View Full Version : Can You Believe It??
Uncle Buck
10-08-2007, 11:05 PM
Wow! Say what you want about Shanny, but the Bills went for the Shanny effect!
'Cept, this time it backfired against the Cowboys. Bills' coach calls for the time out, a split second before the winning 53-yard field goal is kicked, and then...The Cowboys' kicker does it again!
Man, talk about a copycat league! We pull it off against the Raiders, the Raiders turn around and pull out the same trick against (forgot who they played), and The Bills' head coach tries it against Dallas.
Hey, but the "Shanny Effect" is now two out of three in success rate--so far, mucho better odds than a successful onside kick! :D
Wow! Say what you want about Shanny, but the Bills went for the Shanny effect!
'Cept, this time it backfired against the Cowboys. Bills' coach calls for the time out, a split second before the winning 53-yard field goal is kicked, and then...The Cowboys' kicker does it again!
Man, talk about a copycat league! We pull it off against the Raiders, the Raiders turn around and pull out the same trick against (forgot who they played), and The Bills' head coach tries it against Dallas.
Hey, but the "Shanny Effect" is now two out of three in success rate--so far, mucho better odds than a successful onside kick! :D
It is funny it takes some young kickers to do it auto matic... auburn nailed it after florida a couple weeks ago too!
they got the onside and won the game.
Cleveland Rocks
10-09-2007, 11:44 PM
the Raiders turn around and pull out the same trick against (forgot who they played
The Browns
It is a loophole that needs closing. Referees have no prior knowledge to the exact moment that the snapper will snap the ball to the holder. It is a guessing game - if a coach wants to "Ice The Kicker" he should call the timeout during the alloted time and not leave it to a ref (or even himself) to call it when he "thinks" they will snap the ball.
The Browns
It is a loophole that needs closing. Referees have no prior knowledge to the exact moment that the snapper will snap the ball to the holder. It is a guessing game - if a coach wants to "Ice The Kicker" he should call the timeout during the alloted time and not leave it to a ref (or even himself) to call it when he "thinks" they will snap the ball.
It won't be changed. It is perfectly within your rights to call a TO any time prior to the ball being snapped.
If it is not, then it will be a detriment to players on both sides of the ball. Most QBs get up to the line and read the defense and make audibles. If the play doesn't look right, what do QBs/coaches do? They call a TO. Same thing for defenses. If you have too many or not enough players on the field, what do coaches/players do? They call a TO.
If you don't like it...get a clutch kicker. This type of play can easily backfire on a coach. Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. :rolleyes:
Medford Bronco
10-10-2007, 08:24 AM
It won't be changed. It is perfectly within your rights to call a TO any time prior to the ball being snapped.
If it is not, then it will be a detriment to players on both sides of the ball. Most QBs get up to the line and read the defense and make audibles. If the play doesn't look right, what do QBs/coaches do? They call a TO. Same thing for defenses. If you have too many or not enough players on the field, what do coaches/players do? They call a TO.
If you don't like it...get a clutch kicker. This type of play can easily backfire on a coach. Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is all about. :rolleyes:
I agree LDB, this has been going on for a long long time
whats the big deal
Kapaibro
10-10-2007, 09:37 AM
Wait. So Shanny was cheating, and everyone else is just playing along with the rules?
Yep, the Raiders fans were calling the zone-blocking rushing attack that Denver does as illegal ... until they implemented it themselves. Just like the last second timeout to ice the kicker. It's cheating ... until your team does the same thing. :D
I agree LDB, this has been going on for a long long time
whats the big deal
the Raiders beat the Browns....thats the big deal.
Cleveland Rocks
10-10-2007, 10:15 PM
the Raiders beat the Browns....thats the big deal.
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
Uncle Buck
10-10-2007, 10:33 PM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
CR, I’m not proud of the fact that we only won that game as a result of Mike’s “Shananigan,” but it was technically not cheating. If the NFL commisioner thinks this way, wouldn’t he just amend the dang rules?
Broncos Mtnman
10-11-2007, 01:00 AM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
Sours grapes don't taste so good, do they?
Hey, it could have backfired on Shanny. The Raiders could have missed the first one and made the second one.
It's in the rules. Just because it cost your team a win doesn't mean it's cheating, or being unsportsmanlike.
Timeouts, in EVERY sport, are for the benefit of the teams to use any way they see fit.
Baseball calls timeout to allow a pitcher in the bullpen to get a few more warmup tosses.
Basketball calls timeouts to ice the player at the free throw line.
Football calls timeouts to pressure the field goal kicker.
Get over it CB. The Browns lost within the rules.
And Shanny is a FREAKIN' genius!!
:beer:
sneakers
10-11-2007, 06:11 AM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
I understand what your saying...and I think it is annoying to watch (except when it is your team). Icing the kicker is annoying too! If Janakowski would have made the field goal and Shanny's plan didn't work, would we be seeing this happen all the time?
Lorcust
10-11-2007, 08:24 AM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
That's the problem. There is no bending of the rules.
It's calling a timeout before the ball is snapped, how close it is to being snapped is pretty irrelevant, the point is, it's technically called before the snap.
Ergo.... legal. Love it or hate it, thats how it is.
Medford Bronco
10-11-2007, 09:55 AM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
Cheaters is way too strong of a word Charlie but you can have your opinon.
Just tell Kellen Winslow to hold the ball so he does not cost me again :tsk::laugh:
I agree LDB, this has been going on for a long long time
whats the big deal
I just don't like the fact the head coach is calling a timeout knowing players on both sides of the ball probably won't hear the whistle and will continue with the play anyway.
What if someone got hurt on this "non-play?" What if someone's career ended on this non-play?
That's what concerns me. I'd hate to see someone get hurt on a play the HC knows will be blown dead yet the players will play through anyway.
broncos9697
10-11-2007, 02:23 PM
No, the way in which the Broncos beat the Raiders and the way in which the Raiders beat the Browns is the "big deal" it is a loophole that needs closing. I have no problem with "icing the kicker" my problem is with people calling timeouts just as the ball is snapped. That is my problem. It is poor sportsmanship. It is not playing by the rules. It is bending the rules. That is not right. Rules are meant to be FOLLOWED not bent or broken. FOLLOWED and no omac, it is not "icing the kicker" it is far beyond "icing the kicker" I have watched football for a long time and "icing the kicker" was NEVER done in that way. It is not done in that way nor should it be done in that way. Every team that bends the rules to do this is unethical. They are cheaters.
playing by the rules..
ok show me in the rule book where it says that is against the rules in the nfl..it does not so its not called breaking the rules at all......fair game for any team..
broncosfanscott
10-11-2007, 03:53 PM
This timeout is totally within the rules and leave it to Shanahan to be the first one to exploit this loophole. Now that everyone realizes that you can do that, they do that same thing. This isn't cheating and for those who thinks so is kidding themselves and as broncos9697 says, show me where the rule book states that this is cheating.
Medford Bronco
10-11-2007, 03:58 PM
This timeout is totally within the rules and leave it to Shanahan to be the first one to exploit this loophole. Now that everyone realizes that you can do that, they do that same thing. This isn't cheating and for those who thinks so is kidding themselves and as broncos9697 says, show me where the rule book states that this is cheating.
Actually I remember a playoff game where the Titans 2003? maybe :confused:
kicker I think Nedney missed a FG and but Pitt had called a Timeout.
Then he missed again and Pitt ran into him and on the third try he made it. Boy was he lucky :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Release Candidate 2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.