Declined penalty from Giants game.

[HumanCockroach]

So I am NOT questioning the decision making process of the coach, I am NOT being critical of the decision. That said I was wondering if anyone could tell me a viable reason not to accept the roughing the kicker penalty in the Giants game today on a pretty poor punt ( I believe the Giants got the ball at the 37). Both my brother and I were extremely confused why anyone would decline a penalty that would allow Ryan another shot at a better punt.. Ryan is a great punter IMHO, and it was one of few poor punts he has had this season. Giants ran onto him on 4th and 7 ( so no first down gained) but the punt was like a 32 yard net punt to the Giants 37.. The Hawks declined the penalty, thus removing the ability to punt the ball again and pin them deeper in their own end.

Like I said, I just didn't understand the decision. I have NEVER seen that in my life at any level. The ONLY thing I could come up with was that the Giants had put some decent pressure on Ryan all day, and the staff didn't want to risk a blocked punt that could turn into points. As it was the Giants couldn't move or score so it is really a moot point, I was just curious if anyone else noticed it, and if there was another reason a coach would make that decision strategically that I am simply missing?

[Zorn76]

I didn't get it, either, HC.
You'd think we'd re-kick that no problem.
Either way, good win.
So pumped for next week. Turns out that playing the Cards at The Clink will be a playoff type game in terms of the quality of the opponent. AZ has done much better than I thought they would, and are feeling pretty good about themselves after their OT road win in Tennessee today.

[HumanCockroach]

Kind of a WTF moment for my brother and I. Neither of us said anything, just turned and looked at each other, and then proceeded to wait for the ref to "correct" the call. Really until the Giants snapped the ball ( and to be honest probably a little after that LOL) we kept waiting for the Hawks to line up for another punt...

[RiverDog]

So I am NOT questioning the decision making process of the coach, I am NOT being critical of the decision. That said I was wondering if anyone could tell me a viable reason not to accept the roughing the kicker penalty in the Giants game today on a pretty poor punt ( I believe the Giants got the ball at the 37). Both my brother and I were extremely confused why anyone would decline a penalty that would allow Ryan another shot at a better punt.. Ryan is a great punter IMHO, and it was one of few poor punts he has had this season. Giants ran onto him on 4th and 7 ( so no first down gained) but the punt was like a 32 yard net punt to the Giants 37.. The Hawks declined the penalty, thus removing the ability to punt the ball again and pin them deeper in their own end.

Like I said, I just didn't understand the decision. I have NEVER seen that in my life at any level. The ONLY thing I could come up with was that the Giants had put some decent pressure on Ryan all day, and the staff didn't want to risk a blocked punt that could turn into points. As it was the Giants couldn't move or score so it is really a moot point, I was just curious if anyone else noticed it, and if there was another reason a coach would make that decision strategically that I am simply missing?

HC, please don't feel the need to qualify your remarks by saying that you're not questioning the decision making process of the coach. Besides, you're statement is oxymoronic as that's exactly what you're doing, ie questioning the decision making process. Let's make this forum different from others and start things out by making a statement that it's totally acceptable to demonstrate critical thinking and that you're no less a 12th man fan than someone that ratifies every single thing our players and coaches say and do.

I agree with you. How many punt return yards have we given up this season? I think it was 15 total yards in 13 games, so the odds are that you're going to get a better result by kicking again. But that's not what I was thinking about at the time. What I was thinking about was the false start on 3rd down that made it 3rd and 7 instead of 3rd and 2. Then that running into the kicker penalty would have given us a first down. These stupid penalties continue to plague us.

[NorthHawk]

Maybe they were anxious to continue with the beating.

[HumanCockroach]

No, I was asking if someone had a reason I hadn't thought of, that made that decision the right choice. I've played, coached and watched football for over three quarters of my life, however, I am NOT someone that believes he always knows best in every situation. I didn't understand it, so I did what so many in todays society are loath to do, I asked. That is all. I am FINE with the decsion, because I don't believe in hind site judgements ( which is exactly what that would be) it cost the Seahawks nothing, and I don't play the "pretend" game of what might happen down the road, OR the what might have happened if reality went another way.

Isn't the way I operate, and never WILL be. The REASON, I asked the question is, I don't know the answer, AND I wanted to make SURE that people did not turn this into a bash/ defense thread ( ie the timeout scenario). It cost Seattle nothing in terms of the game, I was confused why they did it, and wondered if someone else might know. That's all...

[HumanCockroach]

Maybe they were anxious to continue with the beating.

[RiverDog]

No, I was asking if someone had a reason I hadn't thought of, that made that decision the right choice. I've played, coached and watched football for over three quarters of my life, however, I am NOT someone that believes he always knows best in every situation. I didn't understand it, so I did what so many in todays society are loath to do, I asked. That is all. I am FINE with the decsion, because I don't believe in hind site judgements ( which is exactly what that would be) it cost the Seahawks nothing, and I don't play the "pretend" game of what might happen down the road, OR the what might have happened if reality went another way.

Isn't the way I operate, and never WILL be. The REASON, I asked the question is, I don't know the answer, AND I wanted to make SURE that people did not turn this into a bash/ defense thread ( ie the timeout scenario). It cost Seattle nothing in terms of the game, I was confused why they did it, and wondered if someone else might know. That's all...

Then if you won't second guess the coaches' decision, I will.

Unless there was something that was unknown to us, say like the wind, or if we were using a backup deep snapper, or something like that, there isn't any logical reason for declining that penalty and kicking again. Ryan's punts just are not returned, and odds are that we would have ended up with at least a net gain of 5 yards, plus there's always a chance of the returner fumbling, a hold during the return (how many times have you seen those?), etc. If it were the 4th quarter and we had a two score lead, I could see declining it and not risking a punt block. But it was the 2nd quarter, and all we had was a 3-0 lead, so you play the odds.

We have a weak spot when it comes to game management. I don't see why making that kind of statement or observation is so blasphemous.

[Zorn76]

Maybe they were anxious to continue with the beating.

lol, nice.

[Clem7]

I think you all know that PC does not always follow the coaching "book" manual. Sometimes that may not be good, as certain results may unfold. Sometimes it may in fact be good for a result that may have happened didn't. I think PC trusts his defense above all on the team. We have seen this mindset numerous times this season.

[RiverDog]

I think you all know that PC does not always follow the coaching "book" manual. Sometimes that may not be good, as certain results may unfold. Sometimes it may in fact be good for a result that may have happened didn't. I think PC trusts his defense above all on the team. We have seen this mindset numerous times this season.

How would he have not been trusting his defense by declining the penalty? Barring a punt return or kick block for a TD, his defense was going back on the field whether or not we accepted the penalty, the only question would have been starting position.

IMO it was more like for what ever reason, that he didn't trust his punting team. It seemed as if he was afraid of getting the punt blocked. Either that or they spaced it out and didn't realize that the smart thing to do was to take the 5 yards and kick again.

[Clem7]

I think you all know that PC does not always follow the coaching "book" manual. Sometimes that may not be good, as certain results may unfold. Sometimes it may in fact be good for a result that may have happened didn't. I think PC trusts his defense above all on the team. We have seen this mindset numerous times this season.

How would he have not been trusting his defense by declining the penalty? Barring a punt return or kick block for a TD, his defense was going back on the field whether or not we accepted the penalty, the only question would have been starting position.

IMO it was more like for what ever reason, that he didn't trust his punting team. It seemed as if he was afraid of getting the punt blocked. Either that or they spaced it out and didn't realize that the smart thing to do was to take the 5 yards and kick again.

I believe he preferred to let the play stand and go with his defense, which probably means with the 3-0 lead he did not want to risk a punt block.

[RiverDog]

I think you all know that PC does not always follow the coaching "book" manual. Sometimes that may not be good, as certain results may unfold. Sometimes it may in fact be good for a result that may have happened didn't. I think PC trusts his defense above all on the team. We have seen this mindset numerous times this season.

How would he have not been trusting his defense by declining the penalty? Barring a punt return or kick block for a TD, his defense was going back on the field whether or not we accepted the penalty, the only question would have been starting position.

IMO it was more like for what ever reason, that he didn't trust his punting team. It seemed as if he was afraid of getting the punt blocked. Either that or they spaced it out and didn't realize that the smart thing to do was to take the 5 yards and kick again.

I believe he preferred to let the play stand and go with his defense, which probably means with the 3-0 lead he did not want to risk a punt block.

A 3-0 lead early in the second quarter is about as inconsequential of a score as they come. And if he didn't want to risk a punt block, isn't that a vote of no confidence in his punting team?

[Clem7]

To answer your question RD, I would say yes (in relation to the defense). Maybe they knew something we didn't. Just my guess. It very well could have been a brain fart. It wouldn't have been the first right?

[RiverDog]

To answer your question RD, I would say yes (in relation to the defense). Maybe they knew something we didn't. Just my guess. It very well could have been a brain fart. It wouldn't have been the first right?

I vote for the brain fart, and you're right, it isn't the first time. I would assume that Pete has someone assigned to constantly advise him on penalty options and other game management decisions, but who ever is to blame, it's a weakness, and has been for some time. I don't mind a coach throwing the odds to the wind on occasion and go on gut feel, but as in gambling, you're going to end up rolling a snake eyes at the worst possible time some day if you consistently bet against the odds. We go against conventional wisdom way too much for my comfort.

But just so I don't get accused of saying nothing but negative things about Pete, I thought he made a great challenge on that pass that was ruled incomplete. Even if we had lost the challenge, it was a good risk.

[Eaglehawk]

Field conditions maybe? Who knows with PC managing the game.

[c_hawkbob]

1- They had been getting a strong rush on our punter
2- Our defense was playing great
3- The outcome of the original punt was satisfactory in light of 1 & 2

Ain't no thang.

[RiverDog]

1- They had been getting a strong rush on our punter
2- Our defense was playing great
3- The outcome of the original punt was satisfactory in light of 1 & 2

Ain't no thang.

Perhaps. But the 2nd quarter had barely started, so it was a tad early to project our defense as 'playing great.' I would have opted for the higher probability of better field position given the way Ryan has been punting this season, but that's just me.

As you say, in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't make a great deal of difference. But it would be a good question to ask the coach.

[FolkCrusader]

I wondered at the call myself simply because the punt was only 35 yards. With that much field position available one would think we left 5-7 yards on the table when you consider what Ryan usually does on his aussie punt, 10-15 if he hits a boomer. At the same time the play resulted from an absolute jailbreak in the middle of the punt line. It was similar to the punt block from the SF game where Osgood came in virtually unblocked. I think it's likely Pete or Brian Schneider saw that and said take what we got and we'll figure out what happened. Something definitely broke down on the play.

I have to add here that I realize you love to question these types of calls RD, and I too think they are fun to discuss, but the idea that Pete is somehow "missing" these calls is ludicrous. I can only imagine how you would react when a judgement call that is in your purview at work. Something that you have made the call on literally hundreds of times based on your knowledge and experience. And someone walks in off the street knowing nothing about your chain of command or work procedures and announces that the decision you made that you put all your experience and judgement in sucks ass. Pete's call might be the right call or the wrong call based on the rear view mirror but the thought that he "missed it" because he wasn't thinking is really disrespectful. That is why you get so much grief over these posts.

[c_hawkbob]

Brian Schneider (Special Teams Coordinator):

"Let us try it again boss, you know we can do better than that"

Pete Carroll:

"No, we need to go over that blocking scheme at the half, they almost got that one"

... or maybe ...

BS:

"let's not redo that just yet boss, they're trying something I need to go over with my guys first"

Disclaimer; these quotes are a representation of possible interactive scenarios, not actual quotes.

[Eaglehawk]

Who knows. "Only the SHADOW knows". Wasn't there a show where a guy said this?

Nothing I have seen here including my hypothesis makes any sense, what does that mean?

That means that it was a PC decision, that he will fess up to later this week during a PC(Press Conference PC by PC).

My sarcasm aside, I think that PC will declare something in line with what some of us has already said. I would be shocked if my frivolous theory about field conditions were to fly. I think it was more about them getting pressure on Ryan. Just my thoughts.

[depaashaas]

So I am NOT questioning the decision making process of the coach, I am NOT being critical of the decision. That said I was wondering if anyone could tell me a viable reason not to accept the roughing the kicker penalty in the Giants game today on a pretty poor punt ( I believe the Giants got the ball at the 37). Both my brother and I were extremely confused why anyone would decline a penalty that would allow Ryan another shot at a better punt.. Ryan is a great punter IMHO, and it was one of few poor punts he has had this season. Giants ran onto him on 4th and 7 ( so no first down gained) but the punt was like a 32 yard net punt to the Giants 37.. The Hawks declined the penalty, thus removing the ability to punt the ball again and pin them deeper in their own end.

Like I said, I just didn't understand the decision. I have NEVER seen that in my life at any level. The ONLY thing I could come up with was that the Giants had put some decent pressure on Ryan all day, and the staff didn't want to risk a blocked punt that could turn into points. As it was the Giants couldn't move or score so it is really a moot point, I was just curious if anyone else noticed it, and if there was another reason a coach would make that decision strategically that I am simply missing?

Was this the punt that also almost got blocked? Why give giants second chance to block it? Even thought Jon Ryan has been phenomenal with his punts, there have been imo to many almost blocked punts this season and with the one from last week fresh in their mind they may have opted not to do a do over. Also I remember them talking at beginning of game that it was a bit gusty there, they may have thought we got away with a decent one and now let the defense do it's job.

[RiverDog]

Brian Schneider (Special Teams Coordinator):

"Let us try it again boss, you know we can do better than that"

Pete Carroll:

"No, we need to go over that blocking scheme at the half, they almost got that one"

... or maybe ...

BS:

"let's not redo that just yet boss, they're trying something I need to go over with my guys first"

Disclaimer; these quotes are a representation of possible interactive scenarios, not actual quotes.

Quite possible, Cbob. Like I said, it would be a good question to ask Pete.