Wacky end to NFL game

[hurtinbuckaroo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCeMpAZIgI&sns=em

Ravens players deliberately commit holding penalties against the entire Bengals team, allowing their punter to run out the clock and end the game. The announcers (and most fans) didn't know the rules, and thought the Bengals would be allowed one more play. Nope. Excellent strategy, perfectly executed.

As one person remarked, "It looked like the ending of 'Slap Shot' out there".

 

[Terrell]

Yeah, no additional play because the penalty was on the offensive team. Had the penalty been on the defensive team there'd be one additional play. Offense would have the option to refuse the additional play had the penalty been on the defense.

 

[Terrell]

The Chiefs @ Broncos game was awesome. Lots of Defense in the first half, including a safety and a return of the free kick following said safety for a touchdown. Regulation ending with a TD scored with 12 seconds left & a replay review to overturn the call of down inside the one. A 2 point conversion following said TD. First possession of OT for both teams ending in a field goal. OT ending with a Chiefs' field goal as time expired. Said field goal was a doink, that hit one upright and barely went behind the other.

 

[repoman]

why didn't they just take a knee?

 

[James Brown]

I could be wrong on the rules, but if he'd taken a knee, I think the clock would have stopped, and the Bengals would have taken possession at the 10-yard line, enough time for one play which could have sent the game into OT. Or Cincinnati could have called a time-out?

This way the clock wasn't stopped until it ran out, but there was no chance that Cincinnati could have taken possession and possibly tied the game.

 

[Terrell]

If it was 3rd down or earlier they could have taken a knee assuming Cincinnati doesn't have any remaining time outs. Since it was 4th Down, it would have been a turnover on downs to kneel the ball short of the line to gain for a first down. The clock would stop until the next play began with Cincinnati having possession of the ball at the point the previous play ended if there was any time remaining on the clock. The Bengals would not need to use a time out.

The Ravens needed only avoid having a penalty occur inside of their end zone, and avoid having the Bengals score enough points to tie or take the lead, to win the game. Any play that avoids the two things mentioned before, and ends after the clock runs out gets the job done.

It was good strategy on the part of the Ravens and will remain so in that situation, unless the NFL changes the rules for this situation.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

If it was 3rd down or earlier they could have taken a knee assuming Cincinnati doesn't have any remaining time outs. Since it was 4th Down, it would have been a turnover on downs to kneel the ball short of the line to gain for a first down. The clock would stop until the next play began with Cincinnati having possession of the ball at the point the previous play ended if there was any time remaining on the clock. The Bengals would not need to use a time out.

The Ravens needed only avoid having a penalty occur inside of their end zone, and avoid having the Bengals score enough points to tie or take the lead, to win the game. Any play that avoids the two things mentioned before, and ends after the clock runs out gets the job done.

It was good strategy on the part of the Ravens and will remain so in that situation, unless the NFL changes the rules for this situation.

The Ravens used this exact play in their Super Bowl victory in 2012, but didn't execute as well, and the punter was chased out of the end zone with 4 seconds remaining. I was surprised that the league didn't make an adjustment after that, but there is already a rule against committing “successive or repeated fouls to prevent a score.” The penalty for the first infraction is simply a warning, so even if the officials had applied that rule, the result would be the same. If it had been done on two plays, the refs could have put time back on the clock.

It sure was fun to watch.

 

[Terrell]

If it was 3rd down or earlier they could have taken a knee assuming Cincinnati doesn't have any remaining time outs. Since it was 4th Down, it would have been a turnover on downs to kneel the ball short of the line to gain for a first down. The clock would stop until the next play began with Cincinnati having possession of the ball at the point the previous play ended if there was any time remaining on the clock. The Bengals would not need to use a time out.

The Ravens needed only avoid having a penalty occur inside of their end zone, and avoid having the Bengals score enough points to tie or take the lead, to win the game. Any play that avoids the two things mentioned before, and ends after the clock runs out gets the job done.

It was good strategy on the part of the Ravens and will remain so in that situation, unless the NFL changes the rules for this situation.

The Ravens used this exact play in their Super Bowl victory in 2012, but didn't execute as well, and the punter was chased out of the end zone with 4 seconds remaining. I was surprised that the league didn't make an adjustment after that, but there is already a rule against committing “successive or repeated fouls to prevent a score.” The penalty for the first infraction is simply a warning, so even if the officials had applied that rule, the result would be the same. If it had been done on two plays, the refs could have put time back on the clock.

It sure was fun to watch.

Yeah, I watched that game, but hadn't thought about it in some time. I doubt they'll ever change the rule beyond putting time back on the clock. I think there are some cases where the officials can award a TD to the other team, but I've never seen it happen.

I've seen a fair catch kick, on 2 or 3 occasions watching NFL games. In all cases I've seen the kick wasn't even close to being made. The rule is that if a player makes a fair catch on a punt, the team that made the fair catch has the option to line up for a free kick. If made it counts the same as a field goal. It can be returned if it's short, just like any other field goal, but there's no rush as the defending/return team has to line up 10 yards away.

 

[fast]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCeMpAZIgI&sns=em

Ravens players deliberately commit holding penalties against the entire Bengals team, allowing their punter to run out the clock and end the game. The announcers (and most fans) didn't know the rules, and thought the Bengals would be allowed one more play. Nope. Excellent strategy, perfectly executed.

As one person remarked, "It looked like the ending of 'Slap Shot' out there".

First and foremost, I am all smiles, and when people use rules to gain advantage, then applaud I must!!

But, I find all this approval a bit perplexing. From me, yeah, but not you guys, as it's not just a rule but a kind of rule that I thought would of mattered. Just as there is a difference between a fee and a fine, not all rules are made equally. If my action is acceptable, then a fee one might charge, but if my action is unacceptable, then a fine one might charge. These holds are not acceptable and so it's not praise and points and rewards I would expect; rather, penalties! And that's just what it was.

Third, awesome!!

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The Ravens used this exact play in their Super Bowl victory in 2012, but didn't execute as well, and the punter was chased out of the end zone with 4 seconds remaining. I was surprised that the league didn't make an adjustment after that, but there is already a rule against committing “successive or repeated fouls to prevent a score.” The penalty for the first infraction is simply a warning, so even if the officials had applied that rule, the result would be the same. If it had been done on two plays, the refs could have put time back on the clock.

It sure was fun to watch.

Yeah, I watched that game, but hadn't thought about it in some time. I doubt they'll ever change the rule beyond putting time back on the clock. I think there are some cases where the officials can award a TD to the other team, but I've never seen it happen.

I've seen a fair catch kick, on 2 or 3 occasions watching NFL games. In all cases I've seen the kick wasn't even close to being made. The rule is that if a player makes a fair catch on a punt, the team that made the fair catch has the option to line up for a free kick. If made it counts the same as a field goal. It can be returned if it's short, just like any other field goal, but there's no rush as the defending/return team has to line up 10 yards away.

Given the improvements in kicking range in recent years, you may see one soon. Justin Tucker of the Ravens put a kickoff through the uprights in yesterday's game; that would be a 75-yard free kick field goal, and it's at least the third time I've seen him do it. At a higher altitude in Denver, it's conceivable he could do 85.

 

[Terrell]

Yeah, I watched that game, but hadn't thought about it in some time. I doubt they'll ever change the rule beyond putting time back on the clock. I think there are some cases where the officials can award a TD to the other team, but I've never seen it happen.

I've seen a fair catch kick, on 2 or 3 occasions watching NFL games. In all cases I've seen the kick wasn't even close to being made. The rule is that if a player makes a fair catch on a punt, the team that made the fair catch has the option to line up for a free kick. If made it counts the same as a field goal. It can be returned if it's short, just like any other field goal, but there's no rush as the defending/return team has to line up 10 yards away.

Given the improvements in kicking range in recent years, you may see one soon. Justin Tucker of the Ravens put a kickoff through the uprights in yesterday's game; that would be a 75-yard free kick field goal, and it's at least the third time I've seen him do it. At a higher altitude in Denver, it's conceivable he could do 85.

Cool, I've been watching NFL games since the 1979 AFC Championship (Houston @ Pittsburgh*) and have yet to see one of those made. It's rare to see one in the first place. Can Justin Tucker kick it that far without a tee? You can't use a tee on a fair catch kick. You either have to have a holder, or drop-kick the ball. I have seen a drop kick made before, on an extra point, by the Patriots in the 90s. I think Doug Flutie drop kicked the ball for that play. Those are pretty rare treats to see.

*That was the one where Dan Pastorini threw a fade pass to Mike Renfro that was (controversially) ruled incomplete in the corner of the end zone. It would have tied the score at 17. Houston probably still would have lost, but it might have been interesting for longer going into the 4th with a 17-17 tie.

I think that play is one of the reasons the first instant replay rule came into place. The current one, coaches challenge, was caused in part by a Jets play where the officials marked the ball where the QB's head was, as opposed to the ball. IIRC the QB in question was Vinny Testaverde.

Memory isn't as good as it used to be, was off by almost a decade on that drop kick.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Can Justin Tucker kick it that far without a tee? You can't use a tee on a fair catch kick. You either have to have a holder, or drop-kick the ball.

In pre-game warmups, Tucker has successfully kicked without a tee from the mid-70 range in Denver. Theoretically, that would have been with the normal 2 or 3 step approach used on field goals. Being able to use a longer approach on a free kick might increase his range.

What's even more freaky about Tucker is that he's also the most accurate kicker in the league; he's working on the 6th longest streak in NFL history, and in the Bengals game became the first kicker ever to hit three from 50 or more yards in the first half of a game. He gets quite a few long distances opportunities because the Ravens offense so horrible; the opponents' 35-yard line seems to be an impenetrable barrier.

 

[Terrell]

Can Justin Tucker kick it that far without a tee? You can't use a tee on a fair catch kick. You either have to have a holder, or drop-kick the ball.

In pre-game warmups, Tucker has successfully kicked without a tee from the mid-70 range in Denver. Theoretically, that would have been with the normal 2 or 3 step approach used on field goals. Being able to use a longer approach on a free kick might increase his range.

What's even more freaky about Tucker is that he's also the most accurate kicker in the league; he's working on the 6th longest streak in NFL history, and in the Bengals game became the first kicker ever to hit three from 50 or more yards in the first half of a game. He gets quite a few long distances opportunities because the Ravens offense so horrible; the opponents' 35-yard line seems to be an impenetrable barrier.

Yeah, that might make a difference. The few fair catch kicks I've seen tried, the kicks looked like poor attempts at onside kicks toward the sideline. Maybe it was something mental with the kickers that affected their kicking motion and caused such poor kicks. I don't know. An onside kick wouldn't be a sensible use of a fair catch kick, in my opinion, since they already were going to have possession. Simply fair catching the ball, or returning it as best as possible, depending on time constraints, followed by a Hail Mary would make more sense than using an onside kick in that situation.

Speaking of onside kicks, I wonder why you don't see more in the middle in situations where the kicking team has no other choice. Most of the time I see them aim for the sideline, in such situations. The receiving team usually deploys their men according to this trend. Usually if the kicking team has 5 guys on each side of the kicker, as opposed to 4 on one side 6 on the other, since by rule you can't overload more than that. There seems to be a tendency in receiving teams to line up against the (expected) onside kick like this:

1 man deep
7 men spaced unevenly across the 45 yard line, with the gaps wider between the men in the middle than the ones closer to the numbers/sidelines.
1 man on the 46-48 yard line near the numbers on each side.

That alignment looks like it would be vulnerable to onside middle, plus it's much less likely that the kick goes out of bounds if you target there. You see it some, but I think you should see onside middle more against that alignment. If it was in the middle you could also get more men around the ball since they are required to line up at least 4 men on each side of the kicker. Is it harder to get the football to do the "high bounce" if you target the middle for the onside kick?

 

[ronburgundy]

Seems like an easy remedy for this would be to modify the safety rule so that, if the ball carrier is in the endzone and his teams "holds" it is a safety, regardless of where the hold itself is occurring. Currently, I think both the ball and the hold itself must be in the endzone, but that makes little sense.

If only the ball needed to be in the endzone during a hold, the play would have stopped at 7 seconds with a safety, or the kicker would have been forced to stay closer to the line of scrimmage out of the endzone.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Seems like an easy remedy for this would be to modify the safety rule so that, if the ball carrier is in the endzone and his teams "holds" it is a safety, regardless of where the hold itself is occurring. Currently, I think both the ball and the hold itself must be in the endzone, but that makes little sense.

If only the ball needed to be in the endzone during a hold, the play would have stopped at 7 seconds with a safety, or the kicker would have been forced to stay closer to the line of scrimmage out of the endzone.

Sorry, I'm not understanding this. The penalties don't stop the clock, nor do they cause the clock to be reset. The play has to continue, because there are other outcomes that are more favorable to the team on defense.

 

[ronburgundy]

Seems like an easy remedy for this would be to modify the safety rule so that, if the ball carrier is in the endzone and his teams "holds" it is a safety, regardless of where the hold itself is occurring. Currently, I think both the ball and the hold itself must be in the endzone, but that makes little sense.

If only the ball needed to be in the endzone during a hold, the play would have stopped at 7 seconds with a safety, or the kicker would have been forced to stay closer to the line of scrimmage out of the endzone.

Sorry, I'm not understanding this. The penalties don't stop the clock, nor do they cause the clock to be reset. The play has to continue, because there are other outcomes that are more favorable to the team on defense.

I was thinking of the safety as a score that would stop the clock. The second a hold occurs, a score occurs, so the clock could be reset to when the score occured, whatever score counted. So, if the only resulting score is a safety, then the clock is reset to the time of the hold. IF a turnover/TD occurs after the hold nullifying the safety, then the clock the time of the TD is what matters.
Alternatively, a slight modification to the safety rule would be to treat the free kick as an inherent part of the safety that doesn't require time on the clock, much like an PAT.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait abuse of a BS rule and the Patriots weren't involved?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Terrell]

The Ravens' would simply play it different if the rules were such that the receiving team would get another play following the safety. Hold for as long as possible, then have the punter punt the ball out of bounds as far down the field as he can. Still a bunch of penalties on the offensive team, but if the punter doesn't go in the end zone & none of the fouls occur inside the end zone there is no scoring play.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Ravens' would simply play it different if the rules were such that the receiving team would get another play following the safety. Hold for as long as possible, then have the punter punt the ball out of bounds as far down the field as he can. Still a bunch of penalties on the offensive team, but if the punter doesn't go in the end zone & none of the fouls occur inside the end zone there is no scoring play.

The punter had to retreat into the endzone with 7 seconds left, because the defenders were getting close, even with the holding. If he would have been forced to kick it with that much time, there would be an offensive play the other way no matter where he kicked it. Plus, getting off a good directional kick while running around to avoid being tackled is quite difficult. The rule change would make trying to run out the clock with penalties and not having to make any kind of skilled play a more risky proposition, and that's would be good for the game.

This kind of tactic could catch on and be used in almost every week. They don't even need to wait for 4th down to do it. If its 3rd down and 15, the odds of getting the 1st down are low, so they might as well use this same tactic on both 3rd and 4th downs, and use up an extra 30 seconds not counting the 40 seconds between the downs. So, if the receiving teams have no time-outs, then even with 1:10 on the clock the tactic would run out the clock. In fact, it isn't just the end of the game they can be used, but anytime such scenarios occur at the end of the 1st half.
It has been uncommon up till now, but not simply due to lack of opportunities (there are plenty), but because of shame and not wanting to engage in such blatantly poor sportsmanship.

BTW, the NFL has a rule that the clock is reset to before the play, if it is a "palpably unfair act". The refs have said that they would call this if they did it two plays in a row. But that is so arbitrary. They committed 9 intentional penalties in a single play. That seems more than sufficient to qualify. Why not make the rule that if the offense commits more than 3 penalties in a single play, it qualifies as "unpalpably unfair". Note there is nothing weird about such a rule, since it is highly analogous to the very frequently enforced rules of 10 second run-offs and that a game cannot end on a defensive penalty, all of which are designed to prevent a team from gaining unfair advantage by manipulating the clock via intentional penalties. We have enforced rules that prevent an offense that is trailing from stopping the clock with intentional penalties, or a defense that is winning from wasting clock time with penalties. This would merely rationally extend it to prevventing an offense the is ahead from wasting clock time with penalties.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The opportunity for playing like this is limited. You can't give up too much ground with lots of time left because you'll cede valuable field position and give the opponent the ball back near their 50 yard line. Also, this play only works because they gave up possession of the ball in the end. Otherwise, the penalties accrue (obviously not on the same play). You could only in theory use this method not at the end of the game if you already had decent field position and could afford to move back 30 or 50 yards. As it is, you can already clean 40 or so seconds a play with just standing around. And why give up 30 yards when you can trap them back their own 10 yard line?