 |
| Tika Ivezaj |
At the end of the SEC Championship game, the Georgia Bulldogs got a first down with eight seconds left, ran a pass play on which the receiver was tackled in-bounds, and then ran out of time. I know
Chris Brown has some numbers that suggest spiking the ball is a bad idea in the situation, but I still think you spike that ball and have about six seconds left. Six seconds should be enough to run two plays, which is better than one hurried play.
Actually Georgia was at the line with 15 seconds remaining. Had they been ready for a spike it's conceivable that they could have had either 13 or 14 seconds. That would be enough time for 3 throws to the end zone. Considering plays take about 5 with a three step drop. It definitely would have been enough time for two plays and they even could have employed a rollout play.
ReplyDeleteGeorgia's thinking is that if they don't spike the ball, they definitely get plays while spiking probably only gets them two (it takes longer to spike than you think. Everyone has to be lined up and set for a second, and the clock doesn't always stop instantly.)
DeleteYou should be able to get to the line and set for 1 second before the whistle starting the clock. Spiking should take no more than a second or two. You could get three plays in 13 or 14 seconds whereas you can do no better, and possibly worse if you run up and call a play. As you can only run 4 plays anyway (a spike and three true plays), the loss of down is inconsequential. It would have been better to call the plays they wanted to run rather than to call the plays that could be snapped quickly.
DeleteAt the very least you don't throw a pass short of the endzone and several body-lengths from the sideline.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I think he was throwing the fade route into the endzone. The deflection led to it being short of the goal line and in the hands of the receiver running the out.
DeleteI know there is legitimate information that argue against my opinion... but I just think [CONVENTIONAL THINKING]. OK...
ReplyDeleteThis is kinda like some of the anti-going-for-it-on-fourth arguments out there. Sometimes even the right decision doesn't work out. That doesn't make it the wrong decision.
In this particular case - whatever. The problem was that the pass got tipped, which could have happened on a huddle or not. I think a spike might have given the WR a chance to think about the situation a little and perhaps knock that ball down instead of catching it - but that seems unlikely to make a difference. It's instinct to catch the ball near you.
I think in general it's better to do what they did and not spike it because it'll help you more often than it hurts you to take that approach, but as Brown says, with the time remaining: "the spike may have been fine or even the better approach"
If I'm a Georgia fan, I'm not complaining about how they lost. They were outplayed for most of the game and made a good aggressive run at the last minute victory. Just missed against an elite D... good showing for the Bulldogs.