Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

ESPN: Romo admits to trying to call costly timeout


adam@section118

Recommended Posts

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7265372/dallas-cowboys-qb-tony-Romo sits to pee-hook-trying-call-costly-timeout

LANDOVER, Md. -- The Dallas Cowboys came dangerously close to turning Dan Bailey's 39-yard game winning field goal try into a 54-yard attempt against the Washington Redskins on Sunday.

With the play clock running down on third down and the field goal team on the field, holder Tony Romo sits to pee signaled for a timeout the Cowboys did not have. Fortunately, Redskins coach Mike Shanahan was granted a timeout a tick earlier to attempt to ice Bailey.

I saw this happen at the game and I swear I started to pull my hair out. *Sigh* When it rains it pours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/7265372/dallas-cowboys-qb-tony-Romo sits to pee-hook-trying-call-costly-timeout

I saw this happen at the game and I swear I started to pull my hair out. *Sigh* When it rains it pours

I said this in another thread, but by doing the "right thing" in icing the kicker Shanahan in effect did the wrong thing. Had he not iced the kicker Romo sits to pee would have Romo sits to pee'd himself again. Basically he was who we thought he was...and we let him off the hook!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone saw it. I don't get how the Cowboys didn't get penalized for the attempt TO signal.

I presume that it's similar to a team calling T.O. as the playclock hits zero. In general, the ref will give the benefit of the doubt (if it's truly simultaneous to the clock hitting zero) and grant the T.O. (And if they do hit the offense with a penalty, they have the option of rescinding the T.O.) In this case assuming that Shanahan and Romo sits to pee signaled for T.O. at the same time, they gave Shanahan the T.O. It would be interesting to hear the ref's take on it because the head ref (Hocculi) was standing near Romo sits to pee and the kicker. Shanahan was standing near an auxillary official (the side judge I think). So did Hocculi blow his whistle in response to Romo sits to pee signaling for a timeout...? If so, it kind of makes you think. One way or the other, I'm getting kind of tired of the other guy always getting the breaks and/or the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only 3rd down guys. Dallas simply would have thrown the ball to Dez and probably picked up a 1st. This did not cost us the game.

Picking up a first would have been tough, but odds are they could have gotten back into a more reasonable FG range. However who really knows. One way or the other it would have given us a chance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think it would have been a penalty at all' date=' based on this...

[url']http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/football-insider[/url]

Calling a T.O. without having one is a penalty. Some here are saying it's 15-yds, but I think there's a chance it's only a five-yard penalty (comparable to delay of game). One way or the other, it's a penalty. Coming out of a timeout, the playclock is set at 25 seconds as opposed to 40, reason being that you've have however long to figure out what you're going to do, so you shouldn't need 40 seconds to huddle up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way Dallas attempts a 54. They would have been afraid of giving our a offense amazing field position. Same reason Skin fans were scared of the Gano kick.

OK, then they would have done this:

It was only 3rd down guys. Dallas simply would have thrown the ball to Dez and probably picked up a 1st. This did not cost us the game.

And you KNOW (thanks to DHall) that would have been successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shall we stuff Shanahan into a large blender and liquefy him?

In this case Shanahan didn't do anything wrong. He did the right thing by icing the kicker and he had no idea that he was bailing out Romo sits to pee. It's easy to say that he should have been looking at the field, but Romo sits to pee had his back to the Redskins' sideline. I know, because I sit behind the visitors' bench and I clearly saw Romo sits to pee signaling for a timeout since he was facing me. It's either bad luck, or it's that combined with the Cowboys getting the benefit of the doubt (as usual).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This is NOT is response to another person's post)

I see how it is, Shanahan wanted to protect Romo sits to pee because they went to the same college and didn't want his reputation as QB guru further wrecked with Romo sits to pee taking yet another choker's penalty. Maybe, he's even trying to make a trade for him.

(I'm just making a joke)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point in crying over spilled milk, but i'm sure good ol' Ed Hack-a-loogie would have covered it up somehow, being this is how the league wants it to be; Dallas and Philly at first, then when plans changed, it was Dallas and the Giants.

Which brings me to another point; where's the cry-out for not picking up Vince Young? :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...