Saints player goes out of bounds, but clock continues to run

[scutterhawk]

In a league where the difference between winning and losing is razor thin, these types of mistakes are unacceptable as they can and do completely impact the outcome of a game.

Anyone think our chances of winning don't go exponentially up if we have that time back?

This doesnt even touch on the free points the refs gave NO on phantom calls.

This is why the "quit whining about the refs" crowd on here bothers me.

I get the notion behind blaming team play first and foremost. But to ignore the impact that incompetency has on a game is burying your head in the sand.

There is no reason this 9 billion dollar industry can't be better officiated. None.

I don't give a crippled rats butt about the jokers that parrot the "Quit Whining About The Ref's", just as, I don't care about the other fans that are okay with corruption in sports.
There have been a lot of people that have gone to jail for the fixing of games & prize-fights.
These Referees weren't even trying to pretend that they didn't have their thumbs on the scales....Pretty disheartening.
There's no good excuse for corruption, this is why the NFL ended the Referee strike a few years back; they didn't like not having control of the games.
The temporary Ref$ weren't $haping game$ for viewer$hip..... The blokes that were covering bets in Nevada were losing their a$$e$.

 

[HawkGA]

In a league where the difference between winning and losing is razor thin, these types of mistakes are unacceptable as they can and do completely impact the outcome of a game.

Anyone think our chances of winning don't go exponentially up if we have that time back?

In this case, no.

There was plenty of time on the clock even with no timeouts (1:50).

In my opinion, the biggest contributors were the following:

1. Seattle's penchant for trying to get into 2nd/3rd and manageable.

Seattle always seems to be driven to get under 10 yards to go on second and third downs. They are too formulaic in their approach and do not account for circumstance where they should deviate from this approach. It's simply awful situational execution.

Here are the first plays of 3 series of downs in that final drive that doomed us:

1. 1st and 10 (1:50). Russell scrambles for 5 yards. Costs us :22 seconds which is about 3-5 pass attempts
2. 1st and 10 (1:01). Baldwin for 4 yards. Costs us 24 seconds to next snap. Another 3-5
3. 2nd and 10 16) After spike to stop clock, Pass to Prosise for 8 yards. Costs :14 seconds.


The short curl pass to Baldwin for minimal yardage was the biggest factor in the lack of time and should never have been attempted.

In that situation, you have to get out of bounds, or make chunk yardage. Incompletions are better than 4 yard advances. Wilson would have been better served to dump a pass at his receivers' feet and took his chances on another play.

2. Taking what the defense gives you

In 1:50 we got 6 plays off (if you omit spiking the ball). That's just pathetic awareness plain and simple. In that scenario you have one, maybe two, opportunities over the middle (and should be for chunk yardage). Seattle took 5 plays in the field of play. That's just critically awful decision making on Wilson's part.

It really has no bearing on what Bevell called. Ultimately the decisions and the clock management fall on Wilson exclusively. In this case, he situationally had to understand what he could get inbounds and what he couldn't. If a play isn't there, you dump it to the ground and you dial up another play. They are playing prevent, so getting 10-15 yards is far easier. But you have to get big yards and you really can't indulge in run after catch type of options.

It may be easier for us to just blame someone else for our problem. But this was a case of serious misplays given the circumstance. We made errors that we should not have made -- and did so repeatedly on that drive. Time and happenstance will tell if we commit the same decision making gaffes in future games.

The problem with this thinking is that you are basically putting it on one team to be considerably more perfect than the other team. Yes, Seattle could have and should have made better plays to win the game. But guess what? Teams make mistakes all the time. It's a game. They aren't going to be perfect. It is ridiculous to say they should simply make more plays when the other team when they are being forced to overcome the other team and the refs.

Again, this isn't about one bad call or one missed call or on "let them play" view the refs took all game long. Not knowing when you should stop the clock is just too garbage of an error by a professional referree. It's akin to many years ago when Colorado was given 5 downs to score from the 1 because the refs forgot to count one of their downs. Would you say that the other team should have just manned up and stopped them the 5th time?

 

[bigskydoc]

Forward progress "stopped" at the eleven, then ball spotted where he went out of bounds at the ten. Ref initially spots it at the eleven then takes a step forward to spot it at the ten. Either it's at the ten and the clock stops or it's at the 11 and the clock winds.

Confusion reigns

 

[RichNhansom]

In a league where the difference between winning and losing is razor thin, these types of mistakes are unacceptable as they can and do completely impact the outcome of a game.

Anyone think our chances of winning don't go exponentially up if we have that time back?

In this case, no.

There was plenty of time on the clock even with no timeouts (1:50).

In my opinion, the biggest contributors were the following:

1. Seattle's penchant for trying to get into 2nd/3rd and manageable.

Seattle always seems to be driven to get under 10 yards to go on second and third downs. They are too formulaic in their approach and do not account for circumstance where they should deviate from this approach. It's simply awful situational execution.

Here are the first plays of 3 series of downs in that final drive that doomed us:

1. 1st and 10 (1:50). Russell scrambles for 5 yards. Costs us :22 seconds which is about 3-5 pass attempts
2. 1st and 10 (1:01). Baldwin for 4 yards. Costs us 24 seconds to next snap. Another 3-5
3. 2nd and 10 16) After spike to stop clock, Pass to Prosise for 8 yards. Costs :14 seconds.


The short curl pass to Baldwin for minimal yardage was the biggest factor in the lack of time and should never have been attempted.

In that situation, you have to get out of bounds, or make chunk yardage. Incompletions are better than 4 yard advances. Wilson would have been better served to dump a pass at his receivers' feet and took his chances on another play.

2. Taking what the defense gives you

In 1:50 we got 6 plays off (if you omit spiking the ball). That's just pathetic awareness plain and simple. In that scenario you have one, maybe two, opportunities over the middle (and should be for chunk yardage). Seattle took 5 plays in the field of play. That's just critically awful decision making on Wilson's part.

It really has no bearing on what Bevell called. Ultimately the decisions and the clock management fall on Wilson exclusively. In this case, he situationally had to understand what he could get inbounds and what he couldn't. If a play isn't there, you dump it to the ground and you dial up another play. They are playing prevent, so getting 10-15 yards is far easier. But you have to get big yards and you really can't indulge in run after catch type of options.

It may be easier for us to just blame someone else for our problem. But this was a case of serious misplays given the circumstance. We made errors that we should not have made -- and did so repeatedly on that drive. Time and happenstance will tell if we commit the same decision making gaffes in future games.

The problem with this thinking is that you are basically putting it on one team to be considerably more perfect than the other team. Yes, Seattle could have and should have made better plays to win the game. But guess what? Teams make mistakes all the time. It's a game. They aren't going to be perfect. It is ridiculous to say they should simply make more plays when the other team when they are being forced to overcome the other team and the refs.

Again, this isn't about one bad call or one missed call or on "let them play" view the refs took all game long. Not knowing when you should stop the clock is just too garbage of an error by a professional referree. It's akin to many years ago when Colorado was given 5 downs to score from the 1 because the refs forgot to count one of their downs. Would you say that the other team should have just manned up and stopped them the 5th time?

This.

Declaring it was still possible doesn't excuse the officials mistake.

After watching the entire game and then seeing the clock continue running in a time critical situation is absolutely inexcusable.

If the game were even remotely closely officiated it would be one thing. You could except he may have screwed up but in a game this blatantly one sided it simply burrying your head in the sand to try and excuse it.

 

[253hawk]

If the whole thing were reversed and our WR went OOB like that without the clock stopping and we held on to win, the entire NFL-watching nation would be up in arms and screaming about how 'lucky' we are.

 

[RichNhansom]

If the whole thing were reversed and our WR went OOB like that without the clock stopping and we held on to win, the entire NFL-watching nation would be up in arms and screaming about how 'lucky' we are.

Agreed. Also if that were the Packers getting jobbed all game like that the collective NFL world would likely explode about it.

Consider the hail mary national outcry and then multiply it by about a thousand.

 

[Hawkpower]

In a league where the difference between winning and losing is razor thin, these types of mistakes are unacceptable as they can and do completely impact the outcome of a game.

Anyone think our chances of winning don't go exponentially up if we have that time back?

In this case, no.

There was plenty of time on the clock even with no timeouts (1:50).

In my opinion, the biggest contributors were the following:

1. Seattle's penchant for trying to get into 2nd/3rd and manageable.

Seattle always seems to be driven to get under 10 yards to go on second and third downs. They are too formulaic in their approach and do not account for circumstance where they should deviate from this approach. It's simply awful situational execution.

Here are the first plays of 3 series of downs in that final drive that doomed us:

1. 1st and 10 (1:50). Russell scrambles for 5 yards. Costs us :22 seconds which is about 3-5 pass attempts
2. 1st and 10 (1:01). Baldwin for 4 yards. Costs us 24 seconds to next snap. Another 3-5
3. 2nd and 10 16) After spike to stop clock, Pass to Prosise for 8 yards. Costs :14 seconds.


The short curl pass to Baldwin for minimal yardage was the biggest factor in the lack of time and should never have been attempted.

In that situation, you have to get out of bounds, or make chunk yardage. Incompletions are better than 4 yard advances. Wilson would have been better served to dump a pass at his receivers' feet and took his chances on another play.

2. Taking what the defense gives you

In 1:50 we got 6 plays off (if you omit spiking the ball). That's just pathetic awareness plain and simple. In that scenario you have one, maybe two, opportunities over the middle (and should be for chunk yardage). Seattle took 5 plays in the field of play. That's just critically awful decision making on Wilson's part.

It really has no bearing on what Bevell called. Ultimately the decisions and the clock management fall on Wilson exclusively. In this case, he situationally had to understand what he could get inbounds and what he couldn't. If a play isn't there, you dump it to the ground and you dial up another play. They are playing prevent, so getting 10-15 yards is far easier. But you have to get big yards and you really can't indulge in run after catch type of options.

It may be easier for us to just blame someone else for our problem. But this was a case of serious misplays given the circumstance. We made errors that we should not have made -- and did so repeatedly on that drive. Time and happenstance will tell if we commit the same decision making gaffes in future games.

Even acknowledging that Seattle made mistakes in the final drive doesnt take away from the fact that the timeout cost us at least 40 seconds.

And yes, our chances of winning go up exponentially with 40 more seconds to use.

 

[Jerhawk]

If the whole thing were reversed and our WR went OOB like that without the clock stopping and we held on to win, the entire NFL-watching nation would be up in arms and screaming about how 'lucky' we are.

^This. Plus the Espn would have an entire E:60 devoted to how officiating needs to be changed

 

[mikeak]

Even acknowledging that Seattle made mistakes in the final drive doesnt take away from the fact that the timeout cost us at least 40 seconds.

.

Not correct. We used a timeout there so we lost zero time. What we lost was a timeout. We could have used that anytime afterwards and we don't know what play we would have used it on. Would it have been the final play or the one after 16secs?

Point being it may have cost us a few seconds or maybe 20-30 seconds but none of the plays afterwards took 40 seconds

 

[RichNhansom]

Even acknowledging that Seattle made mistakes in the final drive doesnt take away from the fact that the timeout cost us at least 40 seconds.

.

Not correct. We used a timeout there so we lost zero time. What we lost was a timeout. We could have used that anytime afterwards and we don't know what play we would have used it on. Would it have been the final play or the one after 16secs?

Point being it may have cost us a few seconds or maybe 20-30 seconds but none of the plays afterwards took 40 seconds

Pete didn't call the time out until he realized they were trying to kill the clock. We lost 12-15 seconds on that and a time out. Even the 12-15 seconds could have made the difference but the time out was critical.

 

[Hawkpower]

Even acknowledging that Seattle made mistakes in the final drive doesnt take away from the fact that the timeout cost us at least 40 seconds.

.

Not correct. We used a timeout there so we lost zero time. What we lost was a timeout. We could have used that anytime afterwards and we don't know what play we would have used it on. Would it have been the final play or the one after 16secs?

Point being it may have cost us a few seconds or maybe 20-30 seconds but none of the plays afterwards took 40 seconds

Ok......I say 40 seconds, you say 30 seconds.......either way it greatly increases our chances of winning the game, correct?

Not sure what you are trying to argue here....

 

[HawkGA]

If the whole thing were reversed and our WR went OOB like that without the clock stopping and we held on to win, the entire NFL-watching nation would be up in arms and screaming about how 'lucky' we are.

^This. Plus the Espn would have an entire E:60 devoted to how officiating needs to be changed

No kidding. Seifert at ESPN after the Atlanta game had an article about how replay for PI is such a great thing in Canada. This week? He says he would hate to tarnish a great game with talk of officiating. I kid you not.

 

[Grahamhawker]

Even Hightower knew he had been pushed out; that's why he's pissed and slamming the ball.

Idiotic.

 

[DJrmb]

This is the play that took it over the top for me. Completely blatant and garbage. If Russell has that timeout and 2 or 3 chances to to convert the TD instead of 1 play with 2 seconds left I like our chances of winning that game. Even with the refs bailing the saints out every time we stopped them with a flag.

 

[Silver Hawk]

You can clearly see the ref getting ready to signal to stop the clock, then he abruptly changes his mind . Strange play indeed.

Probably got buzzed in the ass and remembered the plan.

 

[Bullmeister]

Thanks for raising this as a thread. I too was more surprised not only at the call, but by the commentators not even raising an eyebrow about what seemed obvious. Thought it was just me who thought something was amiss especially at a time like that in the game.

 

[Schadie001]

I have seen this several time before in games and it always boggled my mind why the clock continues to roll. I did some research and found that if a runners forward progress is stopped before they go out of bounds the clock will continue to roll, if they are still moving forward when they go out of bounds the clock will stop. I have even seen a couple time a receiver being untouched coming across the field on an out route where their momentum takes them straight out of bounds the clock continued to run. I don't know when they changed this rule but I think it is a bad one.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

I remember the play it should have stopped. Sherman said in his after game interview what the ref said to him. Something to the effect that the player that made the tackles momentum carried them both out of bounds or they would of landed in bounds.

"You see, what had happened was that if the player hadn't have been tackled out of bounds, he would have been in bounds, and the clock would have kept running, and so we kept the clock running."

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Ridiculous they didn't stop the clock. Something tells me we could have used that timeout at the end of the game.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I remember the play it should have stopped. Sherman said in his after game interview what the ref said to him. Something to the effect that the player that made the tackles momentum carried them both out of bounds or they would of landed in bounds.

"You see, what had happened was that if the player hadn't have been tackled out of bounds, he would have been in bounds, and the clock would have kept running, and so we kept the clock running."

Sailor, you do madden voice over pretty dang well.