Why didn't Flood call a timeout when Rutgers caused the 4th down with 1:40 left on the clock???? Doesn't he understand time management? Doesn't he want to give his offense enough time to march down the field before half time???
How about a timeout????
- Thread starter TaxLawyer5
- Start date
We all know that Flood and Laviano call timeouts at a record pace. But not using the 3rd time out to save 30 seconds before Army's 4th down play just makes no sense. Rather than using the time out to set up the field goal, Rutgers could have had time to march all the way down the field for a TD had they used the timeout earlier. I'm guessing Army used their first time on their fourth down for the exact same reason... they wanted to use up as much time on the clock as possible. Have the play clock tick down to 1, call time out, and then call your 4th down play.
The reason you do not call timeout in that situation is that you plan to get the stop. If you do, then you will be taking over on the 1 and you want to run out the clock.
With all the TV stoppages there's no reason to burn TOs. I've watched more standing around up here than football. Brutal.
"Time enough to march down the field and score"??
LOL.... kind of like how we've marched downfield all year.
LOL.... kind of like how we've marched downfield all year.
Whether or not Rutgers calls a timeout, if they stop Army on 4th down, Army is going to have 3 timeouts in an attempt to force Rutgers to punt. Certainly, if Rutgers doesn't pick up a first down, then Army would get the ball back with more time on the clock after the punt if Rutgers calls a timeout on Army's fourth down. But I'm willing to take that chance. I'm guessing that either (i) Army scores (which they did), (ii) Army doesn't score but Rutgers picks up a first down and runs out the clock, or (iii) Army gets the ball back on a punt and doesn't take advantage of the added time (due to their running the ball the majority of the time, which will eat up the added time stemming from the time out).
