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.
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Turek]
…stopping the play in a way that the play is carried out anyway.
[/QUOTE]
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.)
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?
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
Same as with Folk’s first FG, or Janikowski’s first FG in Denver a few weeks ago, etc. They didn’t happen.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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 © 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.”
[QUOTE=BlakeTyner]
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.)
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
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.”
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Hal Briston]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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! 
)
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
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!
[/QUOTE]
If he had tried to kick the passes, Jauron would have iced him.
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.
[QUOTE=aliquot]
Turek and Cheesesteak, you’re both assuming that it’s loud during the kick.
[/quote]
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.
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.