BC's Punt with 1:57 Left in 4th

[StevieB160]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

 

[RU76]

BC just trying to make the score more respectable; just like Notre Dame punting to Ohio state near the end of that game.

 

[RUBlackout7]

Yeah they didn’t wanna get beat by 8

 

[robcac26]

Yep I said the same thing, abysmal clock management. 4th and 25 seemed too unlikely, but instead they put themselves in a position where they would most likely have to get about 50-60 yards in two plays to get into field goal range before time runs out.

The UNC/App State game was another example of idiotic decisions and both teams deserved to lose. Every coach must think their team would fail on a 2 point conversion more often than not because if they thought they'd succeed on more than 50% of them, they should attempt it every time since even at 50/50 you end up the same as if you always kick the PAT. But then even though throughout the entire game they must think their team is probably not going to convert a 2 point conversion, they suddenly decide it's a good idea at a time when if you fail, you lose the game, and the dunce commentators always seem to applaud the "courage to go for it" when this happens. It isn't courage, it's stupidity. And then in this particular game, they fail on the conversion which necessitates an onside kick. The onside kick is also unsuccessful, but then everyone on the field does the wrong thing. Instead of taking a knee and securing the win, the UNC player runs into the end zone so that they now have to kick the ball back to App State and give them another chance on offense. Meanwhile, the App State kicking team chases after him and tries to stop him, apparently not even realizing that he is doing exactly what they want him to. If they would have succeeded in tackling him, they would have lost. For whatever reason, this complete lack of awareness seems to happen very often in football compared to other sports.

BC just trying to make the score more respectable; just like Notre Dame punting to Ohio state near the end of that game.

I highly doubt that was the reason. If so, then why call the timeout?

 

[retired711]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

You make good points. Maybe the BC coaches thought there was something going on that would cause yet another sack on the fourth down play, and that an adjustment was needed. In addition, they may have thought they had a decent chance at a punt block in the dying seconds of the game. But those are thin reeds on which to plan a strategy.

 

[Extra Point]

At that point in the game BC couldn't make a 25 yard play. If they did go for it and their QB got sacked and Rutgers got another score everyone would ask why they didn't punt. A big mistake they made was running into the kicker.

 

[Caliknight]

Their D was gassed but their Oline was even more so. We were destroying their QB. To get that kind of yardage would take time. Time they couldn’t create. Low odds of both but lower odds of getting those 25 yards and real odds you could have ended your QBs season. It was a business decision as much as anything. The best choice of two bad options.

 

[Knight Shift]

Jurkovec took a hard beating. Maybe he needed the rest.

 

[Rutgers25]

The timeout was very dumb. Rush the punt team out there. Would have saved them 30-40 seconds.

after the timeout they absolutely needed to go for it. As others have mentioned, they could have let RU walk into the end zone and gotten the ball back with a lot time left down 8

 

[retired711]

The timeout was very dumb. Rush the punt team out there. Would have saved them 30-40 seconds.

after the timeout they absolutely needed to go for it. As others have mentioned, they could have let RU walk into the end zone and gotten the ball back with a lot time left down 8

Schiano is smart enough that he would have told the team just to flop four times with the ball and not score the TD.

 

[RUScrew85]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

Very good point.

 

[RUScrew85]

The timeout was very dumb. Rush the punt team out there. Would have saved them 30-40 seconds.

after the timeout they absolutely needed to go for it. As others have mentioned, they could have let RU walk into the end zone and gotten the ball back with a lot time left down 8

We were discussing how RU should not score if the opportunity presented itself at that point.

 

[RUChoppin]

The way we'd been getting to Jurkovec, we might have been able to tackle him before he made it to the end zone for the safety, lol

 

[robcac26]

At that point in the game BC couldn't make a 25 yard play. If they did go for it and their QB got sacked and Rutgers got another score everyone would ask why they didn't punt. A big mistake they made was running into the kicker.

Their D was gassed but their Oline was even more so. We were destroying their QB. To get that kind of yardage would take time. Time they couldn’t create. Low odds of both but lower odds of getting those 25 yards and real odds you could have ended your QBs season. It was a business decision as much as anything. The best choice of two bad options.

So they couldn't make a 25 yard play, so instead they put themselves in a position where they would most likely need to get 50+ yards on two plays to have a chance to get the field goal unit out there?

We were discussing how RU should not score if the opportunity presented itself at that point.

Eh that could go either way because scoring on that drive would have made it so BC would need to go all the way down the field and score a touchdown rather than just get into field goal range. However, I was annoyed that Cruickshank made the fair catch. The extra few yards would almost certainly not make a difference since the objective on the ensuing drive was just to kill the clock. Once they kicked the ball, they've already done what we wanted them to do. Don't bother making the fair catch and risking a turnover, just walk off the field while the ball's in the air and let them down it wherever.

 

[ScarletDave]

The play before we rushed 3 and still sacked him. They would never have had the time to throw a 25-yard pass

 

[StevieB160]

The way we'd been getting to Jurkovec, we might have been able to tackle him before he made it to the end zone for the safety, lol

That might not have been so bad for BC. I’d rather have onside kick attempt down 3 than ball back with 12 seconds!

 

[RUChoppin]

That might not have been so bad for BC. I’d rather have onside kick attempt down 3 than ball back with 12 seconds!

No, I mean a turnover on downs giving us the ball back on their 2 yard line, lol

 

[StevieB160]

The play before we rushed 3 and still sacked him. They would never have had the time to throw a 25-yard pass

Then what was their best hope for winning? Just hope Rutgers fumbles?

 

[Proud NJ Sports Fan]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

I was shocked that they didn’t go for it.

Also wasn’t happy that our punt returner caught the punt ( muf risk)

 

[StevieB160]

No, I mean a turnover on downs giving us the ball back on their 2 yard line, lol

Ah gotcha. Also not really much difference at that point if Rutgers has ball on 2 or at midfield

 

[MoreCowbellRU]

Then what was their best hope for winning? Just hope Rutgers fumbles?

After 2 sacks and facing 4th and 25, their only hope was Devine intervention. No real choices left. All the "they should have" stuff is just nonsense. QB was DONE. His body language said it all. D line did a great job 2nd half. BC OL was worn out and it showed.

 

[WhiteBus]

Man! The shit some people think up.

 

[RUChoppin]

After 2 sacks and facing 4th and 25, their only hope was Devine intervention. No real choices left. All the "they should have" stuff is just nonsense. QB was DONE. His body language said it all. D line did a great job 2nd half. BC OL was worn out and it showed.

Agree.... at 4th and 25, they had pretty much exhausted their chances. Their OLine was spent and overmatched at that point, and their QB was battered. Their chances boiled down to a) a muffed punt, b) a fumbled exchange or carry, and c) a hail mary with under 20 seconds left after getting the QB/OL a chance to regroup.

Wasn't the worst plan in the world. Might a safety have given them a hair's width more hope? Possibly - but an onsides kick after a safety is a bit different than a normal one after a kickoff, and likely not something that gets a lot of practice. The other options end up being roughly the same, just with even fewer seconds on the clock if you do get the ball back.

End of the day, they had the ball with over two minutes and two timeouts, and they went backward 15 yards instead of forward. They were out of time and out of answers at 4th and 25.

 

[Ridge 22]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

Was at the game and said the same thing to my son at the time

 

[Miggins]

Interesting question on our side should Crushank have fielded the punt? I am not sure the odds but maybe a 1% - 5% chance he muffs it. Should he not field it and give up the 20 yards in field position?

 

[runrayrun]

They should have ran the ball into their own end zone, let Rutgers recover it, and have almost two minutes to drive for tying touchdown. Or take safety and go for onside kick

 

[Plum Street]

Interesting question on our side should Crushank have fielded the punt? I am not sure the odds but maybe a 1% - 5% chance he muffs it. Should he not field it and give up the 20 yards in field position?

Everyone I was watching with thought the same thing . Just started a thread on this

 

[mdh2003]

Jurkovec took a hard beating. Maybe he needed the rest.

View embedded media

Holy shit - was the RU section mic’d up or are we just that friggen Jersey loud! Love it.

 

[robcac26]

Interesting question on our side should Crushank have fielded the punt? I am not sure the odds but maybe a 1% - 5% chance he muffs it. Should he not field it and give up the 20 yards in field position?

Cruickshank, but yes, he absolutely should not have caught it. We didn't need to score, we just needed to kill the clock, so the only concern about field position is that we just needed to be somewhere that Korsak could leave BC with a long drive to field goal range, and the BC punt was coming from so deep in their end that Korsak was going to pin them back there no matter where BC downed it.

This reminds me of one of Kevin Kelley's tactics. He's the former high school coach that never punted, always did onside kicks, etc. His philosophy on fielding punts was that there is too much that could go wrong--you could muff the catch, take a penalty, etc, and once they have kicked the ball, they're already doing what you want them to do by allowing your team to go on offense, so he had his players walk off the field as soon as the ball was kicked.

 

[hoquat63]

They should have ran the ball into their own end zone, let Rutgers recover it, and have almost two minutes to drive for tying touchdown. Or take safety and go for onside kick

On a safety they would have to kick from 20 yard line, iirc. Successful on side kick would only get them to 30 or 35. Still along way to go.

 

[Caliknight]

So they couldn't make a 25 yard play, so instead they put themselves in a position where they would most likely need to get 50+ yards on two plays to have a chance to get the field goal unit out there?


Eh that could go either way because scoring on that drive would have made it so BC would need to go all the way down the field and score a touchdown rather than just get into field goal range. However, I was annoyed that Cruickshank made the fair catch. The extra few yards would almost certainly not make a difference since the objective on the ensuing drive was just to kill the clock. Once they kicked the ball, they've already done what we wanted them to do. Don't bother making the fair catch and risking a turnover, just walk off the field while the ball's in the air and let them down it wherever.

Yes. Their QB just got destroyed. Go back, regroup, maybe get lucky. I would have played it the same way.

Again, the best decision at that time of two bad options.

 

[bigmatt718]

Yeah they didn’t wanna get beat by 8

Lol you go for 2 and the kill in that situation had they gone for it on 4th down and didn't get it, resulting in us punching it in for a TD.

 

[Steve91562]

Their D was gassed but their Oline was even more so. We were destroying their QB. To get that kind of yardage would take time. Time they couldn’t create. Low odds of both but lower odds of getting those 25 yards and real odds you could have ended your QBs season. It was a business decision as much as anything. The best choice of two bad options.

With all the hype about the QB position, it shows what's most important on a FB team.

 

[mdh2003]

Yes. Their QB just got destroyed. Go back, regroup, maybe get lucky. I would have played it the same way.

Again, the best decision at that time of two bad options.

Yes, that bit is not mentioned enough during this analysis. Not sure that QB on that Oline was ready for that 4th down play.

 

[krup]

Yep I said the same thing, abysmal clock management. 4th and 25 seemed too unlikely, but instead they put themselves in a position where they would most likely have to get about 50-60 yards in two plays to get into field goal range before time runs out.

The UNC/App State game was another example of idiotic decisions and both teams deserved to lose. Every coach must think their team would fail on a 2 point conversion more often than not because if they thought they'd succeed on more than 50% of them, they should attempt it every time since even at 50/50 you end up the same as if you always kick the PAT. But then even though throughout the entire game they must think their team is probably not going to convert a 2 point conversion, they suddenly decide it's a good idea at a time when if you fail, you lose the game, and the dunce commentators always seem to applaud the "courage to go for it" when this happens. It isn't courage, it's stupidity. And then in this particular game, they fail on the conversion which necessitates an onside kick. The onside kick is also unsuccessful, but then everyone on the field does the wrong thing. Instead of taking a knee and securing the win, the UNC player runs into the end zone so that they now have to kick the ball back to App State and give them another chance on offense. Meanwhile, the App State kicking team chases after him and tries to stop him, apparently not even realizing that he is doing exactly what they want him to. If they would have succeeded in tackling him, they would have lost. For whatever reason, this complete lack of awareness seems to happen very often in football compared to other sports.


I highly doubt that was the reason. If so, then why call the timeout?

I can see a justification for going for the win with a 2 point conversion late when your defense just can’t stop the other team, and your offense is scoring but it is taking a lot of things to fall the right way for you to score.

The best example I can think of this is Boise State’s 2 pt conversion against OU in the Fiesta Bowl.

I only saw that both teams in the UNC/App St game scored a ton in the 4th quarter, but I didn’t see the game. Did you get the sense that both teams were unable to stop the other by the end?

 

[FastMJ]

I’m pretty sure Jurkovic didn’t want to go back in for another snap on that 4th down and they gave the guy a blow instead

 

[scarletrat]

Punting made no sense after taking the TO. They should have gone for it. Happy they didn’t.

 

[RuSnp]

Punting made no sense after taking the TO. They should have gone for it. Happy they didn’t.

I mentioned this in another thread but how about intentionally fumbling in the end zone? Sounds nuts but BC would still be down just 1 possession with 1:30 ish and a kickoff to receive and some time to get their thoughts together. But as smart as our guys are maybe they don't just fall on it and let the clock run out right then and there...

 

[new jersey1]

Sorry if this was elaborated on elsewhere...but I don't see why punting here was good idea for BC. Obviously it was going to take a miracle one way or another at that point. Unless something really weird happens like a fumble, at 1:57 with punt if you figure (as happened) that the punt and each of Rutgers 3 runs will take 5 seconds each for 20 seconds and then the two 40 second run offs between plays, it takes the clock down to 17 seconds. The Rutgers punts it down and there's about 12 seconds left with no timeouts (even if they had not run into kicker). At that point, you basically are facing a situation similar to 4th and 25 because you have one play to get into field goal range from your own 20 or worse.

While it feels weird to go for it on 4th and 25 with that around 2 minutes left, you have a chance at a defensive holding or pass interference even if you don't complete it. And if you don't convert, the game is not technically over. a Rutgers punch it in TD there would leave it 29-21 and sort of like the late game UNC-Appy State situation today. And if Rutgers kicks the field goal to 25-21 then a few seconds left to try and get a TD with the few seconds remaining.

And to take a timeout after the sack instead of rushing on punting team and saving timeout for when Rutgers has ball.

Makes very little sense.

Agree about going for it on 4th down.

 

[RU Cheese]

I was thrilled they punted because it was a dumb move. The best case situation was what happened - force RU to go 3 and out and punt. If they didn't run into the punter they get the ball back with 15 seconds to go. How is that a better position to than converting a 4+25?