|
Re: [NFL] Divisional Playoff Weekendwhy did Atlanta call the TO with 13 seconds left shoould of let it go down to 3 or 4 seconds .. game would of been over after the kick |
|
Koil Premium Member join:2002-09-10 Irmo, SC |
Koil
Premium Member
2013-Jan-13 4:17 pm
FUCK YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Omfg...I thought we'd lost that three times in a row...heart attack freaking city.
THANK GOD!!! ATL GOING TO THE NEXT ROUND...lol..long time coming.
Phew...it was like the damn UGA vs. Alabama game all over again for a bit there. |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
to Moorecards
I was wondering that too, maybe just a quick timeout to keep their options open in case of a bad snap or something. |
|
|
to Moorecards
said by Moorecards:why did Atlanta call the TO with 13 seconds left shoould of let it go down to 3 or 4 seconds .. game would of been over after the kick Not certain who called TO there, IIRC ATL had already called their final TO and thus was out of TOs while SEA still had three. |
|
|
said by wolfy339:said by Moorecards:why did Atlanta call the TO with 13 seconds left shoould of let it go down to 3 or 4 seconds .. game would of been over after the kick Not certain who called TO there, IIRC ATL was already out of TOs while SEA still had three. Mike Smith called it ... after Gonzo caught the pass with 13 seconds left, Smith ran to call the TO .. didn't make sense to me .. |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
to wolfy339
Atlanta used their last timeout after the Gonzalez catch:
|
|
|
said by Rook008:Atlanta used their last timeout after the Gonzalez catch Thus, according to the graphic, ATL took four TOs. Not certain why it shows two TOs for SEA as I seem to remember the TO getting charged to SEA and SEA still having two TOs afterwards |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
Rook008
Premium Member
2013-Jan-13 7:12 pm
Huh? The graphic shows one Timeout by Seattle (right before the Falcons Field Goal) and two by the Falcons. |
|
|
said by Rook008:Huh? The graphic shows one Timeout by Seattle (right before the Falcons Field Goal) and two by the Falcons. Graphic shows 1 TO at each end for SEA and two at each end for ATL. Perhaps I am reading the graphic wrong or am similarly confused. |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
Rook008
Premium Member
2013-Jan-13 7:18 pm
Maybe I'm confused too, lol.
The black and white line on the field denotes a Falcons timeout. The blue and white line on the field denotes a Seattle Timeout. |
|
|
What I am keying on is what you see in the two pictures I am attaching to his post in which you see two timeouts for ATL and one for SEA in each. |
|
rockotman...Blown On The Steel Breeze Premium Member join:2000-08-06 DSotM |
to Rook008
Reading the graphic from top to bottom: •Atlanta time out. •Atlanta 19 yard pass to Gonzalez •Atlanta time out •Seattle time out (the attempt to ice the kicker) •Field goal •Kick off •Seattle 6 yard pass to Baldwin •Seattle Hail Mary to endzone •Atlanta Interception/Touchback |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
to wolfy339
The side of the field is irrelevant in the original pic. It's just one timeout for Seattle, two for Atlanta. |
|
|
|
said by Rook008:The side of the field is irrelevant in the original pic. It's just one timeout for Seattle, two for Atlanta. I guess I am still confused here...why then does it show two at each end for ATL and one at each end for SEA? |
|
rockotman...Blown On The Steel Breeze Premium Member join:2000-08-06 DSotM |
said by wolfy339:said by Rook008:The side of the field is irrelevant in the original pic. It's just one timeout for Seattle, two for Atlanta. I guess I am still confused here...why then does it show two at each end for ATL and one at each end for SEA? At the risk of repeating myself - The graphic is a time-line, to be read from top to bottoml |
|
Rook008Miles To Go Premium Member join:2002-02-05 Far Rockaway, NY |
to wolfy339
It's just the way the lines are labeled, I guess. Rockotman's reading is correct. |
|