Carroll: Onside kick wasn't called, ball was miss-hit

[FanSince82]

Bullshit

 

[Hasselbeck]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/dannyoneil/status/643171751439007744[/tweet]

 

[Rocket]

This I s a flat out lie.

I was pondering this myself, but the idea flat out gives me the willies.
For one, it throws the kicker under the bus, which is Effed Up if true.

OTOH, it was a stupid call.

 

[DavidSeven]

I have a hard time believing that, but even if it was a called squib, I hate the call.

 

[brimsalabim]

Apparently the call was for a squib kick that would be chipped over the front line for an attempted recovery. So Pete's defense is that he actually called a DIFFERENT bad play.

Yep.

 

[JustTheTip]

Apparently the call was for a squib kick that would be chipped over the front line for an attempted recovery. So Pete's defense is that he actually called a DIFFERENT bad play.

This seems likely. And yes bad play either way.

 

[joeseahawks]

Haushka (and Pete) should have been invited to Hawaii to clear his mind with the other guys ... :sarcasm_off:
I have the feeling, this team (including the coaches) still hasn't recover from the SB loss.

 

[bryantology79]

Haushka (and Pete) should have been invited to Hawaii to clear his mind with the other guys ... :sarcasm_off:

and pushed bevell off the cliff...together

agreed

 

[Rob12]

lol the F? Looked like an onside all the way. Didn't know PC would try and BS his way out of that.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Flat out lying.

This was an aggressive call. If they intended to keep it away from Austin they could boot it through the end zone.
IMO PC didn't feel we could rely on our defense or even the new ST pickups to make stops. Game was won if we played good defense in the final moments.

 

[VivaEfrenHerrera]

Does anyone know the rule on possessions and OT for certain, when it comes to onside kicks? I.E., would the successful onside kick "eat up" the receiving team's mandatory possession? Because if you can't win it on a FG, the call makes even less sense. (And hence makes the explanation believable. )

They did squib one after that first TD, IIRC -- it almost went out of bounds.

 

[greenblue_eye's2]

Whatever happened with that so called kick, it was f-ed up?! But more concerning is the 6 sacks of Wilson, he won't last all season long unless the O-Line is shored up, imvho.

 

[HawkFan72]

If he meant to kick it onsides, then Hauschka kicked it way too far. On an onside kick, you want to kick it 10 yards so your guys can get it just past where they are allowed to touch the ball. That ball was kicked 15+ yards in the air. Even if it was supposed to be onsides, it was kicked way too far. If Hauschka had kicked it 10 yards, the Seahawks actually had a good chance to recover as the Rams were playing pretty far back.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Does anyone know the rule on possessions and OT for certain, when it comes to onside kicks? I.E., would the successful onside kick "eat up" the receiving team's mandatory possession? Because if you can't win it on a FG, the call makes even less sense. (And hence makes the explanation believable. )

They did squib one after that first TD, IIRC -- it almost went out of bounds.

I believe it counts as a possession switch, so the team would have only needed a FG to win

 

[harryjohnson]

Sorry Pete. You can't polish a turd.

 

[12thMan]

If he meant to kick it onsides, then Hauschka kicked it way too far. On an onside kick, you want to kick it 10 yards so your guys can get it just past where they are allowed to touch the ball. That ball was kicked 15+ yards in the air. Even if it was supposed to be onsides, it was kicked way too far. If Hauschka had kicked it 10 yards, the Seahawks actually had a good chance to recover as the Rams were playing pretty far back.

That was my thought when they kept on reviewing the play.
I still don't like the call, but that was just one of many for me.

 

[johnnyfever]

http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/09/1 ... ms-recover

Haushka clearly side footed this kick soft and to the right. Why he didn't kick a tandard where the ball touches the ground first confuses me as this gives the reciever the ability to fair catch. He might have actually kicked it too far and it was meant to be caught after ten yards by us, but traveled 15. He is a soccer player and that kick definitely was not intended to travel more than 15 yards. Link is above, no question.

 

[seahawkfreak]

I've never seen a kicker whiff a kickoff, not even in high school ( intentional onsides excluded). Not that it hasn't happened but in the pros? That is definitely a first in 29 yrs for me.

 

[12thMan]

http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/09/13/seahawks-attempt-onside-kick-open-ot-rams-recover

Haushka clearly side footed this kick soft and to the right. Why he didn't kick a tandard where the ball touches the ground first confuses me as this gives the reciever the ability to fair catch. He might have actually kicked it too far and it was meant to be caught after ten yards by us, but traveled 15. He is a soccer player and that kick definitely was not intended to travel more than 15 yards. Link is above, no question.

It would make sense if Haushcka was trying to 'pooch' it over the first line...he looked as if he got under it TOO much.
No matter...bad call.

 

[jake206]