Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
  1. #1
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    By Jim Thomas
    ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
    Tuesday, Oct. 17 2006

    Coach Scott Linehan's even-keel approach has contributed to the Rams'
    early-season success, particularly following a 2005 season in which turmoil was
    the status quo around Rams Park.

    But even Linehan had a hard time keeping his cool in discussing the
    illegal-formation penalty against Seattle that did not result in a 10-second
    runoff at the end of Sunday's game.

    "An illegal formation (penalty), if everybody is set, is not one of the
    10-second runoff plays," Linehan said Monday. "It's a little confusing as to
    which ones are (subject to runoff), and which ones aren't."

    The NFL rule on the subject reads as follows:

    A team is not permitted to conserve time inside of one minute of either half by
    committing any of the following acts: fouls by either team that prevent the
    snap (i.e, false start, encroachment, etc.), intentional grounding, an illegal
    forward pass thrown from beyond the line of scrimmage with the intent to
    conserve time, throwing a backward pass out of bounds with the intent to
    conserve time, and any other intentional foul that causes the clock to stop.

    Of course, what constitutes an "intentional foul" becomes a matter of judgment
    by the officiating crew. For example, what would prevent a team from lining up
    in an illegal formation on purpose in an effort to stop the clock? If it were
    just one player, a yard or so behind the line, how would an official know if it
    were intentional or not?

    It is gray areas such as that which concern Linehan about the NFL rulebook.

    "We have kind of a running, updated rulebook in the NFL," Linehan said. "In
    college, you have a rulebook. But in the NFL, you have an amended rule book,
    where because of some play that's happened in the past, they adjust it because
    somebody jumps offsides on purpose to stop the clock.

    "I think the integrity of the 10-second runoff is in question here. Because the
    whole idea is that you can't have an illegal play of any kind without any
    timeouts while the clock's running to ensure that you get a chance to get a
    (field goal).

    "To be honest with you, if you really think it out, you could really save some
    time "" and I'm going to talk to the officials about this. If you have a long
    play now, what I would say is I think Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce should run up
    and snap the ball to each other.

    "Everybody stands still, it's an illegal formation. Snap the ball and clock it.
    ... "

    That drastic scenario obviously would fall in the category of "intentional
    fouls," and thus be subject to the runoff. But there are less drastic ways that
    could still have the desired effect of stopping the clock without a runoff.

    "It might come up once a year, but that would certainly be a tool," Linehan
    said.

    Linehan said his team plans to work on such a scenario.

    Because there was no 10-second runoff in Sunday's game against Seattle, the
    clock was stopped with 4 seconds to play after Seahawks quarterback Matt
    Hasselbeck spiked the ball. On the next play, Josh Brown kicked a 54-yard field
    goal to end the game, giving Seattle a 30-28 victory.

    After the game, Rams defensive end Leonard Little said he heard referee Ed
    Hochuli tell members of his officiating crew that there were two penalties on
    the play: a false start and an illegal formation. A false start would have
    resulted in a 10-second runoff, ending the game with the Rams up 28-27.

    "Don't tell me that," Linehan said. "The only foul that was explained to me was
    the illegal formation, and that it wasn't one of the 10-second runoff fouls.
    There was never any explanation that there were two fouls. Obviously, we would
    have taken the one that ran off the clock if that was the case."

    Mike Pereira, the NFL's vice president of officiating, could not be reached for
    comment Monday for clarification on if there was indeed a discussion among
    Hochuli's crew about false start and illegal formation penalties.


  2. #2
    UtterBlitz's Avatar
    UtterBlitz is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,439
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    I hope that Linehan is just making a point about putting Holt and Bruce in to snap the ball, because if we lose a game in the last 10 seconds over stretching a rule, I will be pissed.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Glenrothes, SCOTLAND
    Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    I am with Renee on this, I still feel ill over this loss.


  4. #4
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,653
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Quote Originally Posted by UtterBlitz View Post
    I hope that Linehan is just making a point about putting Holt and Bruce in to snap the ball, because if we lose a game in the last 10 seconds over stretching a rule, I will be pissed.
    He is just showing that the rule could favor a team, and used an extreme situation to illustrate it.
    BRUUUUUUUUUUUCE


  5. #5
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,616
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Its a joke to think that we lost this game because of the refs. I hate to repeat my prior posts, but seattle made more plays then we did and we couldnt hold them on defense, that wasnt the refs fault. End of story. did we get the call at the end? No. So what. Unless the refs dropped the ball out of curtis' hands, i really dont want to hear about it.

    The roughing penalty on hamlin against bulger was a joke. It was a huge break and we failed to capitalize. Calls went both ways in this game, it didnt make the difference.

    ramming speed to all

    general consel


  6. #6
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,238
    Rep Power
    108

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Its a joke to think that we lost this game because of the refs. I hate to repeat my prior posts, but seattle made more plays then we did and we couldnt hold them on defense, that wasnt the refs fault. End of story. did we get the call at the end? No. So what. Unless the refs dropped the ball out of curtis' hands, i really dont want to hear about it.

    The roughing penalty on hamlin against bulger was a joke. It was a huge break and we failed to capitalize. Calls went both ways in this game, it didnt make the difference.

    ramming speed to all

    general consel
    It's time to move on............NEXT ?

  7. #7
    sunflame is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    VA
    Age
    26
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    There are huge differences between call in the middle and the end of the game, if the coach thinks the call was unfair, then i do support his theory.

  8. #8
    RamFan_Til_I_Die's Avatar
    RamFan_Til_I_Die is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,152
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Jim Thomas did what most irresponsible reporters do. He took a bunch of Linehan quotes, arranged them out of order leaving out critical lines, added his own opinions, and turned it around to make it look like Linehan said something he did not say. Here is Linehan's full statement from the press conference:

    (On the officials ruling that an illegal formation penalty does not result in a 10-second clock runoff)

    ďItís correct. An illegal formation, if everybody is set, is not one of the 10-second runoff plays. Itís a little confusing as to which ones are and which ones arenít. We have a running, updated rulebook in the NFL. In college you have the rulebook, but in the NFL you have an amended rule book because they adjust it because of some play that has happened in the past, like when somebody jumps offsides on purpose to stop the clock. I think the integrity of the 10-second runoff is in question here. The whole idea is that you canít have an illegal play of any kind without any timeouts while the clockís running, to ensure the chance that you get a chance to get a kick. Iím sure thatís the integrity of the 10-second runoff. The problem with that is, this particular incident that has come up was never really one of the Ďfour or five scenarios,í where there has to be actually a procedure play, like a guy jumping offsides purpose. To be honest with you, if you really think it out, you could really save some time, and Iím going to talk to the officials about this. If you have a long play now, what I would say is that Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce should run up and snap the ball to each other. Everybody stands still, itís an illegal formation, thereís only one guy on the ball and one ineligible taking the snap. Snap the ball and clock it (because) it is only 5-yard penalty. I think that there is a case for that. You start to talk about a drastic scenario that could come up, but there are rules that have come up. Iím sure it wasnít designed that way, but it doesnít change, so weíre going to have to figure out a way to use that to our advantage at some point. The thing about it, and not to lament over a loss, is that it is the correct call. They explained it; it was a little confusing at the end whether it was a procedure (penalty). I didnít really know what the penalty was initially. I think the whole idea about that 10-second runoff is a little bit in question as to what penalties are okay and what penalties arenít. It might come up once a year, but that would certainly be a tool. I would think that the easiest thing would be to have the receivers that are 25 yards down the field, snap it to each other and everybody else stay put. You save approximately 10-15 seconds when you do that. Before they really stressed lining up in a legal formation (and) making sure everybodyís facing the line and seven are on the ball. We went through that drill quite often. I promise you theyíre going to have to figure out a way because thatís what weíre going to do. Weíll figure out a way to get that as one of the penalties that is a runoff, but it doesnít help us now.Ē


    He is saying it was the correct call given the current rules and NEVER said it lead to the Rams loss. I do really like how he is thinking about using it to his advantage though. I said yesterday that unless they fix it, people will start exploiting it. Glad to see Linehan is as smart as me.

  9. #9
    Dustin_W_Baldwin's Avatar
    Dustin_W_Baldwin is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Age
    35
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    It's over!!!

    Next!!!

    @ San Diego

  10. #10
    majorram's Avatar
    majorram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    London surrey
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,421
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    I have to agree I think its time to move on!! nothing is going to change


    steve:l
    "The breakfast Club"

  11. #11
    RamFan_Til_I_Die's Avatar
    RamFan_Til_I_Die is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,152
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Why do all you guys keep saying it's over and to move on? Think of something new to say or quit wasting board space. It's an interesting discussion on a weird rule and there are few opportunities to get to talk about it.

    Screw talking about whether or not it cost us the game, because 99% of us are in agreement it did not. Quit trolling with "get over it" or "move on". Are you guys on this board to have discussions or up your post count with one line pointless trolling? Let's give the rest of us that enjoy the intricacies of football and its rules a chance to have some discussion about it. I'd be talking about this in NFL chat if it happened in a non Rams game anyway, but since it happened during our game, we might as well discuss it here.

  12. #12
    RealRam's Avatar
    RealRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    8,404
    Rep Power
    68

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Calls went both ways in this game, it didnt make the difference. -- GC
    That has got to be the understatement of the game.

    T_I_D, good job in pointing out Thomas' arrangement of quoted lines by Coach Linehan. As a writer it is something he 'HAS' to do in order to produce a "new" article; twist it around a little here, stretch it some more over there and, voila! Something new to publish.

    Thus, we may still be upset by the call -- obviously because of the ultimate result -- but we shouldn't be as "puzzled" as the title of the article implies. No.

    I still believe that it is best (in an irony of a way) that the call was made as it was. I still think that Leonard Little's clear offside penalty, not flagged, would have creeated a much worse controversy had the Rams benefited from the 10-second runoff rule applied at the end of Sunday's game.

    Imagine the avalanche of protests from the Seahawks organization, coaches, players and, especially to this forum, from the enraged-with-good-reason Seattle fans.

    The premise that stands is that this is one of those games we lost because we failed to stop the Sawks last drive. Leonard Little admitted it and as much as it hurt to lose the way we did, so should the rest of our D and everyone else.

    Maybe the Rams were still much too excited with 1:44 left in the 4th Qtr to pay attention, defense wise, and do something more effective to stall Hasslebeck and Co. before allowing them to get in FG range.

    It's all relative now. We need to learn our lesson. :r

    It was just a painful loss, acutely painful because we had just made a sensational, superb play with that Torry Holt TD so late in the game.

    As TID posted, 99% of us agree the official's call didn't cost us the game.

    At least deep inside we don't believe it cost us the game, right?
    Last edited by RealRam; -10-17-2006 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Typo, TID quote corrected.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Glenrothes, SCOTLAND
    Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    not sure if I want to keep this going but

    From Greg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column on ESPN.COM

    Big Gamble That Worked No. 2: Trailing St. Louis 28-27, the Blue Men Group reached first-and-10 on the Rams' 32 with 17 seconds remaining. Their coaches gambled by sending Mack Strong up the middle, assuming the field goal was already within reach. Then Matt Hasselbeck spiked the ball to stop the clock, and on the disorganized play Seattle was called for not being properly lined up, moving the spot back to the St. Louis 36-yard line with four seconds to go. Had the call been a false start, 10 seconds would have run off the clock and the game would have ended. The replay showed both illegal formation and false start, but it was illegal formation the zebras called, and that penalty does not include a 10-second runoff. From the 36, Josh Brown hit a 54-yard field goal to win. Note about an ending more exciting than Seahawks fans would have cared for: With three minutes remaining, Seattle led 27-21 and had a third-and-4 on Les Mouflons' 11, St. Louis down to one timeout. Maurice Morris ran and crossed the first down marker; had he simply dropped to his knees, the game would have, for all intent and purpose, been over. But Morris tried to churn for an extra yard and fumbled. A moment later, Marc Bulger threw that highlight-reel 67-yard touchdown to Torry Holt, and the sweaty-palms finish was set in motion.


  14. #14
    Large_Ant's Avatar
    Large_Ant is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Age
    43
    Posts
    200
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    I'm glad to see the chronologically correct version of Linehan's words. It ups my respect for him. 'Til now, it seemed like he was complaining because he wasn't able to get a technicality to prevent a truly clutch football play (Brown's kick).

    To me, trying to use a techinicality to get a run off would be about as bad as saying that the Holt TD should have been called back because of a holding a facemask by Steven Jackson in the backfield three seconds after Bulger released the ball. True football purists don't want to win by getting the benefit of a call that had nothing to do with the game. Fact is, the Seahawks weren't trying to do anything on that play that would have given them some unfair benefit. The illegal formation wasn't used to give them an extra timeout. It was just Nate Burleson standing three feet out of place on a play that everyone knew was only going to be a spike anyway.

    Glad to read that Linehan isn't crying over not getting to end the game in such a cheesy way (and no, I'm not being sarcastic).
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Seattle Seahawks - 2004 & 2005 NFC West Champions

  15. #15
    RamWraith's Avatar
    RamWraith is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Minnesota
    Age
    44
    Posts
    8,230
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: Late rulings still have Rams upset and puzzled

    Sorry Dez....

    I started a whole new thread on your post. Thought it might be worth revisiting again and again and again...;-)

    More fuel please!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •