The CardBoard
Scary thought re: Bryce Love - 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: Scary thought re: Bryce Love (/thread-14506.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - CowboyIndian - 10-08-2017

(10-08-2017, 09:16 PM)CornFed link Wrote:You are absolutely right.  That was a brilliant ploy to run time off the clock.  Running six plays into the middle of the stacked defense to go 3 and out twice MIGHT have generated a first down and deprived the Utes of one of their final possessions.  The fact that it didn't come close to gaining first down yardage doesn't prove definitively that a quick slant or a fake and QB keeper or any other approach was any better.

Including the Phillips/Kalambayi caveat previously mentioned......SCOREBOARD!

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - BostonCard - 10-08-2017

Worth noting, I suppose that on our last real possession, we actually ran it five times.  Love got three yards, then eight and a first down, then he ran it for one yard on his last touch.  Then we had the Scarlettcat for -1 yard, then, instead of plowing down the line and taking another 40 seconds off the clock, we attempted a pass, which was incomplete.

Utah got the ball back with 3:47 left; it could have been 3:07.

BC

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - Goose - 10-09-2017

(10-08-2017, 10:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Worth noting, I suppose that on our last real possession, we actually ran it five times.  Love got three yards, then eight and a first down, then he ran it for one yard on his last touch.  Then we had the Scarlettcat for -1 yard, then, instead of plowing down the line and taking another 40 seconds off the clock, we attempted a pass, which was incomplete.

Utah got the ball back with 3:47 left; it could have been 3:07.

BC
Or, better still, the back could have caught the very catchable, normally "safe" short pass and run for a few yards. He had a chance to get a first down, not a given, but possible. That could have taken even more time off the clock. Unfortunately, the back was looking to run before completing the catch and dropped it. Would have been nice if he had realized that keeping the clock moving was just as/more important than the yards, but he didn't. Mostly a mental error by the receiver. In any case, it wasn't full turtle mode at that point. It is very reasonable to expect that pass to be caught.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - CTcard - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 07:21 AM)Goose link Wrote:Or, better still, the back could have caught the very catchable, normally "safe" short pass and run for a few yards. He had a chance to get a first down, not a given, but possible. That could have taken even more time off the clock. Unfortunately, the back was looking to run before completing the catch and dropped it. Would have been nice if he had realized that keeping the clock moving was just as/more important than the yards, but he didn't. Mostly a mental error by the receiver. In any case, it wasn't full turtle mode at that point. It is very reasonable to expect that pass to be caught.

"The back" was Cameron Scarlett.

Of course you expect him to catch the ball, but the point of running is that you are hedging against mistakes; on a run play there is no chance the clock doesn't keep running after the play ends.

Sometimes the certainty of the clock is the most important thing, sometimes it isn't.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - stupac2 - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:01 AM)CTcard link Wrote:Of course you expect him to catch the ball, but the point of running is that you are hedging against mistakes; on a run play there is no chance the clock doesn't keep running after the play ends.

Well, barring a turnover or a penalty. But yes, the odds of a run resulting in 40 seconds off the clock are higher than a pass.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - Goose - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:09 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17616.msg205333#msg205333 date=1507564893]Of course you expect him to catch the ball, but the point of running is that you are hedging against mistakes; on a run play there is no chance the clock doesn't keep running after the play ends.

Well, barring a turnover or a penalty. But yes, the odds of a run resulting in 40 seconds off the clock are higher than a pass.
[/quote]
Any run vs any pass, I agree. The pass on that play however was effectively a slightly forward pitch. I would expect it to take the same or more time than a run if it is complete. When trying to burn clock, it is often argued that one should run wide, as the plays take longer even if they gain/lose the same as an inside run. The trick there is that the back can't go out of bounds. The short pas was a bit like a sweep, with the added benefit that pass action was unexpected. Good call, sub-optimal outcome.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - CTcard - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:09 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Well, barring a turnover or a penalty.

Yeah - I almost put that in but thought brevity should win out.

And on a penalty on a run play, either the offense gets another down and/or the clock runs (but maybe just 25 seconds?).

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - stupac2 - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 10:13 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17616.msg205334#msg205334 date=1507565365]
Well, barring a turnover or a penalty.

Yeah - I almost put that in but thought brevity should win out.

And on a penalty on a run play, either the offense gets another down and/or the clock runs (but maybe just 25 seconds?).
[/quote]

I'm actually not sure if the clock runs after a penalty, it seems like it can't because otherwise you could just do something like commit flagrant holding over and over, making the defense choose between the big gain and running time off the clock.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - BostonCard - 10-09-2017

Quote:Starting the Clock Near the End of a Half
The rules give the referee broad authority in stopping and starting the game clock or the play clock if he feels that a team is manipulating the clock to gain an advantage. Near the end of a half, the clock rules become increasingly important. 

Under most circumstances, if the game clock is stopped because of a penalty, it starts when the referee gives the "ready-for-play" signal after completing the penalty. This year, the committee passed a rule that takes effect inside two minutes in the half. This new rule requires that the clock be started on the snap if the team ahead in the score commits a foul. Under the current rule, the clock would be started on the ready-for-play signal, allowing the fouling team the chance to gain a time advantage by running perhaps 20 or more seconds off the game clock. The new rule prevents this.

This, the clock would stop after the penalty until the next snap.  But because most penalties result in a replay of the down, the clock stoppage doesn’t actually hurt.  For example, if you have third and ten, let the clock run down to 3 seconds and run a play, if there is no play, and there is no stoppage due to out of bounds or incomplete pass, the clock keeps ticking.  If a penalty stops the clock, you replay the down, and if there is no stoppage due to out of bounds or an incomplete pass, the clock keeps ticking.

BC

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - Goose - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 09:01 AM)CTcard link Wrote:"The back" was Cameron Scarlett.
I apologize for changing the subject a bit. I have started to use a "third person" approach in identifying players, partially in response to comments on this board saying "How do you think the player's parents feel when you make disparaging comments about their son?" I know that oftentimes the coaches refer to opposing players as "number 2" rather than "Adore Jackson". It seems like an attempt to depersonalize the comments. This isn't a big deal, but what do others think? Is it better to refer to a player as his position, his number, or his name when making a comment that could be considered critical? Or is it a don't care/doesn't matter?

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - CTcard - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 12:37 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:
Quote:Starting the Clock Near the End of a Half
The rules give the referee broad authority in stopping and starting the game clock or the play clock if he feels that a team is manipulating the clock to gain an advantage. Near the end of a half, the clock rules become increasingly important. 

Under most circumstances, if the game clock is stopped because of a penalty, it starts when the referee gives the "ready-for-play" signal after completing the penalty. This year, the committee passed a rule that takes effect inside two minutes in the half. This new rule requires that the clock be started on the snap if the team ahead in the score commits a foul. Under the current rule, the clock would be started on the ready-for-play signal, allowing the fouling team the chance to gain a time advantage by running perhaps 20 or more seconds off the game clock. The new rule prevents this.

This, the clock would stop after the penalty until the next snap.  But because most penalties result in a replay of the down, the clock stoppage doesn’t actually hurt.  For example, if you have third and ten, let the clock run down to 3 seconds and run a play, if there is no play, and there is no stoppage due to out of bounds or incomplete pass, the clock keeps ticking.  If a penalty stops the clock, you replay the down, and if there is no stoppage due to out of bounds or an incomplete pass, the clock keeps ticking.

BC

Interesting - are you quoting the rules or an article about the rules?

The rulebook is a little tricky to follow on the matter, as various special situations are described throughout and not necessarily grouped in one place. I had just read the following:
Quote:Rule 3
Article 4
Section c.
25-Second Clock. If the officials signal the game clock to be stopped for
any  of  the  following  reasons,  the  referee  shall  signal  (one  open  palm  in 
an  over-the-head  pumping  motion)  that  the  clock  should  be  set  at  25 
seconds:
1.  Penalty administration.
... [lots of other cases]


Apparently much of those cases for the 25 second clock are suspended in the final two minutes.


(10-09-2017, 01:06 PM)Goose link Wrote:I apologize for changing the subject a bit. I have started to use a "third person" approach in identifying players, partially in response to comments on this board saying "How do you think the player's parents feel when you make disparaging comments about their son?"

Perhaps I should be the one apologizing.
At that moment, it seemed harsher to not acknowledge the name of the player, but since the comment came with some criticism, perhaps you are correct.
I will try to keep that in mind.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - Goose - 10-09-2017

(10-09-2017, 01:19 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Perhaps I should be the one apologizing.
At that moment, it seemed harsher to not acknowledge the name of the player, but since the comment came with some criticism, perhaps you are correct.
I will try to keep that in mind.
I am not sure you were wrong. I really don't know what is generally accepted as "best practice", if there is one. Thoughts welcome.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - BostonCard - 10-09-2017

CTcare... my bad; I neglected to link the page.  It was from the NCAA changes to know for the 2016 season:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-08-03/college-football-need-know-rule-changes-2016-season

BC


Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - martyup - 10-09-2017

I will keep this in mind when referring to #15 at the LB position.

Re: Scary thought re: Bryce Love - BostonCard - 10-09-2017

I don't think there are any guidelines here, beyond general "don't be a jerk".

I tend to think highlighting players in specific plays is fair game.  Player X whiffed on his block doesn't seem to be especially offensive.  I would expect that players and parents are harder on themselves than anything we can do.  I think even highlighting players' limitations seems within bounds.  To post that someone struggles in coverage or is getting blown off the line, or even "hasn't had enough 'impact plays' such as tackles for a loss, sacks, etc. seems reasonable for an internet message board.

I tend to draw (my personal) line at general attacks directed at players or coaches.  Player X is a moron or player Y sucks or player z is a waste of a scholarship all seem to be insults without any analysis.  Fortunately, I think they are pretty rare here.

BC