buffalorange
2nd String
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 572
- Like
- 1,028
So, with Trill Williams running for a td in overtime rather than taking a knee and ending the game...did SU run up the score on Wake Forest?
So, with Trill Williams running for a td in overtime rather than taking a knee and ending the game...did SU run up the score on Wake Forest?
What I was wondering is whether Trill should have taken a knee and ended the game right there rather than running it back for a score.
What is the rule in OT if there is an interception - is the game over immediately right then and there because of change of possession, or does it only end if the the play ends with the defense retaining possession of the ball?
What if Trill somehow had fumbled the ball (or had it stripped like he did to them) and WF recovered it? Would WF retain possession with a chance to still try and score?
Possession doesn't change until the play ends. If trill fumbled and wake recovered say at midfield or something, they'd still have a chance
Possession doesn't change until the play ends. If trill fumbled and wake recovered say at midfield or something, they'd still have a chance
Not meaning to pick on Trill at all. It was a great play and I was jumping up and down and shouting in my living room the whole time he was running it back. It was a great way to end a disappointing season.The smart thing to do would have been to get the ball and immediately fall down.
With that said, nobody came within 10 yards of him during the runback and it gave us a feel good moment. So if we're going to pick on him over something trite like that (on an otherwise phenomenal play), then we have issues.
Possession doesn't change until the play ends. If trill fumbled and wake recovered say at midfield or something, they'd still have a chance
Wouldn't they have to return that fumble for a TD?
It would start a fresh set of downs, which they don't get.
I think this is right. They had their set of downs to either tie the score or win. That set of downs ended on the strip and resulting change of possession. Regardless of what happened after the strip.Wouldn't they have to return that fumble for a TD?
It would start a fresh set of downs, which they don't get.
I think this is right. They had their set of downs to either tie the score or win. That set of downs ended on the strip and resulting change of possession. Regardless of what happened after the strip.
So technically, the only way this can go bad is if the guy that makes the interception or fumble recovery fumbles the ball and the other team picks it up and scores before the play is blown dead.I think this is right. They had their set of downs to either tie the score or win. That set of downs ended on the strip and resulting change of possession. Regardless of what happened after the strip.
Correct. You said it better than I did.So technically, the only way this can go bad is if the guy that makes the interception or fumble recovery fumbles the ball and the other team picks it up and scores before the play is blown dead.
Otherwise, their set of downs and chance to score on that possession in OT is done.
Definitely was a play for the ages, and I was going nuts as he was running towards the end zone.The smartest thing he could have done was to take a knee as soon as he stripped it, which would have eliminated the possibility of another turnover leading to a score. Which would have made this board's collective head explode. But did lead to one of the most amazing plays in recent years, and will be replayed for years to come.
I know you weren't criticizing him. And in the heat of the moment, it takes a rare guy who thinks, "You know, I should just drop." (like that Eagles player who could have scored a few years ago but dropped in order to run out the clock).Definitely was a play for the ages, and I was going nuts as he was running towards the end zone.
And hey, can't fault a guy for following his instincts to score after stripping the ball and seeing an open path to the end zone in front of him.
And again, I didn't bring this up as any sort of criticism of Trill, it was just a "what if" thought experiment about how the college OT rules would play out in various scenarios.
Thanks everyone for the fun discussion.
Or like how Ahmad Bradshaw tried to stop just short of the goal line with less than a minute left when the NY Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl in 2012 but ended up falling in backwards on his ass.I know you weren't criticizing him. And in the heat of the moment, it takes a rare guy who thinks, "You know, I should just drop." (like that Eagles player who could have scored a few years ago but dropped in order to run out the clock).
Possession doesn't change until the play ends. If trill fumbled and wake recovered say at midfield or something, they'd still have a chance
No, they wouldn't. The game would be over. Wake's only possession ended on the turnover.So say Hartman popped the football out of Trills hands just before he crossed the goal line and is now considered a touchback...does Wake get the ball on their own 20?
I know you weren't criticizing him. And in the heat of the moment, it takes a rare guy who thinks, "You know, I should just drop." (like that Eagles player who could have scored a few years ago but dropped in order to run out the clock).
Quit what iffing! He stripped the ball, returned it what 96 yards and we beat a team we shouldn't have. It was probably the best ending we could have had for the season we had. Thanks Trill for returning that ball and giving us a little hope for next season. Now, fellas, let it go!
I thought in ot once there is a turnover on the 2nd possession it's game over no fresh set of downs.Wouldn't they have to return that fumble for a TD?
It would start a fresh set of downs, which they don't get.