NFL week 5 (Plus: Icing the kicker) [Archive]

Slacker

10-08-2007, 11:51 PM

Man, what a week. I can't imagine what the Bills fans are going through. Six turnovers and their offense still can't do a damn thing. If the Cowboys perform like that next week it'll be 25-70 instead of 25-24.

So what do you guys think about this "Icing the kicker" nonsense that's catching on this season? For the unitiated, that's waiting until the last possible second to call a timeout when the opposing kicker is lining up for a big attempt. Personally, I think it's cheap and I hope the league addresses it in the offseason. At least a few commentators I've heard tonight are already promising it'll be prohibited in the rules next year.

The Saints? The less said the better. Go Cowboys!

BigDummy

10-09-2007, 12:08 AM

When Romo does decide to suck he really commits to it, doesn't he. Nothing half-way about that one.

Snooooopy

10-09-2007, 12:25 AM

It seems to me that icing the kicker used to be viewed as generally honorable, and practically obligatory if you were the defending team with a timeout burning a hole in your pocket. A little irritating? Sure, but mainly because no one felt like having to sit and wait for the big finish, not because it was a violation of some unwritten rule. I'm wondering what happened to change perceptions.

stolichnaya

10-09-2007, 12:32 AM

Well, icing the kicker by making him sit and wait for a while longer before kicking is one thing- essentially asking the kicker to make the field goal twice by calling atimeout right before the snap- well it smells bad. It is not against the rules, but it doesn't seem sportsmanlike to me. I imagine there will be some kind of rule about calling it from the sidelines in the next round of voting.

Folk kind of turned the tactic around tonight, though. His career best, 53 yards, and he made it twice dead center with room to spare. What a great game. Talk about ice cold.

fifty-six

10-09-2007, 01:25 AM

That was a helluva game tonight.

As for icing the kicker. I don't think that the coach should be able to call I time out. That is a players job. I think is it kinda lame for a coach to be able to do it on the sidelines while all the players are concentrating.

DataZak

10-09-2007, 02:03 AM

Fight a furinner's ignorance here....why should "icing the kicker" be prohibited? All it does is delay the kick, doesn't it? You mean it breaks the kicker's concentration? That's it? Eh.

Also, Go GIANTS!

BlakeTyner

10-09-2007, 02:04 AM

When Romo does decide to suck he really commits to it, doesn't he. Nothing half-way about that one.

Yup. He was terrible in that two-minute drill. ;)

fifty-six

10-09-2007, 02:27 AM

What would have been great is if Folk missed the field goal then got a second chance and made it.

That will happen someday.

Ice the kicker my ass. That was some impressive kicking tonight. four field goals two of them (kinda a third) his records and an onside kick.

The Dallas defense was great. To overcome all those interceptions and only allow the Billls 3 offensive points is amazing. What a crazy game.

SenorBeef

10-09-2007, 03:16 AM

While I personally find the tactic to be irritating, everyone seems to take for granted that it favors the defending team, and I can't quite figure it out.

People say "it makes you make the kick twice", but that's not true. You have to do it once, the second time. What about the times that a kicker misses the first, invalid attempt, and then makes the second one?

The only advantage is psychological, if you put pressure on the kicker. But it seems to me like it should actually be an advantage... the kicker gets a practice kick so that the next kick can be better.

minlokwat

10-09-2007, 05:27 AM

I view the problem as belonging to the refs.

Icing the kicker has been around as long as teams have that last time-out to burn. But this is the third time this season where the teams have lined up, the ball gets snapped and the kicker lets fly and then the refs state that the opposing team had called time.

The refs have to blow that play dead before the center snaps the ball and if the coach says: "I want time called when the play clock reaches: 02," then why don't the refs relay that information to the teams on the field?

VarlosZ

10-09-2007, 06:02 AM

The refs have to blow that play dead before the center snaps the ball. . .
They do, actually. From a post of mine about this in the Pit: On these last-second icing timeouts, the way it works is this: the coach, on the sideline, is standing next to the line judge and lets him know that he's going to call a timeout at the last second. At the appropriate moment (about a second or two before the ball figures to be snapped), the coach request the timeout. The line judge then grants the timeout in the usual way, but he's far away from all the players (and, significantly, the network's sound pickups), and there are 70,000 screaming fans, so this tends to go unnoticed for a few seconds.

As for the practice in general, I think it's annoying, and the league should fix it in the offseason. Not by taking away the coach's ability to call a timeout (no good reason for that other than this problem), but just by making it illegal for the defense to call a timeout on a FG attempt once the kicking team is set. You can still ice the kicker, you just can't trick everyone into going through a charade.

That said, so long as it's legal, it's not a jerk move. In fact, if the coach honestly believes it gives his team the best chance to win, he's morally obligated to do it.

Trunk

10-09-2007, 06:16 AM

What might get lost in Romo's massive aura of suckitude last night was the dropsy nature of TO. He's had problems with it before. There were several balls he should have had last night, including the challenge at the end, the "not pushed out of bounds" play, and the two point conversion.

Yes, as others have said, there was the old icing the kicker. When only players could call timeout, this didn't happen.

This Jauron thing (and Shananhan, and Kiffin, and Cowher (who did it against the Falcons one game last year), and others) is designed solely to make him kick it twice. It's done to exploit a technicality. It's not "strategic". Jaws makes it sound like its part of the intellectual skills of coaching a football game. Jesus, a two year old could figure it out. I think it's a bitch move.

dalej42

10-09-2007, 06:19 AM

There's only one thing I can say about Week 5:

Ladies and Gentleman, your FIRST PLACE Arizona Cardinals!

Can the Cards be this year's Saints? Who will they sign as a backup quarterback?

Cheesesteak

10-09-2007, 07:31 AM

As for the practice in general, I think it's annoying, and the league should fix it in the offseason. Not by taking away the coach's ability to call a timeout (no good reason for that other than this problem), but just by making it illegal for the defense to call a timeout on a FG attempt once the kicking team is set. You can still ice the kicker, you just can't trick everyone into going through a charade.I would just make it so that once the offense is set, only players can call time outs, at all times. The coach can make a strategic time out call to ice the kicker or adjust his personnel, but not interrupt the on field action.

I wouldn't make it illegal for the defense to call a time out, they might notice the FG team is actually set up for a fake FG, or they don't have the right number of players. There are good reasons to take a last second time out, besides icing, just make someone on the field do it.

Khadaji

10-09-2007, 07:33 AM

As I said in the other thread, I think Icing the kicker is lame only in as much as I don't remember it ever working. But I suppose it has to be tried...

Trunk

10-09-2007, 07:50 AM

As I said in the other thread, I think Icing the kicker is lame only in as much as I don't remember it ever working. But I suppose it has to be tried...This is distinct from what everyone used to call "icing the kicker".

That used to be a time out called well before the snap so that the kicker was further removed from his warm up, and supposedly to make him "think about it". That never worked.

This, however, is a deliberate attempt to allow a snap to happen by exploit the non-instantaneous speed of communication from the sideline official, and the officials in the action.

I don't know what you'd call it, "perturbing the kicker" or something, but it's not "icing the kicker".

It was only made possible once the coach was allowed to call timeouts, a rule instituted only within the last couple of years.

It worked in Denver this year. It worked the following week in Oakland. It worked for Pittsburgh against Atlanta one year. It didn't work last night.

lieu

10-09-2007, 08:05 AM

To overcome all those interceptions and only allow the Billls 3 offensive points is amazing.Bizarrely, the Bill's O seemed like it was functioning pretty well. The line was creating some huge holes, Edwards was impressive as all get out (especially for a rook) and Lynch was running like a man afire. I'm still trying to figure out how their O ended with just 3.

One upside for the Bills... I think they've found their QB of the future.

Trunk

10-09-2007, 08:14 AM

Bizarrely, the Bill's O seemed like it was functioning pretty well. The line was creating some huge holes, Edwards was impressive as all get out (especially for a rook) and Lynch was running like a man afire. I'm still trying to figure out how their O ended with just 3.It was a weird offensive night.

They did SEEM good to me, too. But, they only wound up with 148 yards passing, and 81 rushing.

And, despite the fact that there were 3 returns for TDs (meaning that the Dallas offense is on the field for consecutive drives multiple times), the Bills STILL controlled time of possession 32:30-28:30.

They did have one drive of almost 9 minutes, though, and Dallas had a couple "drives" that were really only one play. (one might have been a couple plays).

BobLibDem

10-09-2007, 11:18 AM

I think it's a cheap stunt and shows what copycats coaches are. I have an easy solution: coaches may call timeout from the sidelines except for field goal attempts. If they want to ice the kicker the old fashioned way, then one of the players on the field needs to call it and that would be well before the snap.

Jurph

10-09-2007, 11:41 AM

Gangster Octopus

10-09-2007, 11:44 AM

It was a weird offensive night.

They did SEEM good to me, too. But, they only wound up with 148 yards passing, and 81 rushing.

And, despite the fact that there were 3 returns for TDs (meaning that the Dallas offense is on the field for consecutive drives multiple times), the Bills STILL controlled time of possession 32:30-28:30.

They did have one drive of almost 9 minutes, though, and Dallas had a couple "drives" that were really only one play. (one might have been a couple plays).

I think the reason it seemed weird was for some reason the announcers couldn't heap enough praise on the Bills QB. They made it sound like he had been doing some amazing things when about the onlything he had done was not throw an interceptio...until he did.

Snooooopy

10-09-2007, 11:54 AM

Trunk

10-09-2007, 11:55 AM

Gostkowski is the Pats' kicker.
The Bear's Lovie Smith tried to do that to Gostkowski before the HALF in that game.

Paintcharge

10-09-2007, 12:05 PM

Last year's game between the Bears and Pats should have put a stop to this nonsense. Gostkowski, a rookie, is lined up to kick a 52-yarder... and the Pats tried to ice him as discussed above (the double-try definition of "icing"). Only he'd already kicked (and missed) the attempt. So he lines up again and nails it on the second try. I'm amazed that he didn't cross the field and thank the Pats' coach for the gift.

[nitpick] Gostkowski is the Pats kicker. At the end of the first half the Bears did the call-time-out-as-the-ball-is-snapped thingy and it backfired.

From yahoo sports:
That left rookie Stephen Gostkowski with a 52-yard field goal attempt that went wide right. But Chicago had called a timeout before the kick and Gostkowski's second try made it over the crossbar. His longest kick of the season gave New England a 10-3 halftime lead.

Hal Briston

10-09-2007, 12:15 PM

I have an easy solution: coaches may call timeout from the sidelines except for field goal attempts. If they want to ice the kicker the old fashioned way, then one of the players on the field needs to call it and that would be well before the snap.I'd prefer it to work like this:

Coach: Hey ref, keep an eye on me -- I'm going to call a timeout.
Ref: *Tweeeeeeeet*!! Timeout!
Coach: NO! I said was going to call a timeout! I just wanted to be a little bitch about it and do it one second before the snap!
Ref: TFB. You said "timeout", you got your timeout.

Hal Briston

10-09-2007, 12:28 PM

And might I just note how fricking badly that game was tearing me apart inside?

See, I needed a total score of 47 or better in order to win a pool this week. Didn't matter who won the game, just needed 47+.

Oh, and I'm a Giants fan, so naturally I find all things Cowboys-related to be as appealing as caramel apples dipped in a fresh cesspool. For last night, it was "Go Bills!"

Halfway through the 3rd, we're at 37 total, and Buffalo is up by 11. I'm fricking golden -- they'll definitely team up to put 10 more on the board!

4th quarter begins with a Dallas FG. Ok...that's fine...total of 40. Hmmm...but Dallas is down by eight. Which means if they get a TD, they'll go for two. Fine if they convert, but....hmm...well, go Bills.

Drive the field drive the field drive the field turnover!

Drive the field drive the field drive the field turnover!

FUCK! Someone score here, wouldya?!

Grrr...fine, I really wasn't talking to you, Dallas, but a score is a score. The total is now 46 -- I'm one point shy of winning my pool, but you're going to try for two. Gaaa! Dropped pass!

That put me in a hellish position. If they had converted the 2-pointer, then the game would be tied and the Bills still could have won. But being down by two meant that unless Buffalo could somehow manage to get a Safety while the ball was at mid-field, I was screwed.

If I wanted to win my pool, I had to.....<gag>....root for the Cowboys.

I've showered six times so far today.

CJJ*

10-09-2007, 12:41 PM

Icing the kicker is one of those desperate things the defense does because there's nothing else they can do; its their way of asserting control in a situation where they really have little control over the outcome--it all depends on the execution of the snap/hold and the accuracy of the kicker.

I recall a "Simpsons" episode once where Moe is about to be robbed by Snake, who grabs Barney hostage and tells Moe to "hand over the cash or the rummy gets it". Moe promptly (and a little callously) drops to the floor and quickly rolls into a sealed, protective chamber, only peeping out to say "Ha! I'm behind six inches of bulletproof glass; do your worst!" At which point Snake gingerly hops across the bar and empties the register. Moe screams in protest, pounds on the glass, and finally--as a sign of his desperation--he begins to flick the lightswitch in his cubicle on and off. That, my friends, is the exact equivalent of trying to ice the kicker with a timeout.

The best way to deal with the right-before-the-snap time-out ("legal" or not, it is a thoroughly snaky and annoying thing to watch): Blow a penalty on the defense if any one of their linemen moves across the line of scrimmage to hit/touch an offensive lineman. After all, the defense called timeout, so they knew there would be no play. Why shouldn't they then be penalized for hitting an opposing player during a timeout? This ridiculous bit of gamesmanship would then vanish instantly; either the defense draws a penalty, or the offensive line will have a free shot on the defenders (the offense doesn't know the timeout is coming, so it's a little like the "flinch" rule which penalizes defenders for causing an offensive player to false start by charging at them prior to the snap).

stolichnaya

10-09-2007, 12:43 PM

Wee Bairn

10-09-2007, 12:43 PM

If you allow coaches to call time outs before a kick, they must figure out some system where the kicker knows time has been called before he kicks it- perhaps a flashing red light affixed to the head of the referee in the middle of the field? Its bullshit when you have the entire stadium in hysterics because they think they just won the game, and two seconds later find out no, dickhead coach called time.

Intelligently Designed

10-09-2007, 12:43 PM

As an aside: it has been said here that icing the kicker doesn't work. But there seems to be evidence to the contrary (http://sciencenewsmagazine.org/articles/20041113/mathtrek.asp).

ShadowFacts

10-09-2007, 12:55 PM

SoulSearching

10-09-2007, 01:15 PM

Was it me or did it look like Michael Irvin was in the suite with Jerry Jones on MNF? It looked like him.

Kid_A

10-09-2007, 01:18 PM

It was Irwin. I was watching the highlights somewhere and they mentioned that he was celebrating with Jerry Jones.

DiggitCamara

10-09-2007, 01:30 PM

Yup. He was terrible in that two-minute drill. ;)
Well, if I were playing I'd have clunked the ball at least thrice per down, but did you see the defense the Bills were playing at that point of the game? Something like 3 people rushing and everyone else protecting something like 60 yards downfield. He dinked the ball about three times in a row to a receiver on his right with nary a Bill in sight!

And the Bills' defense were the ones who made the game close!

Wee Bairn

10-09-2007, 03:10 PM

SCSimmons

10-09-2007, 03:11 PM

The Cowboys converted me for at least a night last night. I loved both teams, the fans, the craziness. I think Tony Romo is a true find- there are a lot of guys that would have thrown in the towel after, oh I don't know, interception #5.

I loved his response to the second question in the post-game on-the-field interview, asking how he felt at halftime after throwing four picks. "Was it four?" he asked incredulously. "I thought it was, like, seven!"
:cool:

BlakeTyner

10-09-2007, 04:31 PM

Well, if I were playing I'd have clunked the ball at least thrice per down, but did you see the defense the Bills were playing at that point of the game? Something like 3 people rushing and everyone else protecting something like 60 yards downfield. He dinked the ball about three times in a row to a receiver on his right with nary a Bill in sight!

And the Bills' defense were the ones who made the game close!

I played the position in high school, and I have to be honest - if I'd thrown 5 picks and lost a fumble in a game, I'd probably still be legendary for the immense amount of choking I'd have done down the stretch. But Tony just came out and played football. Okay, I'm not extremely happy with 5 interceptions in a game. But, Troy Aikman did it.

What Troy didn't do, however, was have four 300-yard passing games in a season. Or have three 300-yard passing games in a row.

Nor did Staubach.

Nor any other Cowboy ever.

After an absolutely dismal opening, and of course the turnovers, Romo ended up 29/50 for 309 and 2 TDs, which is pretty amazing, particularly considering the Cowboys had to compete with the 12th and 13th men on the field. It must have been an incredibly heart-wrenching loss for Bills fans, but I'll take a W when I can get one.

(And I was almost as tickled to see Irvin and Jones go apeshit after that second field goal as I was that we won...good times. Irvin will be receiving his Hall of Fame ring next week at halftime in Texas Stadium.)

Bearflag70

10-09-2007, 05:28 PM

I think the NFL should send out a memo that these "icing" timeouts will fall under the general penalty of "unsportsmanlike conduct" with an appropriate penalty. You'll get your timeout, but the kicking team will get some yards.

aliquot

10-09-2007, 07:27 PM

Gotta say, I really don't get the hate for the last second timeout before a kick. There's already a risk that the coach will time it wrong, and there will be no icing of the kicker whatsoever.

Not to mention, you can't change the rule, really. As someone mentioned, it's possible that someone will notice that they have 12 men on the field, and will need a time out. Or maybe they want to rearrange their line to give themselves a better chance to block the field goal. You have to let them call a time out. There's just no way around it, no logic that says, "Sure, you can call a TO on any play... EXCEPT this one."

And if you wanna make it so that a player on the field has to call it instead of a coach, how does this solve anything? The player can tell an official ahead of time that he's going to call a time out, and then, mere feet away from the center instead of across the field, he can time his TO to fustigate the kicker same (if not better) than the coach can.

To me, there's very little difference between calling this last second time out and a QB calling an audible. Football is a game of inches and seconds. This isn't any different.

CJJ*

10-09-2007, 08:45 PM

Not to mention, you can't change the rule, really. As someone mentioned, it's possible that someone will notice that they have 12 men on the field, and will need a time out. Or maybe they want to rearrange their line to give themselves a better chance to block the field goal. You have to let them call a time out. There's just no way around it, no logic that says, "Sure, you can call a TO on any play... EXCEPT this one."
Call the timeout prior to the snap, but if your side then runs into a member of the offense after the timeout is called, flag it as unsportsmanlike conduct.

stolichnaya

10-09-2007, 11:14 PM

You can make a rule change to achieve a desired result. If there is enough angst about this new trend, then you can make a rule about it. The game exists to entertain and to make money, and the rules support that, rather than some sort of sports ideal. If enough people decide that this new use of the rules is bad for the game, then the rules will change.

I admit that I have no real solid objection beyond "It's dumb!" but that could be enough.

Bearflag70

10-10-2007, 12:18 AM

This sounds like it would be a tough rule to write. What would an appropriate rule say?

Here's a rough draft: If a team is set in kicking formation, the opposing team cannot call timeout if the play clock or game clock shows :03 or less

Under this rule, if the kicking team doesn't want to worry about icing, then they just snap the ball once one of the clocks shows :03 or less. Then, they can safely kick.

However, I can see where this might really screw things up if the clock is ticking at the end of a half and the kicking team is scrambling to get the offense off the field and get the kicking team on. The defense might want to take a time out just to ensure it has proper personnel to defend a kick, even though such a timeout might also benefit the kicking team. This proposed rule might bar the defense from doing that.

Does that work?

Here's another option: A kicking team can declare that it will kick (i.e., no fakes allowed, the ball cannot be advanced beyond the line of scrimmage via pass or run). If the kicking team declares a kick, the defense cannot call timeout once the kicking team is set.

Cheesesteak

10-10-2007, 04:57 AM

To me, there's very little difference between calling this last second time out and a QB calling an audible. Football is a game of inches and seconds. This isn't any different.It isn't any different, except for the 22 players and 6 of the 7 officials running a play, in its entirety, as though it counts, only to be told (along with 70,000 fans in the stadium and millions on TV) after the fact that there wasn't actually a play.

Nobody cared about icing the kicker, it was a complete non-issue, before the kicks started to be played out, only to called back and replayed because of the time out. This is new, and it is a crappy way to run a game. As a fan, I shouldn't have to watch a play that doesn't count. We want fans to be emotionally invested in the game, to be excited about watching the plays, "do-overs" ruin it.

Turek

10-10-2007, 07:24 AM

And if you wanna make it so that a player on the field has to call it instead of a coach, how does this solve anything?

A player on the field calling a timeout is visible to everyone on the field. If he calls a timeout the other players will see it and stop their actions. But the players aren't paying the least bit of attention to the sideline immediately before a kick; they're paying attention the the field where the action is about to happen. As it stands now, you have some guy who's completely out of everyone's line of sight and cone of attention stopping the play in a way that the play is carried out anyway.

Trunk

10-10-2007, 08:48 AM

Gotta say, I really don't get the hate for the last second timeout before a kick. There's already a risk that the coach will time it wrong, and there will be no icing of the kicker whatsoever.
That's not a risk. If you don't get the timeout in, then the play is run just as it would be.

That's one of my gripes with this rule. There's no downside to playing it wrong. All things in football have trade-offs. You put 9 in the box, you're vulnerable to the pass. You go for it on 4th down, you give up field position if you fail.

There's no real downside to the last second time out call. It's either "business as usual" or "complete disturbance." You don't get penalized if it's not in on time.

stolichnaya

10-10-2007, 09:17 AM

What if the rule stated that if the time out was called on the sideline but didn't make it in time, the kicking team would still have to option to replay the down (as in, if they missed) by using a time out of their own. As long as I get to make very specific NFL rules. This is fun!

Maybe it's the fact that it was Jauron, but that seemed like such a punk move on Monday. Also it's the first one of these I've seen live, and as a fan of a great game, been invested in the outcome. Either result is great- then you have a play and- guess what. no result. I am so glad that Folk made that second kick. In the span of a few seconds I went from hoping the Bills won to not caring who won to a temporary Cowboys fan.

aliquot

10-10-2007, 01:57 PM

before the kicks started to be played out, only to called back and replayed because of the time out. This is new, and it is a crappy way to run a game. As a fan, I shouldn't have to watch a play that doesn't count.
...stopping the play in a way that the play is carried out anyway.
You're both wrong. The first kick wasn't a legal play. It might have looked like it, but the TO got in there first, like it or not.

If a defense encroaches (not offsides, but full-on makes contacts with an offensive player), they whistle the play dead. If no one hears the whistle and the QB throws a 70-yard touchdown, should the play stand? No, because there was no play. Same with punts -- occasionally, you'll see a flag on a punt, but the punter will still boom the punt. (I suppose it's bad mental form to take a long snap and not kick it; gets you out of your rhythm or something). If the punt is boomed to the 1, should it stand? No, of course not, if there's a dead ball penalty. Just because the 70-yard TD pass or the punt boomed to the 1 both happened, it doesn't mean they legally happened. There was no play. Neither will show up in the stats.

Same as with Folk's first FG, or Janikowski's first FG in Denver a few weeks ago, etc. They didn't happen. Might as well have been practice kicks (except without a delay of game penalty).

As far as complaining because the coach is not in the middle of the field... ??? He's allowed to call a time out. That's the rule. The rule isn't, "Only someone within 5 yards of the center of the field should be able to call a time out." As soon as he signals a TO, the side judge (or whoever) runs out to the center of the field, waving his arms to stop the game. There's currently no more effective way to communicate a sideline TO with the rest of the field of play. It works the same way on non-FG sideline TOs, too.

Just keep repeating to yourselves until it sinks in -- there was only ONE last second FG attempt in the Cowboys-Bills game. The other one wasn't a legal play, appearances be damned. The same as any play aborted due to a false start, or a delay of game. It happens all the time; I don't get the outrage over this. (Seriously, I don't get it -- had there been a false start, but Folk kicked it anyway, would you all be howling that the play should stand? Of course not, because the rules say that there was no play. Same as when the coach calls a TO before the snap, but the message doesn't get relayed to the center of the field until after the snap.)

stolichnaya

10-10-2007, 02:18 PM

aliquot

10-10-2007, 02:59 PM

Encroachment has a negative effect for the Defense, however. The lack of a tradeoff here means that we may eventually see this attempted at every end-of-game field goal, which would just be annoying. It's bad enough that games are ending on field goals, now I have to watch two?
Look, the first time a coach mistimes it and he misses out on getting to ice the kicker at all, he's going to go back to doing it the old-fashioned way (i.e., calling the TO way ahead of time). There are only 32 coaches in the league, so I can't imagine this tactic being anything more than a fad. Not to mention, once someone hits it on the REAL try after missing the practice shot, that's DEFINITELY going to make coaches stop doing it.

The old-fashioned way of icing the kicker was boring and of marginal effectiveness. I can't believe that people want to go back to that way. Why is it better to let them line up, but call the TO well in advance of a snap? It's not! It's the same damned thing, it's the way the game is played, and I can't believe there is so much outrage over something that has happened, by my count, four times.

lieu

10-10-2007, 03:00 PM

There was an NFL game a year or so back where the kicker, already suffering from a leg injury, had to come on the field at the end to attempt a game winning kick. If I recall correctly he made it but suffered additionally from it to the degree that he would not have been able to attempt another. That was good football.

With this rule that man's effort would have been rendered moot and that's not right. It goes against the spirit of rewarding performance.

I hope it'll be modified in the off season. While it makes sense to let a coach call timeout from the sidelines, for example if he alone sees an offensive or defensive allignment that requires his team to adjust, using it in such underhanded fashion reminds me of the machinations of a sleazy tax attorney.

borschevsky

10-10-2007, 03:46 PM

You're both wrong. The first kick wasn't a legal play. It might have looked like it, but the TO got in there first, like it or not.But this is what people are complaining about. I don't think people are saying that the current rules are being misinterpreted, just that they would prefer that the rules be changed so that this tactic isn't allowed. I'm not sure that there's a good way to make such a rule change, but who knows.

My reaction to this play the two times I've seen it this year (Dallas, Oakland) has been that it would be better if this were not allowed. This is a subjective opinion. On the final, deciding play, I'd prefer there not be something that looks like the final play right before the actual final play.

Cheesesteak

10-10-2007, 04:04 PM

Same as with Folk's first FG, or Janikowski's first FG in Denver a few weeks ago, etc. They didn't happen. Time outs do not change the nature of time and space. The kicks happened. The officials ruled that they were not valid kicks for determining the score of the game, but the kicks happened.

We all understand that sometimes they don't hear the whistle on penalties, but this rule, allowing the last second call from the sidelines, pretty much guarantees that they don't hear the whistle. by now, I figure the whole damn POINT is that they don't hear the whistle, run the play as if it counts, then have to go back and do it again. It's a lousy way to run a game, it's a bush league type of move, and the league should change the rule that makes it possible.

Turek

10-10-2007, 05:01 PM

Just keep repeating to yourselves until it sinks in -- there was only ONE last second FG attempt in the Cowboys-Bills game. The other one wasn't a legal play, appearances be damned.

No shit. We're all perfectly aware that only one kick officially happened. However, 22 players on the field, 70000 fans at the game, and countless TV viewers saw the kicker perform a very impressive and strenuous feat, only to be told he has to do it again because the coach on the sideline called a timeout at the last second for the express purpose of forcing him to perform the feat twice.

We get it. It's within the rules. It's a perfectly legal maneuver.

It's still assholish.

aliquot

10-10-2007, 05:13 PM

Turek and Cheesesteak, you're both assuming that it's loud during the kick. This will not always be the case, particularly (a) when it's the home team trying to get the last-second FG and the visiting coach trying to call the last-second TO, (b) it's a smaller venue (RCA dome), and (c) there are football-savvy fans who keep their mouths shut when their team is on offense (Indy again comes to mind). If Vinitaeri (sp) is trying to kick a game-winning field goal at home, should we allow this "assholish" maneuver, because in all likelihood everyone will be able to hear the side judge whistle the TO before the kick is made? But it should be forbidden in every other case? Should it be up to the fans as to whether the TO is audible and therefore counts? :rolleyes:

My God, by this logic, you should start a petition to kill the "free play" that a savvy QB gets when the defense jumps offsides. Make being offsides a dead ball foul. After all, how dare you play some football that might not count? How dare you take away an interception by accepting the offsides call instead, making it so the interception never happened? After all, it DID happen, and we can't possibly grasp pre-snap circumstances that would make it so the interception didn't count.

How would you guys react in this scenario? Suppose Folk's first kick had been blocked, but the TO gave the 'Boys a second chance, which Folk then banged through. Are you still up in arms about the "assholish" move of Jauron, demanding that the rule should be changed and that the blocked kick should count, or are you willing to say, "Eh, you play with fire and take a risk making the kicker kick twice. Sometimes it works, sometimes you get burned."

DiggitCamara

10-10-2007, 05:52 PM

I played the position in high school, and I have to be honest - if I'd thrown 5 picks and lost a fumble in a game, I'd probably still be legendary for the immense amount of choking I'd have done down the stretch. But Tony just came out and played football. Okay, I'm not extremely happy with 5 interceptions in a game. But, Troy Aikman did it.

What Troy didn't do, however, was have four 300-yard passing games in a season. Or have three 300-yard passing games in a row.

Nor did Staubach.

Nor any other Cowboy ever.

After an absolutely dismal opening, and of course the turnovers, Romo ended up 29/50 for 309 and 2 TDs, which is pretty amazing, particularly considering the Cowboys had to compete with the 12th and 13th men on the field. It must have been an incredibly heart-wrenching loss for Bills fans, but I'll take a W when I can get one.

(And I was almost as tickled to see Irvin and Jones go apeshit after that second field goal as I was that we won...good times. Irvin will be receiving his Hall of Fame ring next week at halftime in Texas Stadium.)
I've no beef with the assertion that Tony Romo's a good quarterback overall. But in this game? He lost the game, the only problem being: the Buffalo Bills wouldn't accept it!

I mean: on his last couple of drives he had open receivers 10 yards from him on practically every down! He wouldn't have to choke to miss them, he would have had to kick the passes! It was simply amazing to see the Bills do everything they could to help him win, particularly on the last couple of minutes.

Ellis Dee

10-10-2007, 08:04 PM

How would you guys react in this scenario? Suppose Folk's first kick had been blocked, but the TO gave the 'Boys a second chance, which Folk then banged through. Are you still up in arms about the "assholish" move of Jauron, demanding that the rule should be changed and that the blocked kick should count, or are you willing to say, "Eh, you play with fire and take a risk making the kicker kick twice. Sometimes it works, sometimes you get burned."Neither. My reaction would be "hey look, the pussy-move burned him; maybe now he'll be a man."

This double-kick business is nonsense. And it's painfully easy to change the rules to prevent it. "No sideline timeouts on FG/PAT kicks once the kicker is set." Period.

Don't complain about rules needing to be generalized, either, because there are tons of rules that aren't generalized. For example, did you know that you can't spike the ball unless you line up under center? If you try to spike from shotgun, or the holder tries to spike the ball on a botched long-snap, that's an intentional grounding penalty.

Chanteuse

10-10-2007, 08:36 PM

I'd prefer it to work like this:

Coach: Hey ref, keep an eye on me -- I'm going to call a timeout.
Ref: *Tweeeeeeeet*!! Timeout!
Coach: NO! I said was going to call a timeout! I just wanted to be a little bitch about it and do it one second before the snap!
Ref: TFB. You said "timeout", you got your timeout.

Now, this pains me, because I am a diehard Dallas fan.

*pauses a moment to suck it up*

I completely agree with you (that didn't hurt as much as I thought it would!) and think that this would be exquisite to witness! I just about peed myself laughing, imagining the look on a coach's face if this were to happen!

(Maybe as a Cowboys fan I'm kinda unusual, but I don't have any hate for the Giants, so long as we ain't losin' to 'em! But it's still a tad painful to agree with a Dallas-basher! ;) )

stolichnaya

10-11-2007, 12:49 AM

I mean: on his last couple of drives he had open receivers 10 yards from him on practically every down! He wouldn't have to choke to miss them, he would have had to kick the passes!

If he had tried to kick the passes, Jauron would have iced him.

kidchameleon

10-11-2007, 08:51 AM

I think its more assholish to the audience than anyone. The players and coaches are pros, they're used to that stuff, we have to swallow that emotion and wait while we watch another set of commercials or hear the announcers attempt to play up the moment. It's like taking the second coin flip instead of the first, just annoying.

Cheesesteak

10-11-2007, 09:32 AM

Turek and Cheesesteak, you're both assuming that it's loud during the kick. I'm not. The problem is that the TO is called at the last second to an official that is on the sidelines. The play takes less than 2 seconds to complete, there isn't enough time to communicate the TO from the sidelines to the players.
My God, by this logic, you should start a petition to kill the "free play" that a savvy QB gets when the defense jumps offsides. Make being offsides a dead ball foul. After all, how dare you play some football that might not count? How dare you take away an interception by accepting the offsides call instead, making it so the interception never happened? After all, it DID happen, and we can't possibly grasp pre-snap circumstances that would make it so the interception didn't count.In this case, since it's a penalty, the play DOES count, it's just that the offense has a choice, the result of the play or the penalty yards. In the icing situation, there is no choice, no result, it's a straight do over. Not to mention that a penalty is an unintentional mistake by a player and a last second TO is a deliberate, calculated act taken by the coach to disrupt play.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree because I see this new trend as being way too different from what I'm used to seeing, to be considered a normal tactic in the game. I think it's overly disruptive to the flow of the game, and doesn't add anything positive to the fan experience, and I hope the league adjusts the rules next year to get rid of it.

SCSimmons

10-11-2007, 10:19 PM

I think its more assholish to the audience than anyone. The players and coaches are pros, they're used to that stuff ...

Cowboys' head coach Wade Phillips, guesting on a sports-talk radio show this week, said it pissed him off too & he hoped the league made some kind of rule change this off-season to prevent it. So it ain't just us.

BlakeTyner

10-12-2007, 01:56 AM

Cowboys' head coach Wade Phillips, guesting on a sports-talk radio show this week, said it pissed him off too & he hoped the league made some kind of rule change this off-season to prevent it. So it ain't just us.

I'm as diehard a Cowboys fan as anybody else, but he *also* said that, while it remained legal, he'd do it, too.

(How's the new stadium looking?)

SCSimmons

11-20-2007, 07:27 AM

I'm as diehard a Cowboys fan as anybody else, but he *also* said that, while it remained legal, he'd do it, too.

(How's the new stadium looking?)

(Bump.)

Yup, Phillips tried it this week against the 'Skins, but screwed up the timing. :smack:

Shanahan did it last night against the Titans, and gave the kicker a re-do on a missed kick. :cool:

And the new stadium is looking ... enormous. (I live about a mile and a half from the site--it dominates the skyline. And you can see the damn thing from the DFW airport's south entrance, easily ten miles away. :eek: )