The Victory Play

[SWC75]

(This discussion applies to college football as well as the NFL so i'm putting it on this board.)

In recent weeks I've discovered "NFL Red Zone" where all the games of the day are covered as if it was the first weekend of March madness. Great stuff, especially when several games are coming to their conlcusion with the issue in doubt.

Today there were severla games that ended with the winning team running the "victory play" where the quarterback takes a knee surrounded by a phalanax of his teammates. It never really bothered me before but in one game, (I think it was Indy), they started doing it at the two minute warning, (and by the way, why do we need that?). The team that was behind had no time outs and the last two minutes of the game consisted of intentional two yard losses. Actually, it was 1:20 of the last two minutes because, with 40 seconds to go, the teams and fans poured out onto the field and the coaches looked for eachother to shake hands with the clock still ticking off another 30-35 seconds of 'play'. It occurred to me that this is a lousy way to end a game. Does a basketball game end like that? Baseball? Hockey? Lacrosse. Yeah, teams hold the ball but it's not really quite the same.

The first thing I thought of was that the amount of time alotted to get a play off is way too much. Of course that's due to the added complexity of the game. Johnny Unitas would call his own plays in the huddle and the same guys would stay on the field for an entire possession unless they were injured. Now we have "packages" of players that go in and out, often on every succeeding play. Plays come in from the sideline but the quarterback can audible. Blocking schemes have to be shouted out. I suppose they normally need all the time to do that. If you tried to reduce it for the final minutes of a game or half it could hurt a lot of teams that aren't doing the "victory play".

How about this: have the clock stop after a loss by the team ahead in the final two minutes of a game. That way a team trying to run out the clock has to run an actual play. That would also get rid of the Greg Schiano "submarining" crap.

Let's play real football for 60 minutes.

 

[Moontan]

How about this: have the clock stop after a loss by the team ahead in the final two minutes of a game. That way a team trying to run out the clock has to run an actual play. That would also get rid of the Greg Schiano "submarining" crap.

Let's play real football for 60 minutes.

So, you want to change the rules during the last two minutes?
How is that "real football"?

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the intent. It would be nice if the game was played for 60 minutes, but perhaps the team in the lead played well enough for 58 minutes to earn the ability to end the game this way.

It's a common issue in all sports... it's part of the game.

 

[SmilinBob]

That's what happens when you use a clock for games. It's a good point and would make the end more interesting but as we are worried about the monkey face dives at the end you also could lead to a useless injury in a situation like this as well, especially if the game is out of hand.

 

[upperdeck]

I think the play clock is way too long in both fball and bball right now. the clock in fball allows some teams to go to the line force the D to commit, have a coach up high change the play call it back down and run something else and still leaves 10-15 seconds on the clock.. i think both should go to 25-30 sec clocks.. more plays and less standing around. in fball when plays are run down field and it takes 10-15 secs to get players back to the huddle the 40 sec clock works.. when its a take a knee play the 40 sec is killer.

 

[GoSU96]

(This discussion applies to college football as well as the NFL so i'm putting it on this board.)

In recent weeks I've discovered "NFL Red Zone" where all the games of the day are covered as if it was the first weekend of March madness. Great stuff, especially when several games are coming to their conlcusion with the issue in doubt.

Today there were severla games that ended with the winning team running the "victory play" where the quarterback takes a knee surrounded by a phalanax of his teammates. It never really bothered me before but in one game, (I think it was Indy), they started doing it at the two minute warning, (and by the way, why do we need that?). The team that was behind had no time outs and the last two minutes of the game consisted of intentional two yard losses. Actually, it was 1:20 of the last two minutes because, with 40 seconds to go, the teams and fans poured out onto the field and the coaches looked for eachother to shake hands with the clock still ticking off another 30-35 seconds of 'play'. It occurred to me that this is a lousy way to end a game. Does a basketball game end like that? Baseball? Hockey? Lacrosse. Yeah, teams hold the ball but it's not really quite the same.

The first thing I thought of was that the amount of time alotted to get a play off is way too much. Of course that's due to the added complexity of the game. Johnny Unitas would call his own plays in the huddle and the same guys would stay on the field for an entire possession unless they were injured. Now we have "packages" of players that go in and out, often on every succeeding play. Plays come in from the sideline but the quarterback can audible. Blocking schemes have to be shouted out. I suppose they normally need all the time to do that. If you tried to reduce it for the final minutes of a game or half it could hurt a lot of teams that aren't doing the "victory play".

How about this: have the clock stop after a loss by the team ahead in the final two minutes of a game. That way a team trying to run out the clock has to run an actual play. That would also get rid of the Greg Schiano "submarining" crap.

Let's play real football for 60 minutes.

It's fine the way it is. That's the reward for having the lead and the ball.

 

[CiceroSwamp]

(This discussion applies to college football as well as the NFL so i'm putting it on this board.)

In recent weeks I've discovered "NFL Red Zone" where all the games of the day are covered as if it was the first weekend of March madness. Great stuff, especially when several games are coming to their conlcusion with the issue in doubt.

Today there were severla games that ended with the winning team running the "victory play" where the quarterback takes a knee surrounded by a phalanax of his teammates. It never really bothered me before but in one game, (I think it was Indy), they started doing it at the two minute warning, (and by the way, why do we need that?). The team that was behind had no time outs and the last two minutes of the game consisted of intentional two yard losses. Actually, it was 1:20 of the last two minutes because, with 40 seconds to go, the teams and fans poured out onto the field and the coaches looked for eachother to shake hands with the clock still ticking off another 30-35 seconds of 'play'. It occurred to me that this is a lousy way to end a game. Does a basketball game end like that? Baseball? Hockey? Lacrosse. Yeah, teams hold the ball but it's not really quite the same.

The first thing I thought of was that the amount of time alotted to get a play off is way too much. Of course that's due to the added complexity of the game. Johnny Unitas would call his own plays in the huddle and the same guys would stay on the field for an entire possession unless they were injured. Now we have "packages" of players that go in and out, often on every succeeding play. Plays come in from the sideline but the quarterback can audible. Blocking schemes have to be shouted out. I suppose they normally need all the time to do that. If you tried to reduce it for the final minutes of a game or half it could hurt a lot of teams that aren't doing the "victory play".

How about this: have the clock stop after a loss by the team ahead in the final two minutes of a game. That way a team trying to run out the clock has to run an actual play. That would also get rid of the Greg Schiano "submarining" crap.

Let's play real football for 60 minutes.

while it makes some sense I dont want there to be a rule in the NFL that would be known as the "Greg Schiano rule"

 

[OttoinGrotto]

It's fine the way it is. That's the reward for having the lead and the ball.

Agreed. When you have the ball the choice is yours. If you want to burn clock and down the ball for negative yards that is your right to decide.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Back in the day the official game time was kept on the sideline by an official with a stop watch, while the time on the scoreboard was unofficial (and usually inaccurate).

The Two Minute Warning let both teams know that there were really 2:00 left in each half.

Besides, without the Two Minute Warning, this movie would make no sense:

 

[longtimefan]

Two-minute warning = sell more ads.

 

[longtimefan]

I think the play clock is way too long in both fball and bball right now. the clock in fball allows some teams to go to the line force the D to commit, have a coach up high change the play call it back down and run something else and still leaves 10-15 seconds on the clock.. i think both should go to 25-30 sec clocks.. more plays and less standing around. in fball when plays are run down field and it takes 10-15 secs to get players back to the huddle the 40 sec clock works.. when its a take a knee play the 40 sec is killer.

If you did this in the NFL, you would not have enough players healthy to finish the season.

 

[SWC75]

So, you want to change the rules during the last two minutes?
How is that "real football"?

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the intent. It would be nice if the game was played for 60 minutes, but perhaps the team in the lead played well enough for 58 minutes to earn the ability to end the game this way.

It's a common issue in all sports... it's part of the game.

There are rules that apply late in games and not the rest of the game. They aren't created to change the game but to maintain what it was, (as best you can).

 

[SWC75]

Agreed. When you have the ball the choice is yours. If you want to burn clock and down the ball for negative yards that is your right to decide.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

That's a nice description of the way things are. It doesn't mean that that's the way it should be.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

Strange post, where do you come up with this stuff...

 

[SWC75]

Strange post, where do you come up with this stuff...

By watching a game that essentially ended after 58 mintues with everybody milling over the field for the last 40 seconds.

 

[CuseIsGodsTeam]

Agreed, get rid of the 2 minute warning and drop 5-10 seconds off the play clock

 

[SWC75]

I spent a few mintues looking for a clip of how football games used to end in the old days. Here's an example. Mississippi is up 17-13 on Arkansas, closing out a perfect 1962 seaosn. But they keep trying to make gains until the clock runs out. That's how games should end, (around the 7 minute mark).



Here's another with a sort of 'victory play' at the end but it's only the final play and it's basically a quarterback sneak. I still think the guy was trying to gain yardage, (at about the 7:50 mark).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNNbxzJGms

I don't think it would do too much violnece to the game to require teams to continue trying to gain yardage until the gun sounds.

 

[rrlbees]

FWIW, it's the victory formation.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[mantonio]

(This discussion applies to college football as well as the NFL so i'm putting it on this board.)

In recent weeks I've discovered "NFL Red Zone" where all the games of the day are covered as if it was the first weekend of March madness. Great stuff, especially when several games are coming to their conlcusion with the issue in doubt.

Today there were severla games that ended with the winning team running the "victory play" where the quarterback takes a knee surrounded by a phalanax of his teammates. It never really bothered me before but in one game, (I think it was Indy), they started doing it at the two minute warning, (and by the way, why do we need that?). The team that was behind had no time outs and the last two minutes of the game consisted of intentional two yard losses. Actually, it was 1:20 of the last two minutes because, with 40 seconds to go, the teams and fans poured out onto the field and the coaches looked for eachother to shake hands with the clock still ticking off another 30-35 seconds of 'play'. It occurred to me that this is a lousy way to end a game. Does a basketball game end like that? Baseball? Hockey? Lacrosse. Yeah, teams hold the ball but it's not really quite the same.

The first thing I thought of was that the amount of time alotted to get a play off is way too much. Of course that's due to the added complexity of the game. Johnny Unitas would call his own plays in the huddle and the same guys would stay on the field for an entire possession unless they were injured. Now we have "packages" of players that go in and out, often on every succeeding play. Plays come in from the sideline but the quarterback can audible. Blocking schemes have to be shouted out. I suppose they normally need all the time to do that. If you tried to reduce it for the final minutes of a game or half it could hurt a lot of teams that aren't doing the "victory play".

How about this: have the clock stop after a loss by the team ahead in the final two minutes of a game. That way a team trying to run out the clock has to run an actual play. That would also get rid of the Greg Schiano "submarining" crap.

Let's play real football for 60 minutes.

I agree 100% with this!

I made this argument awhile back, & was roundly criticized for expressing it.

The game should not be over until the clock says 0:00, & let's face it, the team with the lead can sit on it with their final possession if they have less than 2 minutes.

I like your solutions. They force the leading team to continue playing the game. The reward they get for making positive yardage is a rolling clock. When they sit on a lead, the clock stops.

I have always been in favor of making the game more exciting, & your answers do JUST THAT. The leading team still has to do something with the ball. A handoff to the running back could result in a fumble, which is why teams run the V, to avoid any possible calamity. Let's EMBRACE the calamity !!!

Some have argued that IF the other team had played well enough for the 57 or 58 minutes, they would deserve to win the game earlier, so then, What is the point of having a clock then? Why don't they just end the game at the 2 minute warning if the leading team has possession?

The victory formation is an extraneous design, & should be eliminated.

 

[mantonio]

I have one other possible solution, if the aforementioned ideas are rejected.

After the 2 minute warning, each team gets one more timeout, regardless of whether they burned their others.

So, if the losing team has only one TO remaining ,they would have 2 timeouts in the final two mins. If they have zero, they would have one TO in the final two minutes.

The leading team would also have benefit of the extra TO.

 

[DoctorBombay]

SWC, I hear what you're trying to say, but as others have stated, the V-Formation is earned by play throughout the course of the game.
As a Giants fan I remember why it originated (shudder) , and even w/ dirtbags like Schiano submarining the OL, its still the most practical play for end-game situations.
Its the equivalent of holding the ball at mid-court as the clock ticks down in basketball. Sure the other team can feign pressure on the ball-handler, but 9-times-outta-10 you just shake hands and the game's over. Should we add extra seconds on the shot-clock if the winning team holds the ball and doesn't shoot it? Why punish the winning team...for winning the game- and nevermind the "old college try" scenario. Sometimes a loss is just a loss.
Nothing wrong w/ that, IMO.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

What's next?

You want the winning team to bat in the bottom of the ninth?

 

[mantonio]

SWC, I hear what you're trying to say, but as others have stated, the V-Formation is earned by play throughout the course of the game.
As a Giants fan I remember why it originated (shudder) , and even w/ dirtbags like Schiano submarining the OL, its still the most practical play for end-game situations.
Its the equivalent of holding the ball at mid-court as the clock ticks down in basketball. Sure the other team can feign pressure on the ball-handler, but 9-times-outta-10 you just shake hands and the game's over. Should we add extra seconds on the shot-clock if the winning team holds the ball and doesn't shoot it? Why punish the winning team...for winning the game- and nevermind the "old college try" scenario. Sometimes a loss is just a loss.
Nothing wrong w/ that, IMO.

The leading team still has to hit its foul shots if they are fouled in the final minutes. That is a built in strategy designed to make the game more exciting, & it does give the trailing team a chance to win.

In football, the leading team doesn't have too do anything, they can just kneel & walk away, so your basketball analogy is flawed.

 

[retro44]

are we talking about two totally different sports here?

 

[DoctorBombay]

The leading team still has to hit its foul shots if they are fouled in the final minutes. That is a built in strategy designed to make the game more exciting, & it does give the trailing team a chance to win.

In football, the leading team doesn't have too do anything, they can just kneel & walk away, so your basketball analogy is flawed.

Not necessarily.
At some point if its more than say a 2-possession game, the losing team will back off. Obviously if the lead is 4 with 20 secs left, you keep fouling hoping theres a miss, but if there isn't one, rarely will a team keep fouling in those final secs just for the hell of it.
If the question is about score vs time remaining: let's say within a TD/under 2 minutes- and you want to introduce new rules that "force" the action, that still works to penalize a team for having a lead. It'll have coaches running up the score to ensure no end-game "penalties" are enacted, just because the opponent is within a TD.

 

[mantonio]

Not necessarily.
At some point if its more than say a 2-possession game, the losing team will back off. Obviously if the lead is 4 with 20 secs left, you keep fouling hoping theres a miss, but if there isn't one, rarely will a team keep fouling in those final secs just for the hell of it.
If the question is about score vs time remaining: let's say within a TD/under 2 minutes- and you want to introduce new rules that "force" the action, that still works to penalize a team for having a lead. It'll make coaches run up the score to ensure no end-game "penalties" are enacted because the opponent is within a TD.

First, I have no problem with a team playing their best & scoring as much as they can to keep the other team from having a chance.

Secondly, you are not punishing the leading team for having the lead, the time on the clock should be a worthy opponent, equal to the opposing team. Realistically, any team that has a lead in a football game with 2 minutes remaining has better odds of winning, regardless of them having to gain positive yardage to keep the clock rolling, if we implement that system.

The odds of a fumble or another issue, with the additional odds of the other team actually taking advantage of that turnover & scoring to win, are still in favor of the leading team. This is the same with a basketball team having a 3 point lead or greater, being forced to hit free throws at the line to seal the deal. Most of the time, the leading basketball team wins that battle.

At the end of the day, we still have the problem of time STILL on the clock, & the leading team sitting on that lead. It is cowardly, & takes away from the excitement of the game.