End of game clock situation

[PatsFaninAZ]

This is a scenario that came up in last night's Fiesta Bowl, but is one that I think also applies to the NFL. I'm wondering what people's views are on the wise thing to do.

For those that didn't see it, Texas led by 2 points late in the game, but Ohio State was driving. With 2:05 on the clock, Ohio State had, I think, a second down at about the 15. Texas had two time outs. The Ohio State running back broke through the line of scrimmage and scored a TD. Texas came back to win. I have not seen post-game press, but it looked as though Texas allowed the score.

The question: Would a team in that situation be better off just having the running back sit down on the one-yard line and not scoring the TD. Let's see how it would have played out -- after the play, after marking the ball, the clock would have started back up (no 2:00 warning in college), or Texas would have called a time out. If Ohio state on the next two plays simply took a knee, they could have gotten the clock down to about 1:15 and forced Texas to use both time outs. At that point, it's third and goal from the one yard line. They can run a play to try to score a TD. If they do, they are up by the same score, and Texas only has a minute to try to win the game with no time outs. If they don't score the TD, they let another 40 seconds run off the clock, and try a FG, which if made would give them a 1 point lead and kicking off with about 20 seconds left in the game. If they miss the FG, they of course lose the game.

That's a bit complicated. Let's say the Patriots have the ball inside the 5 yard line down by 2. If they score a TD, their opponent will have 2:00 to tie the game with no time outs. Alternatively, the Patriots can take a knee three times and kick with no time left. Which would you prefer they do? I think the chance to make a chip shot FG is greater than the chance of the defense preventing a TD. Alternatively, if the Patriots were on defense in the same position, would you allow a TD to be scored rather than letting the opponent wind time down?

 

[Metaphors]

That's a bit complicated. Let's say the Patriots have the ball inside the 5 yard line down by 2. If they score a TD, their opponent will have 2:00 to tie the game with no time outs. Alternatively, the Patriots can take a knee three times and kick with no time left. Which would you prefer they do? I think the chance to make a chip shot FG is greater than the chance of the defense preventing a TD. Alternatively, if the Patriots were on defense in the same position, would you allow a TD to be scored rather than letting the opponent wind time down?

I would say the best course is a combination of the two approaches. Two runs to get to the 1 yard line (take a dive if the D doesn't tackle you). That burns about 1:30 off the clock. QB sneak to try for the TD which leaves 25 seconds or so with a 5 point lead. If you don't make it, kick the FG as time expires. If you are the nervous type, try the FG on 3rd down to account for a botched snap, but the downside is that you have a 1 point lead with 25 seconds. Still better than than a 5 point lead with 1:57 to play.

On defense, I don't believe that you should ever concede points that cause a lead change. Too many variables still in play that could work in your favor. You should probably alter your tackling to maximize the chance for a strip (hold a guy up while a teammate rips at the ball) but that's about it.

Not to hijack the thread but another situation came up last night that I was thinking about (and doesn't deserve its own thread)...Texas scores a TD to go up by 2 with 16 seconds left. In college, a blocked PAT returned to the opposing end zone is worth 2 points. Now 16 seconds is long enough for a return, a long pass and a FG try...but what if there were only 2 seconds left? I would think you remove the chance for a blocked PAT and try for 2 with a safe run. Ohio State came pretty stinking close to getting to the PAT kick which would have made for an entertaining scramble.

As a side note, the Texas receiver that scored the last TD could have ran to the pylon and burned another 5+ seconds before scoring...but hard to blame the guy for being excited and not thinking of that possibility.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

It would have been a ballsy move but, yeah, the odds would have been far better to go down inside the 5 then sit on the ball then kick the "extra point" FG. It was a little too reminiscent of the Patriots scoriong with too much time in the SB but that was different as we needed the TD to go ahead.

 

[signbabybrady]

reminds of the Westbrook play last year when he gave up a TD and stopped at the one because he knew they could clock it.

I think in this case there are too many variables though. If I remember correctly the Eagles had the lead and didn't need any points and all Westbrook did was ensure the other team didn't touch the ball again.

In this case though you don't have the lead and what a shame it would have been if you stopped on a sure TD because you thought it was better to kill clock and you kill the clock but than the FG gets blocked or a bothced snap or something.

 

[bakes781]

I had thought about that too, but I really don't think the player can take the chance of being caught at the 1 when you needed a TD.

On a side note...Why the heck did Ohio State go for 2? If they got it they'd be up 6, but since they missed it they led by only 4. So after Texas retook the lead they were up by 3 instead of only 2 had OSU just gone for 1.

 

[tombonneau]

I had thought about that too, but I really don't think the player can take the chance of being caught at the 1 when you needed a TD.

On a side note...Why the heck did Ohio State go for 2? If they got it they'd be up 6, but since they missed it they led by only 4. So after Texas retook the lead they were up by 3 instead of only 2 had OSU just gone for 1.

I was just going to bring this up: OSU going for 2 was mystifying. There was literally no scenario where it made sense. What is the difference with 2 minutes left of being up 4 vs. 5? ZERO. But there is a HUGE difference between 3 & 4. Really idiotic.

As far as letting them score, I was telling my buddy they should just let them score the TD. Not sure if it was intentional, but I would have been fine with hit.

Didn't Holmgren intentionally let the Broncos score in that epic GB/Denver Super Bowl?

 

[Watson's IQ]

reminds of the Westbrook play last year when he gave up a TD and stopped at the one because he knew they could clock it.

Yes, but they were ahead at that point, so it's a completely different situation, and unquestionably the smart thing to do (though it ended my fantasy season )

As for the OP's question, I think you also have to consider that scoring the TD rather than the FG requires the other team to do the same. Obviously, you would want to score the TD with as little time left as possible, but if my opponent has time left for their drive, I'd rather force them to get it in the endzone.

It would be a different story if the game were tied, but when trading FGs would result in a loss for my team, I'd probably want the TD.

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

As far as letting them score, I was telling my buddy they should just let them score the TD. Not sure if it was intentional, but I would have been fine with hit.

I was rooting for Texas (I hate the Little Eleven) and was happy when Ohio State scored. Barring a fumble or missed very short FG it was the only chance for Texas to win. Using more time off the clock or forcing Texas to use it's timeouts would have made a huge difference.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

It was a little too reminiscent of the Patriots scoriong with too much time in the SB but that was different as we needed the TD to go ahead.

What really frosts me about that game is what I think of as the biggest "if." If Randy Moss drops that pass and the Patriots "settle" for a field goal, I think there's a good chance the game goes to overtime, or, even better, the Patriots win in regulation. You can't assume that everything would have been the same, of course, but if it had been a tie game, the Giants likely would have punted on fourth down instead of going for it on their half of the field.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Not to hijack the thread but another situation came up last night that I was thinking about (and doesn't deserve its own thread)...Texas scores a TD to go up by 2 with 16 seconds left. In college, a blocked PAT returned to the opposing end zone is worth 2 points. Now 16 seconds is long enough for a return, a long pass and a FG try...but what if there were only 2 seconds left? I would think you remove the chance for a blocked PAT and try for 2 with a safe run. Ohio State came pretty stinking close to getting to the PAT kick which would have made for an entertaining scramble.

With anything less than 5 seconds left, I would take a knee on the point after. With four or fewer seconds, I think the opponent's only possible way to beat you is to score a TD, so a 2 or 3 point difference is irrelevant. But I agree that with 16 seconds left, you just go for the point to make it a 3 point game.

In high school, interestingly, you are compelled to run the try even if the game time has expired, if it's a zero, one, or two point game. At least, this was the rule as of a couple of years ago. So, if you score a TD to make it 21-20, for example, on the last down of the game, you are required to try for the extra point, causing most teams to take a knee unless in a jurisdiction where point differential can be a state playoff tiebreaker and the one point will matter. In college, there was recently a proposal that the coaches could agree not to do the try, to avoid the situation of running a play and taking a knee when the game is over -- I think it passed. It's happened a few times that the try was not attempted in college, where the refs basically had to invoke the rule that ended the game without the try because the opposition left the field.

 

[jmt57]

I was just going to bring this up: OSU going for 2 was mystifying. There was literally no scenario where it made sense. What is the difference with 2 minutes left of being up 4 vs. 5? ZERO. But there is a HUGE difference between 3 & 4. Really idiotic.

Yeah, I was thinking the same exact thing last night. If they had more time they could have come back for a game-winning (rather than game-tying) FG. That's the fallacy of that "chart" on when to go for two points; it doesn't take in to consideration the opponent may score and how your not making the extra point then affects the score.

The announcers also said something about how it didn't hurt Ohio State to challenge that first down call because they didn't need the (lost) timeout. While I agree that challenging the play was the right decision, I disagree with the announcer's reasoning. Had Texas scored one play quicker then that extra timeout would have been extremely important for Ohio State.

 

[godef]

One thing you forget is the clock stoppage after the first down.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

The Pats did do something like this in the first Buffalo game when they had that ridiculous 9 + minute drive in the 4th quarter. After the Holding call that gave the Pats a 1st and goal with 3:26 left, Buffalo was out of Time outs, and Cassel did back to back, quasi QB sneaks that were obviously made to kill the clock and not score. They ended up burn the clock all the way down to the 2 minute warning before Benjarvius ran it in.

Then of course they gave up the KO return and Buffalo scored and made it close, so it really paid offf, as once they recovered the onside kick, they just took a knee for the final 1-42 of the game.

 

[billdog3484]

i think settling for a FG is ok, but you really have to trust your kicker. especially in college, i cant trust the kicker. there is soo much presure. people can say in the pros the kicker gets paid too much to miss, but i dont but that. kickers are humans and can miss, so id have to say take the points if you can get them.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

if they're only up by 2 you can still kick the FG to take the lead if you don't make it.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

One thing you forget is the clock stoppage after the first down.

The clock stops, but it starts back up again unless the runner goes out of bounds. Basically, and the end of the play, the 40 second play clock starts up. Once the umpire gets the ball ready for play, they rewind the game clock. So it would have been about 25 seconds, not 40, but it likely would not have mattered since Texas would probably have used one of its two time outs there.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I was just going to bring this up: OSU going for 2 was mystifying. There was literally no scenario where it made sense. What is the difference with 2 minutes left of being up 4 vs. 5? ZERO. But there is a HUGE difference between 3 & 4. Really idiotic.

My only thought was that if they made it, it becomes, 23-17, a six point lead. So if Texas scored, they would have to convert the extra point to take the lead. That's the only scenario i could thnk of that made any sense...

 

[tombonneau]

My only thought was that if they made it, it becomes, 23-17, a six point lead. So if Texas scored, they would have to convert the extra point to take the lead. That's the only scenario i could thnk of that made any sense...

Yeah, I was talking about this on another football board (one that actually tolerates discussion about various football topics ) and someone pointed out that this is the only scenario where it would make sense.

But if you are basing your decision on the highly unlikely event of a missed XP, I think you are Herming it.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

But if you are basing your decision on the highly unlikely event of a missed XP, I think you are Herming it.

That hurts...You play...to win.....the game....
I was just thinking of some rationale for going for two versus one and that was the only one I could think of. Keep in mind that in college, the XP is not as automatic as in the pros though I venture that it's probably over 90%, closer to 95%

 

[jmt57]

Yeah, I was talking about this on another football board (one that actually tolerates discussion about various football topics ) and someone pointed out that this is the only scenario where it would make sense.

But if you are basing your decision on the highly unlikely event of a missed XP, I think you are Herming it.

Yeah, I agree. I figured that had to be what they were thinking, but to me the likelihood of missing a PAT is less than the chance of needing to come back and kick a FG to either tie or win the game - especially against a team with a good offense and average defense such as Texas.