to be a high number.

 

[kevwun]

I don't know, games come down to a last second kick fairly regularly.

 

[Idgit]

Is it really that confusing? No one is still confused as to what happened. You aren't. I'm not.

How many re-kicks are going to occur during an entire season? It seems like a big deal right now because there have been all of 3 separate incidents in the first 5 weeks. How many more can we expect the rest of the year? I doubt it is going to be a high number.

Well, it's not confusing after the timeout call has been explained. But for those few seconds you're watching the game, seeing the ball go through the uprights, and waiting for a call from the officials, it's confusing. You feel stupid if, like me, you're up and jumping around, pumping your fists and waking the wife and kids and then have to sit down again and pretend like nothing happened.

As far as how many are we going to see? Who knows? You don't think a coach with 3 TOs at the end of a half or a quarter might want to see a kicker make it four times? If it doesn't add to the watchability of the game, what's the point of letting them continue to call it?

 

[adamknite]

Well, it's not confusing after the timeout call has been explained. But for those few seconds you're watching the game, seeing the ball go through the uprights, and waiting for a call from the officials, it's confusing. You feel stupid if, like me, you're up and jumping around, pumping your fists and waking the wife and kids and then have to sit down again and pretend like nothing happened.

As far as how many are we going to see? Who knows? You don't think a coach with 3 TOs at the end of a half or a quarter might want to see a kicker make it four times? If it doesn't add to the watchability of the game, what's the point of letting them continue to call it?

NFL Rule they added in 2005:
During field goal and extra point attempts, the defensive team will be penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct if it calls consecutive timeouts in an attempt to "ice" the kicker. Previously, the second timeout request was only denied by officials, and thus could be used to distract the kickers.

 

[joseephuss]

Well, it's not confusing after the timeout call has been explained. But for those few seconds you're watching the game, seeing the ball go through the uprights, and waiting for a call from the officials, it's confusing. You feel stupid if, like me, you're up and jumping around, pumping your fists and waking the wife and kids and then have to sit down again and pretend like nothing happened.

As far as how many are we going to see? Who knows? You don't think a coach with 3 TOs at the end of a half or a quarter might want to see a kicker make it four times? If it doesn't add to the watchability of the game, what's the point of letting them continue to call it?

They would have to be very good at guessing when the opposing team is going to snap the ball, to make them kick it 4 times in a row. As has been mentioned they can't call more than one timeout in a row in that situation.

 

[MapleLeaf]

Is it really that confusing? No one is still confused as to what happened. You aren't. I'm not.

How many re-kicks are going to occur during an entire season? It seems like a big deal right now because there have been all of 3 separate incidents in the first 5 weeks. How many more can we expect the rest of the year? I doubt it is going to be a high number.

...I counted (19) games decided by a FG attempt in the last (5) plays.

I believe the season is 256 games long so that's quite a bit if chances for other coaches to "ice" a player with this new strategy.

If I was a defensive coach and there was a last second play on the goal line I would also use this tactic to expose the offences on where their plays were going to run.

I can see it right now. The Patriots have the ball at the 5 and there's 4 seconds left to get the 2 pt conversion. Just before Brady takes to snap you call a timeout and get a look at the movement and set up of the offence.

You also take away a designed goal line play the opposing team has by exposing the movements of the assignments at the snap.

This TO nonsense could go on and on. Maybe use it for the onside kick to expose the shooting gunners on the play?

As one poster has said yesterday night, is this really in the "spirit" of the game. Is this something we want to teach our children about the sportsmanship of a game we all love to watch?

I hope they strike that rule down like grandma's old dish rag. Something smells bad here and judging by the amount of voiced opinion on forums throughout the internet today there's not alot of football fans who think this rule is greatest thing since sliced bread.