Too many men on the field penalty on the Seahawks

seahawks08

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,197
Reaction score
87
I have noticed this as a common penalty the Seahawks get called for often. Or, Carroll has to burn a time out to set the right people on the field.

This is something I have been thinking about lately. Why can't we clean this up and play a perfect game from a personnel grouping point of view? When you burn a timeout, I feel we are putting ourselves in a disadvantage which we can easily avoid it with a separation in the preparation kind of practice.

It also gives me a sense that some of the players are confused about the play or the assignments, if this happens often, where we can give up a huge play just by being confused about it.

I would love the coaches to emphasize this, as this is fundamental to understanding what are the assignments for a given play. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
I love how the announcers were freaking out about how the refs bailed us out.

Carroll was frantically calling time out, but you could see on TV that a guy was running full speed to get off the field. The ball had not been snapped yet.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken on this, but they won't get a penalty until the ball is snapped, so if the guy gets off the field, it's a non issue. Everyone keeps acting like the refs gave us the game on this, yet the penalty hadn't even occurred yet.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
Hawks46":2dl4noej said:
I love how the announcers were freaking out about how the refs bailed us out.

Carroll was frantically calling time out, but you could see on TV that a guy was running full speed to get off the field. The ball had not been snapped yet.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken on this, but they won't get a penalty until the ball is snapped, so if the guy gets off the field, it's a non issue. Everyone keeps acting like the refs gave us the game on this, yet the penalty hadn't even occurred yet.

I think the statement was that Seattle can't have two consecutive time outs, which, if true would make them correct.

Seems like I've seen teams use back to back timeouts to ice kickers. No?
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Laloosh":3uyklcdf said:
Hawks46":3uyklcdf said:
I love how the announcers were freaking out about how the refs bailed us out.

Carroll was frantically calling time out, but you could see on TV that a guy was running full speed to get off the field. The ball had not been snapped yet.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken on this, but they won't get a penalty until the ball is snapped, so if the guy gets off the field, it's a non issue. Everyone keeps acting like the refs gave us the game on this, yet the penalty hadn't even occurred yet.

I think the statement was that Seattle can't have two consecutive time outs, which, if true would make them correct.

Seems like I've seen teams use back to back timeouts to ice kickers. No?
I'm not sure they can do that anymore.

Edit: well according to that link I'm wrong. I could have swore they changed the rule, guess I was wrong.
 

drdiags

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
10,682
Reaction score
1
Location
Kent, Washington
I read that rule on consecutive time-outs as there can be 2 consecutive time-outs but not by the same team and which ever team calls the second time-out only gets a 40-sec one.
 

Hasselbeck

New member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
11,397
Reaction score
4
Hawks46":2mlkh9r5 said:
I love how the announcers were freaking out about how the refs bailed us out.

Carroll was frantically calling time out, but you could see on TV that a guy was running full speed to get off the field. The ball had not been snapped yet.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken on this, but they won't get a penalty until the ball is snapped, so if the guy gets off the field, it's a non issue. Everyone keeps acting like the refs gave us the game on this, yet the penalty hadn't even occurred yet.

... they did bail us out.

Team should have been flagged for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for calling 2 timeouts in a row.

And the guy running off the field wasn't going to make it .. hence the frantic TO.
 

seahawkfreak

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
5,447
Reaction score
0
Location
Aiken , SC
Thought the link was pretty credible. Been seeing a lot of media saying otherwise without any sources.
 

Mick063

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
1,405
Cowboy fans can't stop moaning about this.

I think it balances out the fumble that wasn't called on McFadden.
 

nanomoz

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
1,409
Location
UT
It could be worded a little more resolutely, not everyone seems to be absorb the "by opposing teams" part of that rule.

Cowboys fan whining is warranted in this instance. God, I hate saying that. I'm agreeing with the scourge of the earth.
 

BraveHeartFan

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Mick063":35o6ll5f said:
Cowboy fans can't stop moaning about this.

I think it balances out the fumble that wasn't called on McFadden.

Just like every other fan base, including the Seahawks fans, when calls don't go their way in a game they lose.

I've been here after losses and seen the same complaints about refs and how they screwed up.
 

Laloosh

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
8,688
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
nanomoz":8ww92vzb said:
It could be worded a little more resolutely, not everyone seems to be absorb the "by opposing teams" part of that rule.

Cowboys fan whining is warranted in this instance. God, I hate saying that. I'm agreeing with the scourge of the earth.

Link is not working for me any longer. You're saying that it states a team cannot call consecutive timeouts?
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Here's the rule:

Rule 4, Section 5, Item 3 of the league rulebook prohibits consecutive timeouts within the same dead ball period for the same team. Per official rules, the refs are instructed to ignore the timeout request and allow play to continue. That's not what happened, though, with an official stopping the clock to inform Carroll that he couldn't call consecutive timeouts.

So why weren't the Seahawks flagged? According to Rule 4, Section 5, Item 4, a penalty would only be triggered if officials viewed the second timeout as an attempt to "freeze" the kicker, something Carroll wasn't trying to do.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
BraveHeartFan":7utbsvox said:
Mick063":7utbsvox said:
Cowboy fans can't stop moaning about this.

I think it balances out the fumble that wasn't called on McFadden.

Just like every other fan base, including the Seahawks fans, when calls don't go their way in a game they lose.

I've been here after losses and seen the same complaints about refs and how they screwed up.

But this wasn't a screw up.

Seattle "got away with one" in the sense that the application of the rule allowed them to not get flagged for either penalty. Still, poor by the coaching staff.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
Laloosh":3929xls1 said:
nanomoz":3929xls1 said:
It could be worded a little more resolutely, not everyone seems to be absorb the "by opposing teams" part of that rule.

Cowboys fan whining is warranted in this instance. God, I hate saying that. I'm agreeing with the scourge of the earth.

Link is not working for me any longer. You're saying that it states a team cannot call consecutive timeouts?


Section 5 Item 3 here:

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/pu ... Timing.pdf

The refs either should have penalized Carroll or ignored him (the refs almost always just ignore coaching gaffes that would lead to penalties) and thrown the flag when the ball was snapped rather than giving Carroll a timeout he couldn't use.
 

Popeyejones

Active member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
5,525
Reaction score
0
FlyHawksFly":110gwauv said:
Uncle Si":110gwauv said:
Here's the rule:

Rule 4, Section 5, Item 3 of the league rulebook prohibits consecutive timeouts within the same dead ball period for the same team. Per official rules, the refs are instructed to ignore the timeout request and allow play to continue. That's not what happened, though, with an official stopping the clock to inform Carroll that he couldn't call consecutive timeouts.

So why weren't the Seahawks flagged? According to Rule 4, Section 5, Item 4, a penalty would only be triggered if officials viewed the second timeout as an attempt to "freeze" the kicker, something Carroll wasn't trying to do.

Item 4 is completely irrelevant to any of this.

The issue is that the refs totally blew it by whistling the play dead in response to Carroll trying to get a timeout he couldn't use, thereby stopping the Cowboys from snapping the ball and getting the 12th man flag.

That the refs stopped the clock to inform Pete Carroll he couldn't stop the clock is just preposterous. They messed up. It happens.
 

fenderbender123

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
12,347
Reaction score
2,512
Likely didn't change the outcome of the game. Dallas couldn't get the ball into the endzone all day so there's no reason to think they would have made it even with a first down.

It's also unknown whether or not Dallas would have snapped the ball in time to get that penalty.

There's no penalty because it wasn't an attempt to ice the kicker. It was a timeout to be safe with the personnel and avoid a penalty.

The referee should have ignored Carroll's timeout request, but even if he didn't the Seattle player could have gotten off the field in time anyway.
 
Top