Penalties stopping the clock late

[Super_Kazuya]

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.

Your intuition ends up being spot on; the ESPN NFL Nation blog had a good write up on all the probabilities.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/179141/giants-clock-blunder-doubled-cowboys-chances

 

[The Natural]

been taking advantage of this on madden for years, only reason I knew of the rule.

 

[Nightman]

Your intuition ends up being spot on; the ESPN NFL Nation blog had a good write up on all the probabilities.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/179141/giants-clock-blunder-doubled-cowboys-chances

Barnwell had a good point. He said if the Giants went for it on 4th down and missed then DAL would have played for the tie since they were down by 3 and were starting at the 1.

 

[Nightman]

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.

If DAL didn't jump offsides on the OBJ catch they could have taken a late hit personal foul and only gone from the 5yd line to the 2.5 yd line. They would get the free TO but only lose 2 yards.

It would be hard to pull off but the D shouldn't gain an advantage from a penalty.

 

[dogberry]

I don't think the NFL cares if it is unfair, it made for a dramatic ending with only 7 seconds left.

Great TV.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

It's not a broken rule, and it won't be fixed.

The offense already gets a FREE PLAY. That is punitive enough on the defense. The competition committee has already considered this issue, which is why there is a 10-second runoff in certain situations (when either team would have incentive to commit a clock-stopping penalty). Why isn't it 30 seconds or 40 seconds? Because 10 seconds has been deemed punitive enough. Why isn't defensive holding down the field a spot foul? Because 5 yards and an automatic first down has been deemed punitive enough.

It's not like these things haven't been considered before.

 

[Nav22]

It's not a broken rule, and it won't be fixed.

The offense already gets a FREE PLAY. That is punitive enough on the defense. The competition committee has already considered this issue, which is why there is a 10-second runoff in certain situations (when either team would have incentive to commit a clock-stopping penalty). Why isn't it 30 seconds or 40 seconds? Because 10 seconds has been deemed punitive enough. Why isn't defensive holding down the field a spot foul? Because 5 yards and an automatic first down has been deemed punitive enough.

It's not like these things haven't been considered before.

LOL not only is it not "punitive enough", it's not punitive AT ALL when the penalty's declined. The D is actually rewarded with a free timeout when the clock is their enemy. Makes absolutely no sense.

Demarcus Lawrence jumping offsides ended up being a blessing in disguise for the Cowboys, was it not?

If the offense declines a defensive penalty with the ball-carrier being tackled inbounds, THEY'RE the ones being punished with the clock stoppage while they're trying to run out the clock.

The "free play" becomes irrelevant when the penalty's declined.

 

[AdamJT13]

LOL not only is it not "punitive enough", it's not punitive AT ALL when the penalty's declined. The D is actually rewarded with a free timeout when the clock is their enemy. Makes absolutely no sense.

Demarcus Lawrence jumping offsides ended up being a blessing in disguise for the Cowboys, was it not?

If the offense declines a defensive penalty with the ball-carrier being tackled inbounds, THEY'RE the ones being punished with the clock stoppage while they're trying to run out the clock.

The "free play" becomes irrelevant when the penalty's declined.

A free play is absolutely not irrelevant. Any quarterback would LOVE to have a free play during a game, especially that late in a close game.

Suppose Lawrence had jumped earlier and had a free run at Manning -- the ref would have stopped the play and marked off the 5 yards. If that had happened, are you suggesting that the clock should have started before the Giants' next play?

But like I said earlier, this situation has happened many, many times in the past, and the competition committee has never changed the rule -- because it's not broken.

 

[Nav22]

A free play is absolutely not irrelevant. Any quarterback would LOVE to have a free play during a game, especially that late in a close game.

Suppose Lawrence had jumped earlier and had a free run at Manning -- the ref would have stopped the play and marked off the 5 yards. If that had happened, are you suggesting that the clock should have started before the Giants' next play?

But like I said earlier, this situation has happened many, many times in the past, and the competition committee has never changed the rule -- because it's not broken.

You seem to be bringing up scenarios that I have no issue with.

The ONLY thing that I believe needs to be amended is for the offense to be able to keep the clock rolling if they decline a defensive penalty and the clock would've kept rolling had their not been a penalty.

If Lawrence jumped earlier and the play was whistled dead, then the Beckham Jr. catch never happens and the penalty is accepted. The clock should absolutely be stopped in such a scenario.

Still haven't heard one good reason why it's fair that a defender jumping offsides should EVER wind up being a blessing in disguise for the defense. But that's exactly what happened when Lawrence jumped and the Giants declined the penalty.

The "free play" is not really "free" if it can come at such a cost for the offense.

 

[DandyDon52]

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.

exactly, after the penalty is dealt with both the play clock and the regular clock should be started.

Also on that drive by giants eli was not running the play clock down to 01 before snapping the ball, they left 45 seconds on the clock
just by snapping ball too early. One time he snapped it with 17 seconds left that he could have taken off the clock.

 

[nalam]

LOL not only is it not "punitive enough", it's not punitive AT ALL when the penalty's declined. The D is actually rewarded with a free timeout when the clock is their enemy. ..

The "free play" becomes irrelevant when the penalty's declined.

Only in this case the free play is a 15 yard pass play with no risk which wouldn't have happen when you are dink and dunk and facing 2&13 or 3rd and 13. They got a first down at the 3 yard line with a chance to run down the clock to almost zero ( 4 run plays )

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

They can choose whether or not they want to eat the clock. They accept the penalty and replay the down 5 yards closer at absolute worst. Run it and the clock starts going.

 

[dallasdave]

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!

Yeah it might be good at the end of a game to knock someone's helmet off and save the time out !!!

 

[Manwiththeplan]

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.

But the field position after a kickoff isn't guaranteed. The Giants *could* have kicked it out of the endzone and forced Dallas to go 80 yards for a TD. The return *could* have been crappy and Dallas would have been forced to go 85. The FG was the right call given the situation, because the odds are still against any QB, whether it be Brady, Rogers, Manning or Romo to go the length of the field with no timeouts and a minute and thirty seven seconds. The 3rd down call was the killer.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Fwiw, I think after a penalty the clock should resume once the ball is spot. If the clock is running, the offense should suffer a 10 second run off (as it is now).

 

[Nightman]

A free play is absolutely not irrelevant. Any quarterback would LOVE to have a free play during a game, especially that late in a close game.

Suppose Lawrence had jumped earlier and had a free run at Manning -- the ref would have stopped the play and marked off the 5 yards. If that had happened, are you suggesting that the clock should have started before the Giants' next play?

But like I said earlier, this situation has happened many, many times in the past, and the competition committee has never changed the rule -- because it's not broken.

But the Offense doesn't always get the knowledge of it being a "free play".
If DAL committed def holding on that play instead of offsides the Giants would still decline the penalty and lose the 40 seconds.

It is clearly a loophole that should be closed.

The clock should have been running after OBJ's catch but because DAL jumped the clock was stopped. It was a first down either way and DAL caught a huge break. If you count the Giants illegal formation penalty DAL got 6 timeouts in the last 3 minutes.

 

[Nav22]

But the field position after a kickoff isn't guaranteed. The Giants *could* have kicked it out of the endzone and forced Dallas to go 80 yards for a TD. The return *could* have been crappy and Dallas would have been forced to go 85. The FG was the right call given the situation, because the odds are still against any QB, whether it be Brady, Rogers, Manning or Romo to go the length of the field with no timeouts and a minute and thirty seven seconds. The 3rd down call was the killer.

Even if it was 80-85 yards to win, the odds of the Cowboys winning were higher in that scenario than if they had to drive 65 yards JUST for the chance at TYING the game while starting at their own 1 yard line.

And you only get THAT chance (65 yards for the chance at tying the game) if you stop them on 4th and goal from the 1. If the Giants punch it in, the game's over.

Oh, and another possibility that you didn't mention is a GOOD kickoff return. Nearly any scenario with the Giants settling for 3 was better for the Cowboys than them going for it on 4th and goal.

But Coughlin's old and conservative so he went the "safe" route, even though the "safe" route actually decreased his team's chances of winning. I bet Bill Belichick would've gone for the TD.

 

[Nav22]

They can choose whether or not they want to eat the clock. They accept the penalty and replay the down 5 yards closer at absolute worst. Run it and the clock starts going.

Who can choose? This whole debate is based on the rule that the offense CAN'T choose to eat the clock after a defensive penalty, EVEN IF they decline the penalty.

The Giants got the 1st down to Beckham Jr. but the clock stopped because we jumped offsides, despite the penalty being declined. They had zero choice in the matter.

That's also where Eli's confusion came from. He assumed that by declining the penalty, the Cowboys had to then use a timeout as if the penalty never happened. But thanks to this silly rule, our penalty was a major blessing in disguise and saved us a crucial timeout.

 

[Nav22]

Only in this case the free play is a 15 yard pass play with no risk which wouldn't have happen when you are dink and dunk and facing 2&13 or 3rd and 13. They got a first down at the 3 yard line with a chance to run down the clock to almost zero ( 4 run plays )

Except the 4th run play wouldn't keep the clock running since it would be on 4th down, and the Cowboys still had 2 timeouts thanks to this loophole.

The offense only gets the "free play" if the QB is certain of the defensive penalty and heady enough to immediately become more aggressive than if there was no penalty. It's an advantage they deserve anyways.

Why should the defense EVER benefit from a declined defensive penalty like we did Sunday night? How on Earth could that make sense to anyone?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Even if it was 80-85 yards to win, the odds of the Cowboys winning were higher in that scenario than if they had to drive 65 yards JUST for the chance at TYING the game while starting at their own 1 yard line.

And you only get THAT chance (65 yards for the chance at tying the game) if you stop them on 4th and goal from the 1. If the Giants punch it in, the game's over.

Oh, and another possibility that you didn't mention is a GOOD kickoff return. Nearly any scenario with the Giants settling for 3 was better for the Cowboys than them going for it on 4th and goal.

But Coughlin's old and conservative so he went the "safe" route, even though the "safe" route actually decreased his team's chances of winning. I bet Bill Belichick would've gone for the TD.

I didn't mention a good kickoff because I felt that was a good kickoff since they got past the 25.

and I guess we'll just have to disagree on what was more likely. whether you agree or not with the reasoning, it's almost a universal fact, that teams in either your scenario or mine play soft coverege to keep from getting beat deep. so given that, I think you stand a greater chance of not winning in regulation by having a three point lead and forcing them to go 65 yards. the benefit of forcing them to score a TD is in that soft coverege, the last 15-20 yards are a lot more difficult.

now if dallas only needs threee points to tie, it may change the way the plays are called. dallas has shown to be conservative in these situations, however, once they get in Bailey's range, they could become more aggressive.