Poor NFL Officiating -- A Slightly Different Slant

Tad Perry · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

Joe Gibbs is a good guy.

And he's a stand up guy for taking responsibility for incurring an
unsportmanlike conduct penalty nearing the end of regulation in the
Washington Redskin's game yesterday when he called two consecutive time outs
to "ice" the other teams kicker. The kicker had already made one from 51
yards, but Gibbs had called a time-out at the last instant which negated the
kick. On the next play, when the opponents lined up to kick again, Gibbs
tried the same thing, but was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty
per NFL rules.

The Redskins then gave up 15 penalty yards and the kick when from range
where kickers are not that consistent, to an easy chip shot from 36 yards.

That's all fine, but I have a serious problem with this. If it's not legal
to call two time outs in a row like that, why is the officiating crew
allowing Gibbs to believe a time out is going to be called on his behalf,
rather than just politely informing him that it's against the rules to call
two time outs in a row in that situation?

My question is why is the NFL running sting operations against coaches as
part of it's officiating?

That's just plain stupid. The rules shouldn't be written such that officials
are catching coaches breaking arcane rules and then showing off to the fans
how they caught them.

They should just be written so that they get followed. Period. No funny
stuff.

tvp

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Tad Perry wrote:
> Joe Gibbs is a good guy.
>
> And he's a stand up guy for taking responsibility for incurring an
> unsportmanlike conduct penalty nearing the end of regulation in the
> Washington Redskin's game yesterday when he called two consecutive time outs
> to "ice" the other teams kicker. The kicker had already made one from 51
> yards, but Gibbs had called a time-out at the last instant which negated the
> kick. On the next play, when the opponents lined up to kick again, Gibbs
> tried the same thing, but was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty
> per NFL rules.
>
> The Redskins then gave up 15 penalty yards and the kick when from range
> where kickers are not that consistent, to an easy chip shot from 36 yards.
>
> That's all fine, but I have a serious problem with this. If it's not legal
> to call two time outs in a row like that, why is the officiating crew
> allowing Gibbs to believe a time out is going to be called on his behalf,
> rather than just politely informing him that it's against the rules to call
> two time outs in a row in that situation?

It's the same in basketball, if you try to call a time out when you have
none left (just ask Chris Webber).

My guess is, it's done the way it is, in case the official forgot about
the first time out in the heat of the moment, so the impetus is put upon
the coach to know he can't do that.

IOW, I don't think it's "poor officiating," but rather what they're
supposed to do. But I haven't read/heard whether or not they have the
option to "politely" tell him he can't do that.

In any case, Gibbs, as good of a guy as he may be, should know that rule
after all these years of coaching. I did.

Tad Perry · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

"Tarkus" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
> Tad Perry wrote:
> > Joe Gibbs is a good guy.
> >
> > And he's a stand up guy for taking responsibility for incurring an
> > unsportmanlike conduct penalty nearing the end of regulation in the
> > Washington Redskin's game yesterday when he called two consecutive time
outs
> > to "ice" the other teams kicker. The kicker had already made one from 51
> > yards, but Gibbs had called a time-out at the last instant which negated
the
> > kick. On the next play, when the opponents lined up to kick again, Gibbs
> > tried the same thing, but was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct
penalty
> > per NFL rules.
> >
> > The Redskins then gave up 15 penalty yards and the kick when from range
> > where kickers are not that consistent, to an easy chip shot from 36
yards.
> >
> > That's all fine, but I have a serious problem with this. If it's not
legal
> > to call two time outs in a row like that, why is the officiating crew
> > allowing Gibbs to believe a time out is going to be called on his
behalf,
> > rather than just politely informing him that it's against the rules to
call
> > two time outs in a row in that situation?
>
> It's the same in basketball, if you try to call a time out when you have
> none left (just ask Chris Webber).
>
> My guess is, it's done the way it is, in case the official forgot about
> the first time out in the heat of the moment, so the impetus is put upon
> the coach to know he can't do that.
>
> IOW, I don't think it's "poor officiating," but rather what they're
> supposed to do. But I haven't read/heard whether or not they have the
> option to "politely" tell him he can't do that.
>
> In any case, Gibbs, as good of a guy as he may be, should know that rule
> after all these years of coaching. I did.

I'm don't particularly disagree with anything you say, but I'm back to the
part you cut out: namely, that the rules should be written so that they are
followed. I mean, part of what was really ridiculous about this is staring
us all in the face:

The coach is NOT allowed to ice the kicker twice.
The refs know this and yet ICE THE KICKER A SECOND TIME and then penalize
the coach for doing it when they had a chance to make sure it wouldn't
happen by just refusing to call the timeout in the first place.

Now, how in the heck is that NOT a stupid practice?

tvp

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Tad Perry wrote:
> "Tarkus" wrote in message
> @corp.supernews.com...
>> Tad Perry wrote:
>>> Joe Gibbs is a good guy.
>>>
>>> And he's a stand up guy for taking responsibility for incurring an
>>> unsportmanlike conduct penalty nearing the end of regulation in the
>>> Washington Redskin's game yesterday when he called two consecutive time
> outs
>>> to "ice" the other teams kicker. The kicker had already made one from 51
>>> yards, but Gibbs had called a time-out at the last instant which negated
> the
>>> kick. On the next play, when the opponents lined up to kick again, Gibbs
>>> tried the same thing, but was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct
> penalty
>>> per NFL rules.
>>>
>>> The Redskins then gave up 15 penalty yards and the kick when from range
>>> where kickers are not that consistent, to an easy chip shot from 36
> yards.
>>> That's all fine, but I have a serious problem with this. If it's not
> legal
>>> to call two time outs in a row like that, why is the officiating crew
>>> allowing Gibbs to believe a time out is going to be called on his
> behalf,
>>> rather than just politely informing him that it's against the rules to
> call
>>> two time outs in a row in that situation?
>> It's the same in basketball, if you try to call a time out when you have
>> none left (just ask Chris Webber).
>>
>> My guess is, it's done the way it is, in case the official forgot about
>> the first time out in the heat of the moment, so the impetus is put upon
>> the coach to know he can't do that.
>>
>> IOW, I don't think it's "poor officiating," but rather what they're
>> supposed to do. But I haven't read/heard whether or not they have the
>> option to "politely" tell him he can't do that.
>>
>> In any case, Gibbs, as good of a guy as he may be, should know that rule
>> after all these years of coaching. I did.
>
> I'm don't particularly disagree with anything you say, but I'm back to the
> part you cut out: namely, that the rules should be written so that they are
> followed. I mean, part of what was really ridiculous about this is staring
> us all in the face:
>
> The coach is NOT allowed to ice the kicker twice.
> The refs know this and yet ICE THE KICKER A SECOND TIME and then penalize
> the coach for doing it when they had a chance to make sure it wouldn't
> happen by just refusing to call the timeout in the first place.
>
> Now, how in the heck is that NOT a stupid practice?

I actually did address that above, when I said it's probably because the
ref, in the heat of the moment, might not be thinking about having a
polite conversation, and unwittingly grant the second, illegal timeout,
because he had forgotten momentarily about the first one.

How's that for a run-on sentence? Wink

This puts the onus on the coach to know and follow a simple rule.

Tad Perry · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

"Tarkus" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
> Tad Perry wrote:
> > "Tarkus" wrote in message
> > @corp.supernews.com...
> >> Tad Perry wrote:
> >>> Joe Gibbs is a good guy.
> >>>
> >>> And he's a stand up guy for taking responsibility for incurring an
> >>> unsportmanlike conduct penalty nearing the end of regulation in the
> >>> Washington Redskin's game yesterday when he called two consecutive
time
> > outs
> >>> to "ice" the other teams kicker. The kicker had already made one from
51
> >>> yards, but Gibbs had called a time-out at the last instant which
negated
> > the
> >>> kick. On the next play, when the opponents lined up to kick again,
Gibbs
> >>> tried the same thing, but was called for an unsportsmanlike conduct
> > penalty
> >>> per NFL rules.
> >>>
> >>> The Redskins then gave up 15 penalty yards and the kick when from
range
> >>> where kickers are not that consistent, to an easy chip shot from 36
> > yards.
> >>> That's all fine, but I have a serious problem with this. If it's not
> > legal
> >>> to call two time outs in a row like that, why is the officiating crew
> >>> allowing Gibbs to believe a time out is going to be called on his
> > behalf,
> >>> rather than just politely informing him that it's against the rules to
> > call
> >>> two time outs in a row in that situation?
> >> It's the same in basketball, if you try to call a time out when you
have
> >> none left (just ask Chris Webber).
> >>
> >> My guess is, it's done the way it is, in case the official forgot about
> >> the first time out in the heat of the moment, so the impetus is put
upon
> >> the coach to know he can't do that.
> >>
> >> IOW, I don't think it's "poor officiating," but rather what they're
> >> supposed to do. But I haven't read/heard whether or not they have the
> >> option to "politely" tell him he can't do that.
> >>
> >> In any case, Gibbs, as good of a guy as he may be, should know that
rule
> >> after all these years of coaching. I did.
> >
> > I'm don't particularly disagree with anything you say, but I'm back to
the
> > part you cut out: namely, that the rules should be written so that they
are
> > followed. I mean, part of what was really ridiculous about this is
staring
> > us all in the face:
> >
> > The coach is NOT allowed to ice the kicker twice.
> > The refs know this and yet ICE THE KICKER A SECOND TIME and then
penalize
> > the coach for doing it when they had a chance to make sure it wouldn't
> > happen by just refusing to call the timeout in the first place.
> >
> > Now, how in the heck is that NOT a stupid practice?
>
> I actually did address that above, when I said it's probably because the
> ref, in the heat of the moment, might not be thinking about having a
> polite conversation, and unwittingly grant the second, illegal timeout,
> because he had forgotten momentarily about the first one.
>
> How's that for a run-on sentence? Wink

>
> This puts the onus on the coach to know and follow a simple rule.

Okay, let's say I grant you all of that and agree. Wink

Here's one I bet you can't answer: Why not just throw the flag at him when
he asks for the second timeout? Why ice the kicker again, acting like you're
calling a timeout, only to announce that there was unsportsmanlike conduct?

The league first aids and abets the unsportsmanlike conduct and then
punishes it.

If the point is to not ice kickers twice in a row, the league shouldn't let
it happen that a kicker gets iced twice in a row.

tvp

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Tad Perry wrote:
> Here's one I bet you can't answer: Why not just throw the flag at him when
> he asks for the second timeout? Why ice the kicker again, acting like you're
> calling a timeout, only to announce that there was unsportsmanlike conduct?

You lose the bet. Any kicker in the NFL will gladly be "iced" to kick
15 yards closer. In fact, they all say they like those timeouts,
because it gives them more opportunity to prepare. Whether or not you
think that's bullshit, certainly kicking a 35 yard FG vs. a 50 yard FG
is always preferable.

> The league first aids and abets the unsportsmanlike conduct and then
> punishes it.
>
> If the point is to not ice kickers twice in a row, the league shouldn't let
> it happen that a kicker gets iced twice in a row.

Except I don't believe that's the point. The point is you can't call
two timeouts in a row. Period.

But even if you're right, again, any kicker would gladly be "iced" if it
meant getting 15 yards closer to the goalposts.

Tad Perry · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

"Tarkus" wrote in message@corp.supernews.com...
> Tad Perry wrote:
> > Here's one I bet you can't answer: Why not just throw the flag at him
when
> > he asks for the second timeout? Why ice the kicker again, acting like
you're
> > calling a timeout, only to announce that there was unsportsmanlike
conduct?
>
> You lose the bet. Any kicker in the NFL will gladly be "iced" to kick
> 15 yards closer. In fact, they all say they like those timeouts,
> because it gives them more opportunity to prepare. Whether or not you
> think that's bullshit, certainly kicking a 35 yard FG vs. a 50 yard FG
> is always preferable.
>
> > The league first aids and abets the unsportsmanlike conduct and then
> > punishes it.
> >
> > If the point is to not ice kickers twice in a row, the league shouldn't
let
> > it happen that a kicker gets iced twice in a row.
>
> Except I don't believe that's the point. The point is you can't call
> two timeouts in a row. Period.
>
> But even if you're right, again, any kicker would gladly be "iced" if it
> meant getting 15 yards closer to the goalposts.

Well, here we were getting along, when you went and became totally
illogical.

I said: "Okay, let's say I agree with everything you've said." I said: "Why
not throw the flag at him at the point the coach calls for the second
timeout?"

Yet you ignored all that and started making no sense. The kicker WILL get
his 15 yards. The question I said you couldn't answer and you didn't: Why
run a play that is totally unecessary? One in which he might even get hurt?

I say you don't have to run the play.

You say they don't mind because they'll get 15 yards.

Pretty dumb because they get the 15 yards my way, too.

The infraction occurred when the coach asked for the second timeout.

It did not occur at the next snap of the ball.

tvp

Tarkus · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Tad Perry wrote:
> I said: "Okay, let's say I agree with everything you've said." I said: "Why
> not throw the flag at him at the point the coach calls for the second
> timeout?"
>
> Yet you ignored all that and started making no sense. The kicker WILL get
> his 15 yards. The question I said you couldn't answer and you didn't: Why
> run a play that is totally unecessary? One in which he might even get hurt?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention.

I didn't see the game, and unless it was just one of those situations
where the play occurred because they didn't hear the whistle in time, I
completely agree with you.