Penalties stopping the clock late

[Nav22]

Lost in all the talk of the Giants decision to pass on 3rd down, Eli's decision to throw it away instead of taking a sack, and Coughlin choosing the FG over going for the dagger on 4th down from the 1...

Is the fact that the clock stopped a few times during the Giants drive due to penalties. That was HUGE. One of them was a penalty on them that we declined, one of them was a penalty on us that they declined. Incredibly, Demarcus Lawrence jumping offsides on that completion to Beckham Jr. inside the 5 breathed a tiny ounce of life into the Cowboys since it basically worked as an extra timeout.

Seems like a glitch in the rulebook, honestly. I'll take it... but the competition committee should probably take a look at that next offseason.

Oh, well. 1-0 baby!

 

[Hoofbite]

Take a look at what? It's a rule that is necessary. I'll take an offsides penalty any day of the week if I can get a sack and chew 15 seconds off the clock in the process when my opponent only has 17 seconds left to win the game.

 

[Rogah]

It reminded me of the Lions game from 2013 that was lost in large part because of a holding penalty on Dallas. Lions declined the penalty but it served as a free TO.

 

[Nav22]

Take a look at what? It's a rule that is necessary. I'll take an offsides penalty any day of the week if I can get a sack and chew 15 seconds off the clock in the process when my opponent only has 17 seconds left to win the game.

I'm talking about defensive penalties that are declined by the offense, not those that are accepted.

Why should the D be essentially rewarded with an extra timeout for committing a penalty that the offense chooses to decline? The offense should at least have the right to choose whether or not they want to keep the clock rolling.

 

[Nightman]

I'm talking about defensive penalties that are declined by the offense, not those that are accepted.

Why should the D be essentially rewarded with an extra timeout for committing a penalty that the offense chooses to decline? The offense should at least have the right to choose whether or not they want to keep the clock rolling.

It was a huge stoppage. It was like we got 5 TOs when you add the Mincey penalty.

They should at least run the 25sec clock.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

It's really weird, and I would probably not be happy about it if it was the Cowboys on the receiving end of it... as a matter of fact, it feels like I have been mad about it before. As Bill Barnwell of Grantland explained in his column, it's pretty tricky to actually commit a penalty in this situation that can help, but this was one of those times.

 

[Nightman]

It is a hard trick to pull, but they way it worked out was great. If OBJ dropped that 3rd down pass they would have taken the penalty and replayed the down and the penalty would have hurt bad. Mincey's penalty gave them a new set of downs so that is not a good trade for a free timeout.

So you have to take a penalty on a play that is already going to be a first down. Maybe a late hit that would be half the distance to the goal(only 3 yards) but would stop the clock.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'm talking about defensive penalties that are declined by the offense, not those that are accepted.

Why should the D be essentially rewarded with an extra timeout for committing a penalty that the offense chooses to decline? The offense should at least have the right to choose whether or not they want to keep the clock rolling.

You're missing the fact that the offense either gets to replay the down after accepting the penalty OR take the result of the play, which, in this case, was a first down -- which means a whole new set of downs.

This is not the first time in NFL history that the trailing team has committed a penalty in the last five minutes of a game, you know. I'm sure the competition committee has had plenty of opportunities to change the rules and declare that the game clock should restart after any penalty on the trailing team, but they obviously have not done that -- it would be much too punitive. (Remember in our last game against the Giants, they committed two defensive penalties after the two-minute warning, and the clock did not re-start after either one, which allowed them to have more than 1 minute left for their final offensive possession -- which failed anyway, of course)

We gained no advantage by jumping offside, because it gave the Giants a free play with NO risk. No matter what happened, they could choose to replay the down 5 yards farther down the field.

What, do you think the current rule just allows a defense that is trailing to commit penalties to get "free timeouts"? No, because the offense either gets 5 yards and keeps the same down, or it gets a new set of downs. The defense does not benefit from either situation -- so there is no incentive to commit the penalty.

 

[Nav22]

You're missing the fact that the offense either gets to replay the down after accepting the penalty OR take the result of the play, which, in this case, was a first down -- which means a whole new set of downs.

This is not the first time in NFL history that the trailing team has committed a penalty in the last five minutes of a game, you know. I'm sure the competition committee has had plenty of opportunities to change the rules and declare that the game clock should restart after any penalty on the trailing team, but they obviously have not done that -- it would be much too punitive. (Remember in our last game against the Giants, they committed two defensive penalties after the two-minute warning, and the clock did not re-start after either one, which allowed them to have more than 1 minute left for their final offensive possession -- which failed anyway, of course)

We gained no advantage by jumping offside, because it gave the Giants a free play with NO risk. No matter what happened, they could choose to replay the down 5 yards farther down the field.

What, do you think the current rule just allows a defense that is trailing to commit penalties to get "free timeouts"? No, because the offense either gets 5 yards and keeps the same down, or it gets a new set of downs. The defense does not benefit from either situation -- so there is no incentive to commit the penalty.

Never said it's never happened before. Never said defenses could use the loophole to gain an advantage by PURPOSELY committing a penalty to stop the clock. Never said the new rule should be that the game clock restarts after ANY defensive penalty.

For the record, I think the offense should be able to let the clock run ONLY IF it's a defensive penalty that they decline (and the runner was tackled inbounds). That makes MUCH more sense than to reward the defense with a free timeout when the offense declines the penalty.

It's ridiculously counter-intuitive to reason that a defensive penalty could work in the defense's favor when they're behind late in games. That's exactly what happened Sunday night when Lawrence jumped offsides and Beckham Jr. caught the 1st down pass, allowing the Giants to decline the penalty. It's a broken rule that needs fixing.

 

[jazzcat22]

How often has this rule worked for us, and against us. Or any other team for that matter.

I never seen this mentioned before. It is a rule and will not be changed, or should not be changed. Do you really think a Defense will commit a penalty on purpose to get the clock stopped. Especially if it results in a first down.
If all they did was reword the Dez non catch to make it retrofit the call, then I doubt they change this rule. So how do you penalize a defense further after a penalty. Yes, it seems the offense is penalized too, but they get the yards and the down, and it most cases an automatic first down Leave it as it is.

If Belicheck and the Cheatriots have not used this or figured a way to circumvent that rule yet. Maybe there is not an an advantage to it. Lol. Oh, crap now they will.

 

[ologan]

It was one of those times when,if any one thing was different, i.e. an accepted penalty by them, then we lose that game. Everything just happened to align perfectly to allow us the time left to drive for the win. It's happened before, most times to our detriment. It's kismet....we'll take it...it's the universe balancing out....it's the fibonacci principle for football!

 

[Kevinicus]

I don't think the OP is talking about purposely gaining an advantage. That is just not realistic. He's questioning if a defensive penalty should benefit the team that committed it. If the play in question happens exactly the same, but without the penalty, the Cowboys would have had to use a timeout (or let the clock wind). They were fortunate that they also committed a penalty. It really did save them. The Giants would have preferred that no penalty was called.

In this instance, there should have been a new set of downs, and the clock should have kept running, and the Giants were hurt by the penalty committed by the other team.

 

[Nav22]

I don't think the OP is talking about purposely gaining an advantage. That is just not realistic. He's questioning if a defensive penalty should benefit the team that committed it. If the play in question happens exactly the same, but without the penalty, the Cowboys would have had to use a timeout (or let the clock wind). They were fortunate that they also committed a penalty. It really did save them. The Giants would have preferred that no penalty was called.

In this instance, there should have been a new set of downs, and the clock should have kept running, and the Giants were hurt by the penalty committed by the other team.

Nailed it.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Lost in all the talk of the Giants decision to pass on 3rd down, Eli's decision to throw it away instead of taking a sack, and Coughlin choosing the FG over going for the dagger on 4th down from the 1...

Is the fact that the clock stopped a few times during the Giants drive due to penalties. That was HUGE. One of them was a penalty on them that we declined, one of them was a penalty on us that they declined. Incredibly, Demarcus Lawrence jumping offsides on that completion to Beckham Jr. inside the 5 breathed a tiny ounce of life into the Cowboys since it basically worked as an extra timeout.

Seems like a glitch in the rulebook, honestly. I'll take it... but the competition committee should probably take a look at that next offseason.

Oh, well. 1-0 baby!

I remember we got screwed by that rule against the Commanders once too. We got a first down but the clock stopped, eventually allowing them to come back.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

It was one of those times when,if any one thing was different, i.e. an accepted penalty by them, then we lose that game. Everything just happened to align perfectly to allow us the time left to drive for the win. It's happened before, most times to our detriment. It's kismet....we'll take it...it's the universe balancing out....it's the fibonacci principle for football!

exactly, how many times have we been screwed or screwed ourselves and given up points late. This time we benefited.

 

[erod]

It's a bad rule.

A defense shouldn't benefit from a penalty like that. If the penalty is declined, the clock should start like there wasn't a penalty to begin with.

Defenses shouldn't be able to commit penalties on purpose to stop the clock.

 

[DominantD]

It reminded me of the Lions game from 2013 that was lost in large part because of a holding penalty on Dallas. Lions declined the penalty but it served as a free TO.

The very 1st penalty I remember Sunday was with over 2 minutes to go in the game. I was telling my Dad and brother. "That's big. It was something just like this that caused us to lose to the Lions a couple years ago." The amazing thing Sunday is that there were more penalties after that.

This rule is messed up. If a team accepts the penalty, then sure, the clock should stop. But if a team declines a penalty, then the clock start/stop decision should be based on what would have happened if there was no penalty... tackled in bounds, start the clock; incomplete pass, keep clock stopped, etc. Seriously, this rule is messed up *when* someone DECLINES a penalty.

P.S. I was so happy for this rule Sunday. Now, I can get over the Detroit Lions from 2013.

 

[DominantD]

You're missing the fact that the offense either gets to replay the down after accepting the penalty OR take the result of the play, which, in this case, was a first down -- which means a whole new set of downs.

Adam: But the offense didn't get to obtain the full benefit of the play they just completed, which included staying in-bounds so the clock could tick 40 seconds before that next 1st down.

 

[CATCH17]

Lost in all the talk of the Giants decision to pass on 3rd down, Eli's decision to throw it away instead of taking a sack, and Coughlin choosing the FG over going for the dagger on 4th down from the 1...

Is the fact that the clock stopped a few times during the Giants drive due to penalties. That was HUGE. One of them was a penalty on them that we declined, one of them was a penalty on us that they declined. Incredibly, Demarcus Lawrence jumping offsides on that completion to Beckham Jr. inside the 5 breathed a tiny ounce of life into the Cowboys since it basically worked as an extra timeout.

Seems like a glitch in the rulebook, honestly. I'll take it... but the competition committee should probably take a look at that next offseason.

Oh, well. 1-0 baby!

Do people think this was a bad decision?

Im not sure if I think it was that bad although the Cowboys being pinned at the 1 with no timeout would've been huge.

Field goal means Dallas has to score.

TD means game over

1 yard line means Cowboys backed up and have to go 99 yards with no timeouts and also Dallas is less likely to push for a TD.


Tough decision.

 

[Nav22]

Do people think this was a bad decision?

Im not sure if I think it was that bad although the Cowboys being pinned at the 1 with no timeout would've been huge.

Field goal means Dallas has to score.

TD means game over

1 yard line means Cowboys backed up and have to go 99 yards with no timeouts and also Dallas is less likely to push for a TD.


Tough decision.

In my opinion, it was an awful decision.

For the Giants, their WORST-case scenario of going for the TD would still be better than their BEST-case scenario of kicking the 19-yard FG.

For the Cowboys, I'd MUCH rather start at my own 25 and need 75 yards to win the game... than start at my own 1 and need 65 yards JUST FOR A CHANCE at TYING the game with a 52-yard FG.

And that's only IF they don't score the game-sealing TD on 4th down anyways.

Coughlin botched it. I hope Garrett would go for the TD if he faces a similar situation.