SVN

i wasnt aware of this

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7519942

iam sure if this was done by gibbs in the past no one would introduced this rule but BB does this in 2003 and it gets changed

pheenix11

Gee, I wonder who spearheaded this effort?

__________________
16-0? Yup I called it:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

borg

I thought the rule that was changed was that a team was not allowed to signal a TO when they had no TOs left...a trick Vrabel was seen to use several times.

__________________
"In the end, Belichick juiced Moss like an orange, and once all the good pulp was squeezed, he tossed Moss aside. "


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Metaphors

I think you are correct. I believe the rule was to prevent signaling for a consecutive timeout on a FG attempt. I'm not even sure that Vrabel was signaling for a timeout, just jumping around with hand motions that looked like a timeout signal. I think the rule was meant to cover any attempt to use a 2nd timeout (real or otherwise) as a means to distract the kicker.

TruthSeeker

The rule should have been changed. BB saw a flaw in the rules, exploited it and the NFL patched the flaw. BB continues in his quest to see that every NFL rule loophole is addressed (even if it costs him $500,000 ).

tombonneau

This is correct. The rule that was changed was that a team can't signal for a TO if they don't have any. That is the BB Time Out Rule.

Gibbs has NO EXCUSE for trying to call back-to-back TOs. This rule has been around for ages. I knew about it when I was a 13 and I'm 30 now.

So if I knew the rule in 7th grade a HOF coach should be aware of it.

Of course, this is the same coach who didn't know his D planned on only playing 10 players for the opening play even though it was being reported by the national media ...

Oswlek

What is even more interesting (IMHO) is that the league and the comp committee met immediately after week 2 to discuss and enact this rule.

Earlier this year when there was all the comotion about the TO just before a kick, people kept saying, "they need to address this after the season".

I find it funny that when the Patriots do something that is legal but pushing the envelope a little, the league intervense immediately, but when it is other teams, the issue waits until after the season.

__________________
"They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."

BlitzFritz

so it sounds like in general Kraft is getting beaten by Polian et al in the Comp Committee. he needs to get on top of it, doesnt he??

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"If you counted out the Patriots, you just don't get it." Adam Schein, September 2008

“We are building a big, strong, fast, smart, tough and disciplined football team that. consistently competes for championships.” Guess who.

Gopats!!!

What I loved about the whole situation was that it was a rule BB wanted the NFL to make. He requested the rule but the competition committee said no.

Then, in 2004 a few teams get mad at us (oh no) and the competition committee finally made the rule. I remember at the time thinking it was ridiculous to change a rule like that in the middle of the season when they had years to do it after BB brought it up.

The competition committee are a bunch of dorks.

JustWinBrady

So Gibbs lost to Belichick twice this year?