What Came 1st, The Snap, or the Timeout?

[PlayerRep]

Thanks pr

If you look at PA's posts, from when he signed up last April, he's clearly a Hauck hater, and has consistently talked about the wonderful players who moved on. Probably connected to one of them. Talked about the huge problem in the locker room, when in fact the locker room was good and generally supportive of Hauck, especially for a first year coach, according to what I was told by some current and last year players.

 

[PAGriz]

Very interesting remarks by Pagriz. Is Bobby really like that? I don’t know. Scary.

PAGriz doesn't have a clue about Hauck and how he coaches. I can see that by how he posts.

Know more than you think I do. Bobby is your kryptonite. I'll bet you get all weak kneed in his presence. The proof is in the results and his documented treatment of certain players. I use to think you were a knowledgeable balls and strikes poster.

As far as the results. There simply is no other explanation for the second half collapses this year other than he was to arrogant and stubborn to make the necessary adjustments....unless he is just that incompetent as a head coach. Maybe it's the latter considering his record in his last 6 years as a head coach.

This team took a step backwards this year. YOU can't have it both ways. You say Sneed is an upgrade to Jensen. Bobby brought in his guys and upgraded the secondary. He brought in his RB and upgraded from Calhoun. He upgraded at DE. If they were upgraded and better at all of these positions how did they do worse this year with a much easier schedule?

Lastly, he took a departing shot at Calhoun a couple of days ago in that article about recruiting. He is a classless piece of shit.

 

[PlayerRep]

Very interesting remarks by Pagriz. Is Bobby really like that? I don’t know. Scary.

PAGriz doesn't have a clue about Hauck and how he coaches. I can see that by how he posts.

Know more than you think I do. Bobby is your kryptonite. I'll bet you get all weak kneed in his presence. The proof is in the results and his documented treatment of certain players. I use to think you were a knowledgeable balls and strikes poster.

As far as the results. There simply is no other explanation for the second half collapses this year other than he was to arrogant and stubborn to make the necessary adjustments....unless he is just that incompetent as a head coach. Maybe it's the latter considering his record in his last 6 years as a head coach.

This team took a step backwards this year. YOU can't have it both ways. You say Sneed is an upgrade to Jensen. Bobby brought in his guys and upgraded the secondary. He brought in his RB and upgraded from Calhoun. He upgraded at DE. If they were upgraded and better at all of these positions how did they do worse this year with a much easier schedule?

Lastly, he took a departing shot at Calhoun a couple of days ago in that article about recruiting. He is a classless piece of shit.

Like I said, you don't have a clue about Hauck. You just make up stuff and rely on people who don't like him. "Documented" treatment of plays. Now that is pretty funny.

There are a number of explanations for the second half collapses. They've been posted. What you said is just plain stupid. The team did not take a step backwards this year. Make significant improvements that will pay off in the future.

You are just a Hauck hater.

It becomes public on April 23 that Jensen is leaving UM. You sign up for egriz on April 25. Hum. What's your connection to Jensen?

 

[mtgrizrule]

Here some responses from officials.

1. By rule, we have to grant a TO if it's requested while the ball is dead (before the snap). The timing of the whistle has no effect on if they get it or not. Officially the rule says "...an official shall allow a charged team timeout when requested by any player or head coach when the ball is dead"

If we're down near the goal line, we instruct the coach that they may run down the sideline to get our attention to request the TO (we're not looking back to the box).

2. Check Rule 3-4-3 (all parts). As Rob S said, if the ball is dead - and it is dead until it begins to move for a snap - a Head Coach or any of the 11 players on the field may request a timeout, and it SHALL be granted, if the ball is dead. An official may see the gesture or hear the verbal request a fraction of a second before the ball begins to move for the snap. At that instant, that official declares the ball dead in his mind, and checks the game clock for remaining time. It may take another half second to begin sounding his whistle, and begin signaling time out, while charging in toward the referee, to report the granted timeout and his positive knowledge of the time remaining. The clock will then be re-set as needed.
This isn’t interpreted. It is by rule. And the HC (only) may leave the team area for the exclusive and express purpose of requesting a timeout. So, yes, he may leave the team area, run down toward an official to get his attention and request a TO.

Hope this helps.


I am still trying to get better clarification of a coach actually being in the field of play while the players are in the process of lining up, or later.


As for the Calhoun situation. There was a lot more to his outcome than is public knowledge. Should a coach retain an upperclassman that has walked a fine line off the field, missed classes consistently, and didn't apply himself much academically? If so, what kind of example would that be setting for the younger players? Hauck made the right decision.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Here some responses from officials.

1. By rule, we have to grant a TO if it's requested while the ball is dead (before the snap). The timing of the whistle has no effect on if they get it or not. Officially the rule says "...an official shall allow a charged team timeout when requested by any player or head coach when the ball is dead"

If we're down near the goal line, we instruct the coach that they may run down the sideline to get our attention to request the TO (we're not looking back to the box).

2. Check Rule 3-4-3 (all parts). As Rob S said, if the ball is dead - and it is dead until it begins to move for a snap - a Head Coach or any of the 11 players on the field may request a timeout, and it SHALL be granted, if the ball is dead. An official may see the gesture or hear the verbal request a fraction of a second before the ball begins to move for the snap. At that instant, that official declares the ball dead in his mind, and checks the game clock for remaining time. It may take another half second to begin sounding his whistle, and begin signaling time out, while charging in toward the referee, to report the granted timeout and his positive knowledge of the time remaining. The clock will then be re-set as needed.
This isn’t interpreted. It is by rule. And the HC (only) may leave the team area for the exclusive and express purpose of requesting a timeout. So, yes, he may leave the team area, run down toward an official to get his attention and request a TO.

Hope this helps.


I am still trying to get better clarification of a coach actually being in the field of play while the players are in the process of lining up, or later.


As for the Calhoun situation. There was a lot more to his outcome than is public knowledge. Should a coach retain an upperclassman that has walked a fine line off the field, missed classes consistently, and didn't apply himself much academically? If so, what kind of example would that be setting for the younger players? Hauck made the right decision.

Sounds like what we all commonly see happen in games all the time. Matches well with how the refs operated in Cat/fizz too.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Here some responses from officials.

1. By rule, we have to grant a TO if it's requested while the ball is dead (before the snap). The timing of the whistle has no effect on if they get it or not. Officially the rule says "...an official shall allow a charged team timeout when requested by any player or head coach when the ball is dead"

If we're down near the goal line, we instruct the coach that they may run down the sideline to get our attention to request the TO (we're not looking back to the box).

2. Check Rule 3-4-3 (all parts). As Rob S said, if the ball is dead - and it is dead until it begins to move for a snap - a Head Coach or any of the 11 players on the field may request a timeout, and it SHALL be granted, if the ball is dead. An official may see the gesture or hear the verbal request a fraction of a second before the ball begins to move for the snap. At that instant, that official declares the ball dead in his mind, and checks the game clock for remaining time. It may take another half second to begin sounding his whistle, and begin signaling time out, while charging in toward the referee, to report the granted timeout and his positive knowledge of the time remaining. The clock will then be re-set as needed.
This isn’t interpreted. It is by rule. And the HC (only) may leave the team area for the exclusive and express purpose of requesting a timeout. So, yes, he may leave the team area, run down toward an official to get his attention and request a TO.

Hope this helps.


I am still trying to get better clarification of a coach actually being in the field of play while the players are in the process of lining up, or later.


As for the Calhoun situation. There was a lot more to his outcome than is public knowledge. Should a coach retain an upperclassman that has walked a fine line off the field, missed classes consistently, and didn't apply himself much academically? If so, what kind of example would that be setting for the younger players? Hauck made the right decision.

Sounds like what we all commonly see happen in games all the time. Matches well with how the refs operated in Cat/fizz too.

Indeed. Officials would like the rule to change, once the center touches the ball, no timeout can be called out, except by the offense if the play clock is likely to run out.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Here some responses from officials.

1. By rule, we have to grant a TO if it's requested while the ball is dead (before the snap). The timing of the whistle has no effect on if they get it or not. Officially the rule says "...an official shall allow a charged team timeout when requested by any player or head coach when the ball is dead"

If we're down near the goal line, we instruct the coach that they may run down the sideline to get our attention to request the TO (we're not looking back to the box).

2. Check Rule 3-4-3 (all parts). As Rob S said, if the ball is dead - and it is dead until it begins to move for a snap - a Head Coach or any of the 11 players on the field may request a timeout, and it SHALL be granted, if the ball is dead. An official may see the gesture or hear the verbal request a fraction of a second before the ball begins to move for the snap. At that instant, that official declares the ball dead in his mind, and checks the game clock for remaining time. It may take another half second to begin sounding his whistle, and begin signaling time out, while charging in toward the referee, to report the granted timeout and his positive knowledge of the time remaining. The clock will then be re-set as needed.
This isn’t interpreted. It is by rule. And the HC (only) may leave the team area for the exclusive and express purpose of requesting a timeout. So, yes, he may leave the team area, run down toward an official to get his attention and request a TO.

Hope this helps.


I am still trying to get better clarification of a coach actually being in the field of play while the players are in the process of lining up, or later.


As for the Calhoun situation. There was a lot more to his outcome than is public knowledge. Should a coach retain an upperclassman that has walked a fine line off the field, missed classes consistently, and didn't apply himself much academically? If so, what kind of example would that be setting for the younger players? Hauck made the right decision.

Sounds like what we all commonly see happen in games all the time. Matches well with how the refs operated in Cat/fizz too.

Indeed. Officials would like the rule to change, once the center touches the ball, no timeout can be called out, except by the offense if the play clock is likely to run out.

I think that would be opposed by lots of coaches, in the age of hurry up offenses to take that away from the defense. hurry up offenses would have the center handle the ball as soon as it is placed by the ref. It could be viewed as a safety issue.

 

[PlayerRep]

Did Choate run down the sideline to call the TO, or come earlier to tell the ref he wanted a TO and then stand near the ref?

I don't see that mentioned as being okay, in what Rule said.

What if Choate stood by the ref, and didn't call TO? Would that be permitted? Could he be yelling instructions to his team?

I like the possible no TO rule, after center touches ball, or offensive team is set and center is touching the ball.

I don't think a coach should be allowed to stand by ref on or near goal line, ie not in vicinity of coaching box, and call TO.

The rule/language that Rule quoted is seemingly contradictory to the language that says a coach may "request" a TO. I had seen the contradiction earlier too.

 

[PlayerRep]

Here some responses from officials.

1. By rule, we have to grant a TO if it's requested while the ball is dead (before the snap). The timing of the whistle has no effect on if they get it or not. Officially the rule says "...an official shall allow a charged team timeout when requested by any player or head coach when the ball is dead"

If we're down near the goal line, we instruct the coach that they may run down the sideline to get our attention to request the TO (we're not looking back to the box).

2. Check Rule 3-4-3 (all parts). As Rob S said, if the ball is dead - and it is dead until it begins to move for a snap - a Head Coach or any of the 11 players on the field may request a timeout, and it SHALL be granted, if the ball is dead. An official may see the gesture or hear the verbal request a fraction of a second before the ball begins to move for the snap. At that instant, that official declares the ball dead in his mind, and checks the game clock for remaining time. It may take another half second to begin sounding his whistle, and begin signaling time out, while charging in toward the referee, to report the granted timeout and his positive knowledge of the time remaining. The clock will then be re-set as needed.
This isn’t interpreted. It is by rule. And the HC (only) may leave the team area for the exclusive and express purpose of requesting a timeout. So, yes, he may leave the team area, run down toward an official to get his attention and request a TO.

Hope this helps.


I am still trying to get better clarification of a coach actually being in the field of play while the players are in the process of lining up, or later.


As for the Calhoun situation. There was a lot more to his outcome than is public knowledge. Should a coach retain an upperclassman that has walked a fine line off the field, missed classes consistently, and didn't apply himself much academically? If so, what kind of example would that be setting for the younger players? Hauck made the right decision.

Sounds like what we all commonly see happen in games all the time. Matches well with how the refs operated in Cat/fizz too.

Indeed. Officials would like the rule to change, once the center touches the ball, no timeout can be called out, except by the offense if the play clock is likely to run out.

I think that would be opposed by lots of coaches, in the age of hurry up offenses to take that away from the defense. hurry up offenses would have the center handle the ball as soon as it is placed by the ref. It could be viewed as a safety issue.

A safety issue?

 

[The.Real.2506]

Sounds like what we all commonly see happen in games all the time. Matches well with how the refs operated in Cat/fizz too.

Indeed. Officials would like the rule to change, once the center touches the ball, no timeout can be called out, except by the offense if the play clock is likely to run out.

I think that would be opposed by lots of coaches, in the age of hurry up offenses to take that away from the defense. hurry up offenses would have the center handle the ball as soon as it is placed by the ref. It could be viewed as a safety issue.

A safety issue?

Hurry up offenses put lots of pressure on defenses and try to limit substitutions, there has a lot of discussion about limiting the hurry up offenses for safety reasons because of this. A rule change like this exacerbate the problem. So yeah, it's possibly a safety issue. Your lack of football knowledge always amazes me.

 

[PlayerRep]

Indeed. Officials would like the rule to change, once the center touches the ball, no timeout can be called out, except by the offense if the play clock is likely to run out.

I think that would be opposed by lots of coaches, in the age of hurry up offenses to take that away from the defense. hurry up offenses would have the center handle the ball as soon as it is placed by the ref. It could be viewed as a safety issue.

A safety issue?

Hurry up offenses put lots of pressure on defenses and try to limit substitutions, there has a lot of discussion about limiting the hurry up offenses for safety reasons because of this. A rule change like this exacerbate the problem. So yeah, it's possibly a safety issue. Your lack of football knowledge always amazes me.

Substitutions are not generally done for safety reasons. They are done to get the right personnel in the game and fresh players. I know some coaches have tried to bring up the safety thing, but my view is that it's just an excuse or argument to try to limit hurry up offenses.

Limiting TO's after the offense is set and the center has hand on ball would create zero safety issue. If a coach wants a TO, he should call it 2 or 3 seconds earlier. Just not a big deal.

Limiting hurry up offenses is completely different from changing the TO rule.

You don't have a clue about football. And you have never played the game. Just an idiot and a troll.

 

[poorgriz]

Did Choate run down the sideline to call the TO, or come earlier to tell the ref he wanted a TO and then stand near the ref?

I don't see that mentioned as being okay, in what Rule said.

What if Choate stood by the ref, and didn't call TO? Would that be permitted? Could he be yelling instructions to his team?

I like the possible no TO rule, after center touches ball, or offensive team is set and center is touching the ball.

I don't think a coach should be allowed to stand by ref on or near goal line, ie not in vicinity of coaching box, and call TO.

The rule/language that Rule quoted is seemingly contradictory to the language that says a coach may "request" a TO. I had seen the contradiction earlier too.

Yes. Choate told the ref he was going to call the timeout. Then he moved do a position so that the ref would see him when he called for or signaled it, because it was quite loud in there. It was an excellent coaching decision and the comments made by a ref (I presume) above validate that it was all completely within the rules of the game. Of course most of us already knew this, but now you do too.

 

[Walkon79]

Now that a week has passed, I have had the opportunity to visit with a number of bobcat fans mostly older fans. They are happy for the win but about half of them are disgusted with the way the bobcats won. Clearly this "victory " was decided on the sidelines and not on the playing field in their minds.

Disgusted??? Really??? ALL my friends are Bobcats and I haven't heard that once!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

Did Choate run down the sideline to call the TO, or come earlier to tell the ref he wanted a TO and then stand near the ref?

I don't see that mentioned as being okay, in what Rule said.

What if Choate stood by the ref, and didn't call TO? Would that be permitted? Could he be yelling instructions to his team?

I like the possible no TO rule, after center touches ball, or offensive team is set and center is touching the ball.

I don't think a coach should be allowed to stand by ref on or near goal line, ie not in vicinity of coaching box, and call TO.

The rule/language that Rule quoted is seemingly contradictory to the language that says a coach may "request" a TO. I had seen the contradiction earlier too.

Yes. Choate told the ref he was going to call the timeout. Then he moved do a position so that the ref would see him when he called for or signaled it, because it was quite loud in there. It was an excellent coaching decision and the comments made by a ref (I presume) above validate that it was all completely within the rules of the game. Of course most of us already knew this, but now you do too.

Rule's ref info says a coach can run down the field call TO. Yes, most people knew that or have seen it. Not saying that what Choate did wasn't within the rules, but what Rule posted isn't the same as what Choate did. Doubt that you knew what the TO rule said before I posted it. Also some posters don't know where the coaching box is.

Also, other than the ref awarding the TO, I've not seen any hard evidence that what Choate did was okay or that he called TO on a timely basis. Not saying he didn't do everything right; just saying there's not been any actual hard evidence that he did.

 

[wbtfg]

Did Choate run down the sideline to call the TO, or come earlier to tell the ref he wanted a TO and then stand near the ref?

I don't see that mentioned as being okay, in what Rule said.

What if Choate stood by the ref, and didn't call TO? Would that be permitted? Could he be yelling instructions to his team?

I like the possible no TO rule, after center touches ball, or offensive team is set and center is touching the ball.

I don't think a coach should be allowed to stand by ref on or near goal line, ie not in vicinity of coaching box, and call TO.

The rule/language that Rule quoted is seemingly contradictory to the language that says a coach may "request" a TO. I had seen the contradiction earlier too.

Yes. Choate told the ref he was going to call the timeout. Then he moved do a position so that the ref would see him when he called for or signaled it, because it was quite loud in there. It was an excellent coaching decision and the comments made by a ref (I presume) above validate that it was all completely within the rules of the game. Of course most of us already knew this, but now you do too.

Rule's ref info says a coach can run down the field call TO. Yes, most people knew that or have seen it. Not saying that what Choate did wasn't within the rules, but what Rule posted isn't the same as what Choate did. Doubt that you knew what the TO rule said before I posted it. Also some posters don't know where the coaching box is.

Also, other than the ref awarding the TO, I've not seen any hard evidence that what Choate did was okay or that he called TO on a timely basis. Not saying he didn't do everything right; just saying there's not been any actual hard evidence that he did.

I bet you could ask Bobby (or even Ty) for the end zone copy of the game. I assume you’re in the qb club and bobby showed you the film?

 

[RobertoGato]

It's pathetic that this is still being debated and blamed over a week later. You lost. Get a grip.

 

[PlayerRep]

It's pathetic that this is still being debated and blamed over a week later. You lost. Get a grip.

What is pathetic is that you are on egriz making posts, and that you think anyone was "blaming" anyone or anything. Buried in the garbage posts, including yours, is a decent discussion of what occurred and the TO rule. Was probably over your head.

 

[PAGriz]

It’s quite simple. This years team lost to Westwrn Illinois, Portland state, UC Davis,North Dakota and Montana state.

They lost 3 in a row and 3 games at home.

Last years team lost to UW, Ewu, Weber state and Montana state.

They didn’t lose 2 in a row and lost 1 home game.

Win/loss and winning percentage by year of teams the Griz lost to ( regular season record)

2017- 33-13 winning percentage of 72%

2018- 31-23 winning percentage of 57%

 

[grizpsych]

All the BS plays in the second half came first.

 

[grizpsych]

It's pathetic that this is still being debated and blamed over a week later. You lost. Get a grip.

What is pathetic is that you are on egriz making posts, and that you think anyone was "blaming" anyone or anything. Buried in the garbage posts, including yours, is a decent discussion of what occurred and the TO rule. Was probably over your head.

If we played a complete game this conversation would be moot. :roll: