The CardBoard
The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - 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: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed (/thread-16495.html)


The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - OutsiderFan - 09-25-2018

It was completely inconsequential, but...

Stanford's last offensive play from scrimmage in regulation was a 9 yd pass to Love.  Stanford called timeout with 5 seconds left on 2nd and 1.  When Stanford lined up to kick the tying FG, Oregon was called for too many men on the field/illegal substitution.  When the ref announced the penalty he said "it remains 2nd down."  

Someone please explain to me how when the team without the ball commits a 5 yard penalty on 2nd and 1, it should be anything other than 1st down.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - stupac2 - 09-25-2018

I missed that live, probably because the down was irrelevant. But the ESPN play-by-play shows the last FG happening on 1st and 10. It was likely just a mistake by the ref.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - BobK - 09-25-2018

Which one is why no one addressed it
Lol

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - BostonCard - 09-25-2018

The real question is why we didn't call time out immediately after the completion?  I don't remember the timing, but I seem to recall there being enough time to run at least one play to the end zone (presumably the JJ Arcega-Whiteside boxout) had we immediately called a time out.  Of course, there is always the possibility that such a play would have wound up with a game-ending sack or interception, and all is well that ends well, but still, at the time I was thinking that boy would it really suck if we spent all this effort to get to overtime and then lost in OT.

BC

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - ADPinWDC - 09-25-2018

The plan was to get to OT, not risk an interception on the lob to the End Zone Rebound.  
Shaw looked real confident about getting to OT, break them mentally, and toss it to a TE -- on a tip with 4 guys surrounding Parkinson. 
A couple people in the stadium said that the Ducks were pyschologically SPENT going into OT.  
Their collapse matched the Hindenburg.  "Oh, the Humanity"...

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - fullmetal - 09-25-2018

Oregon probably would have brought the house on such a passing attempt and double/triple-covered JJAW.  In a situation like that (chaotic, time-pressured), I can see how Shaw would trust Jet Toner to tie the game and then ride the momentum in overtime.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - BostonCard - 09-25-2018

(09-25-2018, 09:12 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Oregon probably would have brought the house on such a passing attempt and double/triple-covered JJAW.  In a situation like that (chaotic, time-pressured), I can see how Shaw would trust Jet Toner to tie the game and then ride the momentum in overtime.

The Ducks wouldn't have been able to do that without putting 12+ men on the field.  If you are "bringing the house" (by which I assume you mean a big blitz), then you have to leave the receivers in single coverage.

BC

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - SamuelMcF - 09-25-2018

(09-25-2018, 09:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(09-25-2018, 09:12 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  Oregon probably would have brought the house on such a passing attempt and double/triple-covered JJAW.  In a situation like that (chaotic, time-pressured), I can see how Shaw would trust Jet Toner to tie the game and then ride the momentum in overtime.

The Ducks wouldn't have been able to do that without putting 12+ men on the field.  If you are "bringing the house" (by which I assume you mean a big blitz), then you have to leave the receivers in single coverage.

BC

Or, if you're TCU, you leave a 6'7" TE wide open.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - CTcard - 09-25-2018

(09-25-2018, 08:35 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  The real question is why we didn't call time out immediately after the completion? 

I believe the plan, such as it was, was for the team to rush up and spike the ball allowing time for another play while retaining the TO.
Using up the TO would allow for various ways that the next play could be stopped in bounds and the clock running out before we could get the FG team out.

This would have been straight forward had Love managed one more yard for a first down. Under the circumstances that did unfold there was some confusion in Costello communicating with the sideline (though as far as I could tell NOT Costello worrying over the spot as the announcers claimed), and enough seconds ran off the clock that it was eventually time to use the TO.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - muiron - 09-25-2018

It reminds me of the much debated decision in the Fiesta Bowl with a then new Shaw choosing not to run another play or two with Andrew Luck but counting on his (frosh?) FG kicker to win it.  Happily, Printerboy did a better job. Of course, the Fiesta Bowl was for the win, not the tie and getting at least to OT probably changed the calculation some.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-25-2018

It was disappointing that the Oregon coach, following the penalty, called a time out to try and "ice" Jet Toner. Like the U of O during August, no class.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - BostonCard - 09-25-2018

(09-25-2018, 07:43 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote:  It was disappointing that the Oregon coach, following the penalty, called a time out to try and "ice" Jet Toner. Like the U of O during August, no class.

Meh.  I have a hard time getting worked up about something that seems to be standard in the football coaching playbook.  I have no idea if it works or not, but a substantial proportion (probably the majority) of coaches "ice" the kicker on a potential tying or winning field goal.


By the way, Toner did the absolute right thing.  Ignore the whistles, and just kick the damned thing through the uprights regardless of whether a time out was called or not.

BC

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - lex24 - 09-25-2018

Stanford did not manage the clock well at the end of either half. Both halves they hit a pass for a first down in Oregon territory (about the 35 or 40) with about 35 seconds left. No time outs left in first half, one in second. Costello HAS to spike the ball there. Should be automatic. He didn’t either time. Cost them about 8 seconds. It hurt them in the first half as he ended up getting sacked and out of field-goal range. And it cost them perhaps having the opportunity to take a shot at the end zone in regulation.
I suspect that was discussed when they went over the game film after the game.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - fullmetal - 09-26-2018

(09-25-2018, 09:26 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  The Ducks wouldn't have been able to do that without putting 12+ men on the field.  If you are "bringing the house" (by which I assume you mean a big blitz), then you have to leave the receivers in single coverage.

Yeah, but given how quickly our QB makes decisions and how long it takes him to aim an accurate throw, the blitz is likely to work before the ball comes out.

RE: The last Oregon question nobody has addressed - stupac2 - 09-26-2018

(09-25-2018, 07:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(09-25-2018, 07:43 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote:  It was disappointing that the Oregon coach, following the penalty, called a time out to try and "ice" Jet Toner. Like the U of O during August, no class.

Meh.  I have a hard time getting worked up about something that seems to be standard in the football coaching playbook.  I have no idea if it works or not, but a substantial proportion (probably the majority) of coaches "ice" the kicker on a potential tying or winning field goal.


By the way, Toner did the absolute right thing.  Ignore the whistles, and just kick the damned thing through the uprights regardless of whether a time out was called or not.

BC

I saw an analysis in the NFL that it actually does work. The NFL is a bit different, though, in that you can only call one TO in a row, calling two is a penalty. In college you can call as many as you want, This leads to some interesting situations, like in the BYU-Wisconsin game, when Wisconsin lined up for their game-winning (tying? I don't remember) BYU had all 3 TOs. So he called two in a row, then didn't call the third, and the kicker missed. I liked that strategy, the kicker probably expects you to call all 3 once you call 2 and might not fully prepare himself.