Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? (/thread-14380.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? (/thread-14380.html)
Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-24-2017
I attended last night's game and did not have access to any radio or television broadcast announcers live commentary regarding Stanford's 4th down and 1 yard FG formation (which resulted in a 5 yard delay of delay of game penalty). Following the penalty Stanford stood at 4th and 6 yards to go, sent in their offense, and converted the 1st down.
Can anyone here provide an explanation for the above unusual sequence of events ?
Thanks in advance for any helpful replies.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - VFRing98 - 09-24-2017
It was a mind-boggling set of decisions, even to those who watched on TV, I can assure you.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - cardcrimson - 09-24-2017
The silly green line showed it within Toner's ability. During the delay of game penalty, the ball was snapped and Toner went through with the kick, and was short. Pushed back five yards, staff figured he had little chance. Opted to go for the first instead of pinning UCLA back.
Success.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - BostonCard - 09-24-2017
It was a fortuitous series of events. We should have gone for it on fourth and short, even if the FG was within range. I was kind of worried that Shaw would punt after the delay of game, but glad he elected to go for the first down, and even happier that we converted and got a TD.
BC
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - DC 86 - 09-24-2017
This is covered in another thread, but it's an interesting sequence of events. I think the decision tree is as follows:
On 4th and 1 the options were a 50 yard FG attempt (which Shaw perceived a being highly makeable) or going for it. If Stanford goes for it and makes it we are still probably 30 yards from the end zone, meaning the most likely outcome of the drive is another FG attempt (although as it turns out the drive resulted in a TD).
Once it's 4th and 6 the 55 yard FG is presumably off the table if Shaw perceived it to be outside Toner's range. If Stanford goes for it and makes it they are back in high probability FG range with a chance at a TD. If they punt then on average they will only net 20-25 yards. Given how UCLA/Rosen was moving the ball the urgency to put more points on the board outweighed a marginal gain in field position.
The sequence is unusual but if you assign probabilities to each outcome at each stage I think the logic is sound.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - hayaka - 09-24-2017
(09-24-2017, 12:28 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:This is covered in another thread, but it's an interesting sequence of events. I think the decision tree is as follows:
On 4th and 1 the options were a 50 yard FG attempt (which Shaw perceived a being highly makeable) or going for it. If Stanford goes for it and makes it we are still probably 30 yards from the end zone, meaning the most likely outcome of the drive is another FG attempt (although as it turns out the drive resulted in a TD).
Once it's 4th and 6 the 55 yard FG is presumably off the table if Shaw perceived it to be outside Toner's range. If Stanford goes for it and makes it they are back in high probability FG range with a chance at a TD. If they punt then on average they will only net 20-25 yards. Given how UCLA/Rosen was moving the ball the urgency to put more points on the board outweighed a marginal gain in field position.
The sequence is unusual but if you assign probabilities to each outcome at each stage I think the logic is sound.
It is only sound if you accept the initial premise that Toner is likely to make a 50 yard FG. He has never kicked one that far, at least not at Stanford. I frankly thought the decision was bizarre. It is very hard for me to believe that the probabilities of Toner kicking a 50 yarder were higher than converting a 4th and one, especially given how well we were moving the ball (with Scarlett on short yardage plays) and how poor is UCLA's run defense. There is also the advantage of keeping the drive alive and continuing to wear down UCLA's D.
The decision made no sense to me, all the way around, but then, kicking the FG against SDSU made no sense to me either. At least that one was a chip shot FG however, well within Toner's range.Â
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - DC 86 - 09-24-2017
(09-24-2017, 12:50 PM)hayaka link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17488.msg202600#msg202600 date=1506281306]
This is covered in another thread, but it's an interesting sequence of events. I think the decision tree is as follows:
On 4th and 1 the options were a 50 yard FG attempt (which Shaw perceived a being highly makeable) or going for it. If Stanford goes for it and makes it we are still probably 30 yards from the end zone, meaning the most likely outcome of the drive is another FG attempt (although as it turns out the drive resulted in a TD).
Once it's 4th and 6 the 55 yard FG is presumably off the table if Shaw perceived it to be outside Toner's range. If Stanford goes for it and makes it they are back in high probability FG range with a chance at a TD. If they punt then on average they will only net 20-25 yards. Given how UCLA/Rosen was moving the ball the urgency to put more points on the board outweighed a marginal gain in field position.
The sequence is unusual but if you assign probabilities to each outcome at each stage I think the logic is sound.
It is only sound if you accept the initial premise that Toner is likely to make a 50 yard FG. He has never kicked one that far, at least not at Stanford. I frankly thought the decision was bizarre. It is very hard for me to believe that the probabilities of Toner kicking a 50 yarder were higher than converting a 4th and one, especially given how well we were moving the ball (with Scarlett on short yardage plays) and how poor is UCLA's run defense. There is also the advantage of keeping the drive alive and continuing to wear down UCLA's D.
The decision made no sense to me, all the way around, but then, kicking the FG against SDSU made no sense to me either. At least that one was a chip shot FG however, well within Toner's range.Â
[/quote]
It's impossible to know the exact probability of Toner making the initial attempt, but FG range is usually something that coaches have determined precisely. After warmups the coaches consult with the kicker and come up with ranges for each end of the field. Of course a kicker may still miss. There is only limited data on Toner but watching his FG attempts this year he does appear to have the strength to make it from that distance and I doubt the coaches would have him make an attempt if they weren't highly confident since it wasn't a desperate end of game situation.
In the SD St game it was a chip shot but the upside of making it on fourth down was a touchdown (downside not that bad either = pinning SD St deep), which made going for it in that situation an entirely different equation; I would definitely have gone for it.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - hayaka - 09-24-2017
(09-24-2017, 01:15 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=hayaka link=topic=17488.msg202606#msg202606 date=1506282658]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=17488.msg202600#msg202600 date=1506281306]
This is covered in another thread, but it's an interesting sequence of events. I think the decision tree is as follows:
On 4th and 1 the options were a 50 yard FG attempt (which Shaw perceived a being highly makeable) or going for it. If Stanford goes for it and makes it we are still probably 30 yards from the end zone, meaning the most likely outcome of the drive is another FG attempt (although as it turns out the drive resulted in a TD).
Once it's 4th and 6 the 55 yard FG is presumably off the table if Shaw perceived it to be outside Toner's range. If Stanford goes for it and makes it they are back in high probability FG range with a chance at a TD. If they punt then on average they will only net 20-25 yards. Given how UCLA/Rosen was moving the ball the urgency to put more points on the board outweighed a marginal gain in field position.
The sequence is unusual but if you assign probabilities to each outcome at each stage I think the logic is sound.
It is only sound if you accept the initial premise that Toner is likely to make a 50 yard FG. He has never kicked one that far, at least not at Stanford. I frankly thought the decision was bizarre. It is very hard for me to believe that the probabilities of Toner kicking a 50 yarder were higher than converting a 4th and one, especially given how well we were moving the ball (with Scarlett on short yardage plays) and how poor is UCLA's run defense. There is also the advantage of keeping the drive alive and continuing to wear down UCLA's D.
The decision made no sense to me, all the way around, but then, kicking the FG against SDSU made no sense to me either. At least that one was a chip shot FG however, well within Toner's range.Â
[/quote]
It's impossible to know the exact probability of Toner making the initial attempt, but FG range is usually something that coaches have determined precisely. After warmups the coaches consult with the kicker and come up with ranges for each end of the field. Of course a kicker may still miss. There is only limited data on Toner but watching his FG attempts this year he does appear to have the strength to make it from that distance and I doubt the coaches would have him make an attempt if they weren't highly confident since it wasn't a desperate end of game situation.
In the SD St game it was a chip shot but the upside of making it on fourth down was a touchdown (downside not that bad either = pinning SD St deep), which made going for it in that situation an entirely different equation; I would definitely have gone for it.
[/quote]
I don't see how it is possible to "determine precisely" a kicker's range if they have never tried the distance in a competitive game. Kickers routinely boom 60 yard field goals in practice, but that is hardly the same as the pressure of kicking in an actual game against Division 1 athletes. I don't think there is any question that given the circumstances, 8 or 9 out of 10 head coaches would have gone for the first down, but as we all know, David Shaw is exceptionally conservative in these matters. That might be a holdover from a few years ago when Stanford fielded dominant defenses. Unfortunately that is no longer the case this year, and certainly was not the case in this game, with Josh Rosen throwing darts all night. We should have been trying to get the maximum number of points out of every possession, and especially where kicking the FG in this case would have only resulted in a 13 point lead, i.e. UCLA could have regained the lead with two scores.Â
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - DC 86 - 09-24-2017
(09-24-2017, 12:50 PM)hayaka link Wrote:I don't see how it is possible to "determine precisely" a kicker's range if they have never tried the distance in a competitive game. Kickers routinely boom 60 yard field goals in practice, but that is hardly the same as the pressure of kicking in an actual game against Division 1 athletes.
Range only refers to how far a kicker can kick it through the goalposts from a hold; of course the probability of making it in a game is subject to the pressure factor you cited as well as the execution of the snap and hold and the defense's penetration. My assumption is that the coaches were extremely confident in Toner's leg strength from that distance and confident enough on his ability to handle the pressure given his performance thus far this season in which he has been very accurate and appears to be a cool customer.
I don't think it's clear cut either way, I was calling for Shaw to go for it when I watched in real time. My main point in response to the original post was that not going for it on 4th-and-1 and then going for it on 4th-and-6 appears bizarre but that it is defensible once you analyze it further, specifically due to the exact field position involved.
Re: Field Goal delay of game penalty against Stanford ? - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-25-2017
(09-24-2017, 12:28 PM)DC 86 link Wrote:This is covered in another thread, but it's an interesting sequence of events. I think the decision tree is as follows:
On 4th and 1 the options were a 50 yard FG attempt (which Shaw perceived a being highly makeable) or going for it. If Stanford goes for it and makes it we are still probably 30 yards from the end zone, meaning the most likely outcome of the drive is another FG attempt (although as it turns out the drive resulted in a TD).
Once it's 4th and 6 the 55 yard FG is presumably off the table if Shaw perceived it to be outside Toner's range. If Stanford goes for it and makes it they are back in high probability FG range with a chance at a TD. If they punt then on average they will only net 20-25 yards. Given how UCLA/Rosen was moving the ball the urgency to put more points on the board outweighed a marginal gain in field position.
The sequence is unusual but if you assign probabilities to each outcome at each stage I think the logic is sound.
Yes, makes good sense. Thanks for the reply.