ADVERTISEMENT

Taking a Knee to End the Half

robcac26

All Conference
Nov 30, 2012
2,835
2,381
113
Can anyone explain to me why this is generally accepted as the smart thing to do? We had 34 seconds and a timeout, we were losing, and we were kicking off to start the second half. Yeah 34 seconds isn't a ton of time, but it's enough to possibly make a few plays and at least get within field goal range. I never understood why this is done. Is the idea that you don't want to turn the ball over? Well (1) Iowa was winning, so they would probably take a knee if they end up with the ball anyway, and (2) anytime you are on offense, you have a higher chance of scoring than the other team does, and (3) if you're not even going to try to score because you think a turnover is more likely, then why not just punt on every first down? This makes no sense to me.
 
Reasoning generally is no time to do much, you are not in a desperate situation (ie end of game) and don't want to risk a turnover to give other team easy points. For us, add to it a non-productive QB so better to let time expire and regroup at halftime. If we had a QB who could stretch the field and make smart decisions maybe you take one shot down field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RutgersJoe
Can anyone explain to me why this is generally accepted as the smart thing to do? We had 34 seconds and a timeout, we were losing, and we were kicking off to start the second half. Yeah 34 seconds isn't a ton of time, but it's enough to possibly make a few plays and at least get within field goal range. I never understood why this is done. Is the idea that you don't want to turn the ball over? Well (1) Iowa was winning, so they would probably take a knee if they end up with the ball anyway, and (2) anytime you are on offense, you have a higher chance of scoring than the other team does, and (3) if you're not even going to try to score because you think a turnover is more likely, then why not just punt on every first down? This makes no sense to me.

We aren't really capable of moving the ball in big chunks through the air if you haven't noticed. It's a 7 point game so the last thing you want is to turn it over on your side of the field and give away more points. It's a defense battle so you take a knee, kickoff and play for field position.
 
I still don't see why it makes sense to not even try taking a shot down the field. Yeah we don't have a great QB but unless it is intercepted and run all the way back, which has a lower chance of happening than a completed pass, Iowa wouldn't be in field goal range and would just kneel it to end the half anyway.
 
Too much can go wrong. Field position dictated it too.

If we had Montana under center, sure. We don't.
 
There were a few questionable calls yesterday, but that was not one of them. With Laviano as our best option at QB, better chance we give Iowa another chance to score with a turnover then our offense putting up points.
 
Can anyone explain to me why this is generally accepted as the smart thing to do? We had 34 seconds and a timeout, we were losing, and we were kicking off to start the second half. Yeah 34 seconds isn't a ton of time, but it's enough to possibly make a few plays and at least get within field goal range. I never understood why this is done. Is the idea that you don't want to turn the ball over? Well (1) Iowa was winning, so they would probably take a knee if they end up with the ball anyway, and (2) anytime you are on offense, you have a higher chance of scoring than the other team does, and (3) if you're not even going to try to score because you think a turnover is more likely, then why not just punt on every first down? This makes no sense to me.
With our QB and his propensity to NOT make a smart play there was absolutely nothing wrong with taking a knee at that point...if your QB is Lamar Jackson then you stay on the field and try to score...Oden or Louis in the future may change the way we do things when some time remains on the clock...
 
I'm still not convinced. If there's too much that can go wrong when we are on offense, why don't we just punt on first down every time we get the ball? Throw a bomb down the sideline, if it's incomplete then no big deal, if it's picked off, Iowa is going to kneel it anyway. The chances of Iowa's defense scoring on that play are not high enough to justify not even making an attempt to score before time runs out in my opinion, especially in a 7-0 game where one possession could make the difference between winning and losing.
 
I'm still not convinced. If there's too much that can go wrong when we are on offense, why don't we just punt on first down every time we get the ball? Throw a bomb down the sideline, if it's incomplete then no big deal, if it's picked off, Iowa is going to kneel it anyway. The chances of Iowa's defense scoring on that play are not high enough to justify not even making an attempt to score before time runs out in my opinion, especially in a 7-0 game where one possession could make the difference between winning and losing.

Actually on the 3rd down play where Patton fumbled I said to my buddies before the snap "we should just punt now...nothing good will come from this".

Our QB is below average (to be nice) and more could go wrong than right. It's a very low percentage play to begin with, factor in our anemic passing game and the poor field position and it's absolutely the right call.
 
I still don't see why it makes sense to not even try taking a shot down the field. Yeah we don't have a great QB but unless it is intercepted and run all the way back, which has a lower chance of happening than a completed pass, Iowa wouldn't be in field goal range and would just kneel it to end the half anyway.

Well then you're helpless.

If you can't understand why trying to drive down the field in 30 seconds with our impotent offense is a terrible call and pick 6 waiting to happen, there's truly no explaining football to you.

This wasn't the smart call; it was the ONLY call with this offense.
 
But I guess you 're more interested in spouting uninformed opinion and arguing than you are so in having your questions answered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
I still don't see why it makes sense to not even try taking a shot down the field. Yeah we don't have a great QB but unless it is intercepted and run all the way back, which has a lower chance of happening than a completed pass, Iowa wouldn't be in field goal range and would just kneel it to end the half anyway.
Yes, but given the history of our QB for fumbling and taking big Davis at in opportune times, not unreasonably to predict a big sack and s fumble.
 
Well then you're helpless.

If you can't understand why trying to drive down the field in 30 seconds with our impotent offense is a terrible call and pick 6 waiting to happen, there's truly no explaining football to you.

This wasn't the smart call; it was the ONLY call with this offense.
Even with Laviano throwing the ball, you really think there's a better chance of an Iowa player not only catching the ball, but then running it all the way back down the field than all other possible outcomes combined? Most likely the pass is incomplete, maybe it gets picked off, but I still maintain that there is a better chance of Rutgers scoring than Iowa there.

But I guess you 're more interested in spouting uninformed opinion and arguing than you are so in having your questions answered.
Just because you haven't convinced me means I'm only interested in arguing? I thought this was a reasonable discussion. You're the only one bashing anyone here.
 
Darrell Royal, long time Texas HC, is credited with saying "3 things can happen when you pass the ball and two are bad".

In this particular case the 1 good thing is even more less likely than normal.

An incomplete stops the clock. Any combination of 3 incompletes and Iowa timeouts means you have to punt. Now you bring a block or long return into play on top of everything else.

There is no acceptable reason to do anything but run the clock out.
 
Just because you haven't convinced me means I'm only interested in arguing? I thought this was a reasonable discussion. You're the only one bashing anyone here.

Don't mean to sound like a jerk, but there's not much of a discussion here besides everyone explaining why you're wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoogieKnight
Darrell Royal, long time Texas HC, is credited with saying "3 things can happen when you pass the ball and two are bad".

In this particular case the 1 good thing is even more less likely than normal.

An incomplete stops the clock. Any combination of 3 incompletes and Iowa timeouts means you have to punt. Now you bring a block or long return into play on top of everything else.

There is no acceptable reason to do anything but run the clock out.
Yeah a completion is less likely than normal, but an interception is also not as bad as normal since it would most likely result in Iowa kneeling it anyway. Also, that quote seems to imply that the three possible outcomes have an equal chance of happening, which isn't correct.

I don't remember how many timeouts Iowa had remaining to be honest, but depending on how many they had, you can still take a shot down the field and then if it's incomplete, kneel it on the next down to avoid having to punt.
 
Last edited:
I'm still not convinced. If there's too much that can go wrong when we are on offense, why don't we just punt on first down every time we get the ball? Throw a bomb down the sideline, if it's incomplete then no big deal, if it's picked off, Iowa is going to kneel it anyway. The chances of Iowa's defense scoring on that play are not high enough to justify not even making an attempt to score before time runs out in my opinion, especially in a 7-0 game where one possession could make the difference between winning and losing.

Yeah a completion is less likely than normal, but an interception is also not as bad as normal since it would most likely result in Iowa kneeling it anyway. Also, that quote seems to imply that the three possible outcomes have an equal chance of happening, which isn't correct.

I don't remember how many timeouts Iowa had remaining to be honest, but depending on how many they had, you can still take a shot down the field and then if it's incomplete, kneel it on the next down to avoid having to punt.
You assume that if Iowa picks it off they're just going to take a knee. What's the difference between that and Rutgers just taking a knee to begin with? If you're arguing that it makes sense for Rutgers to take a shot, why wouldn't Iowa also take a shot if they got the ball back?
 
I stated in another thread I would have brought in Retting and thrown some bombs. The risk of a pick six is unlikely on very long passes. The legitimate risk with passing here is with incompletions and their timeouts we would have to punt. Being they scored and were getting the ball to start the second half I would have taken the risk but I understand the logic of the knee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wicker
Even with Laviano throwing the ball, you really think there's a better chance of an Iowa player not only catching the ball, but then running it all the way back down the field than all other possible outcomes combined? Most likely the pass is incomplete, maybe it gets picked off, but I still maintain that there is a better chance of Rutgers scoring than Iowa there.


Just because you haven't convinced me means I'm only interested in arguing? I thought this was a reasonable discussion. You're the only one bashing anyone here.

Not just me, everyone in this thread and everyone who knows anything whatsoever about football. This is a complete non-discussion.
 
You assume that if Iowa picks it off they're just going to take a knee. What's the difference between that and Rutgers just taking a knee to begin with? If you're arguing that it makes sense for Rutgers to take a shot, why wouldn't Iowa also take a shot if they got the ball back?
They could do that, but they probably wouldn't either. It wouldn't make as much sense for them though since they had the lead and are getting the ball to start the half.
 
Not just me, everyone in this thread and everyone who knows anything whatsoever about football. This is a complete non-discussion.
Yeah anyone who disagrees doesn't know anything about football... The reply right above yours suggested throwing a deep ball as well, but I'm sure you'll just dismiss him as not knowing anything about football either.
 
we're talking about Chris "I take sacks on 3 down from the 20 yardline" Laviano, correct?

what was the question?
 
Yeah anyone who disagrees doesn't know anything about football... The reply right above yours suggested throwing a deep ball as well, but I'm sure you'll just dismiss him as not knowing anything about football either.

Read the other thread he started, and you can do that for me.
 
I recall during the Schiano era - we were playing Cincy @ RU and it was the end of the half; Cincy had the ball at their 30 with around 8 seconds left. They decide to pass - hell, what could go wrong- and then we sacked the QB, who promptly fumbled. We fell on the ball with 2 seconds left and kicked an easy FG.

Sadly, I also can recall seeing WVU & Miami score in similar scenarios against us but it was home run running plays, not Hail Mary's such as OP describes.

So for me, the more interesting play-call here was to bring Gio in. Didn't he run for a long TD the only time he touched the ball this year?
 
OP is just underestimating the likelihood of a pick 6. He is assuming, wrongly, IMO, that the player intercepting the ball downfield would be tackled at or near where the pick occurred. In reality, when you spread the filed like that, he has a very good chance of not getting tackled until at or near the line of scrimmage, when he has to get through where all the linemen are. He also has a relatively good chance of taking it to the house.

Both likelihoods are increased if the ball is underthrown.
 
A more viable option to the long pass is to move the ball on the ground. But with so little time left, it is unlikely that we score. I wanted to try that, just in case. But I have no objection to taking a knee here either.
 
They could do that, but they probably wouldn't either. It wouldn't make as much sense for them though since they had the lead and are getting the ball to start the half.

Iowa would kneel after a pick because they'd have less time and maybe worse field position. Throw deep three times then punt. Too much worry over what can go wrong. I don't believe a team should kill clock when it is trailing
 
  • Like
Reactions: robcac26
It's the old Woody Hayes thinking with a twist. When you pass 3 things can happen (actually 4 with Pi) and 2 are bad. With us all 3 would probably be bad. First you have to throw a good pass and somebody has to be open to catch it. Not good for us.
If anything I would let a backup qb run a wildcat type of play that goes a little wide to use the clock. If he can produce a good enough run than maybe you switch to FG mode. Who even knows what our 2 minute drill looks like ? Iowa went 99 yards in under 2 minutes, but we helped. If they didn't get the initial FD by their goal line, they probably wouldn't have tried to score.
 
You have to run one rushing play to see what happens. If enough yards gained, TO, then hail mary. Or try a deep pass on first play then take TO. I didnt like the decision to take a knee there either.

Also, who the heck does a shotgun on a kneel down play?
 
  • Like
Reactions: robcac26
I'm still not convinced. If there's too much that can go wrong when we are on offense, why don't we just punt on first down every time we get the ball? . . . .

I'm sure that the analysis is this: on a normal series with gobs of time left, the offense has enough time to score any way possible, from a long drive to a bomb, and the offense's overall probability of scoring is greater than it would be with only 34 seconds left. So, with gobs of time, the comparison of the offense's probability of scoring to its probability of turning it over generally suggests that you should try to score. On the other hand, with only 34 seconds, the probability of scoring is much less than it ordinarily is, and that makes the comparison to the probability of the offense turning it over and/or giving up a score closer. So some coaches take a knee, particularly coaches with bad QBs.

Now, is it the correct call by the percentages? I don't know. My position, very generally, is that coaches over-rate field position and under-rate the importance of possession. So I'm in favor of trying to score, even going for it on fourth down way, way more than conventionally done. But I have no math to back that up.

Regardless, I'd guess the construct I mentioned above is what coaches are thinking, in general, when they take a knee.
 
Yes and No... perhaps if Grant is still in the game you run a play... he and Harris offered the possibility of getting something going together...with our QB situation there is no chance to move 80 yards down the field...if at the end of the game yes.... wait we already took a knee to end a game last year on 4th down...
 
My position, very generally, is that coaches over-rate field position and under-rate the importance of possession. So I'm in favor of trying to score, even going for it on fourth down way, way more than conventionally done.
I am of this mindset as well. It blows my mind how often a punt on 4th and 1 just seems to be the automatic decision, especially in our game against Ohio State last year when we would punt on 4th and 1 or 2, and then within seconds our defense would be lining up right where we just kicked from. Might as well go for it and at least try to maintain possession. If we don't get it in a game like that where our defense is severely outmatched and almost every opposing drive ends in a touchdown, it's no worse than punting since they would bring the ball right back in a matter of two or three plays anyway.

Have you heard of a high school coach in Arkansas named Kevin Kelley? He never punts the ball, never has his team try to return a punt, always attempts on-side kicks, and last year they started designing plays that featured laterals after completed passes in order to keep the defense spread out a little more after completions and result in more broken tackles. They went undefeated including an away win against a team from Texas that hadn't lost a home game in something like 16 years. Now of course this is high school, but I think a lot of his philosophy would still apply in college. You can check out his reasoning here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-high-school-football-coach-who-never-punts/
 
Interesting. With a school name like Pulaski Academy, it sounds as if the coach of this team may also have the opportunity to recruit, which could certainly be a partial reason for his success. But I agree with the general notion that possession and not giving it up is way more important than traditional coaching decisions account for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: robcac26
ADVERTISEMENT