Who else noticed this on Germie Bernard's game winning score?

[davefrat]

He would have been down at the 10 somewhere, making it a chip shot field goal? I don't understand this 40+ yard field goal percentage argument

Yup.

1st and goal at the 9 with 34 seconds and 2 TO.

Chances are if we don’t score a TD we’re attempting an extra point with 0.03 on the clock.

It may have been the wrong call, but it was completely understandable if that’s what they were doing.

That said, thank heavens we didn’t have to attempt the kick.

 

[KrAzY3]

He would have been down at the 10 somewhere, making it a chip shot field goal? I don't understand this 40+ yard field goal percentage argument

I think the confusion lies with when the choice was made to let him score. I think it's obvious that the head coach or the player didn't make up their mind to let Alabama score a TD on the next play no matter what. But the way the coach said it made it sound a bit like that (which is probably why some are questioning his explanation).

The reality would have been something like, if they get within the ten yard line, just let them score.

 

[YellowHammerTime]

Why do people keep commenting like this? He was clearly letting him score. He thought the best play was to let him score and get the ball back so that they could score and tie. Not a terrible decision. What are people watching?

I agree. Every time I read one of these I say to myself "Am I the only one who said 'good play by SC' immediately after seeing it? It's like, Tell me you don't fully understand clock management, with out telling me you don't fully understand clock management. Considering Talty is 6/6 within 40 yards, the guy letting Bernard score significantly increased their odds of at least tying the game by a large margin.

 

[editder]

He would have been down at the 10 somewhere, making it a chip shot field goal? I don't understand this 40+ yard field goal percentage argument

Besides the possibility of missing the field goal because of the pressure, there is also the very real possibility of having it blocked based on the way the USCe DL was putting our OL on their behinds for most of the game.

 

[editder]

I agree. Every time I read one of these I say to myself "Am I the only one who said 'good play by SC' immediately after seeing it? It's like, Tell me you don't fully understand clock management, with out telling me you don't fully understand clock management. Considering Talty is 6/6 within 40 yards, the guy letting Bernard score significantly increased their odds of at least tying the game by a large margin.

I think most people understand their rationale. They didn’t have any good options, but they chose the one they thought would give them the best opportunity. I just disagree that they chose the best option. I’m not speaking only from the benefit of hindsight. I posted in the game thread at the beginning of the drive after the turnover, as did others, that I wanted a TD here because I didn’t want to leave the outcome in the hands of a kicker. It seemed more likely to me that something would go wrong with a kick than that they would return a kickoff or drive the length of the field with 35 seconds left and no timeouts.

The fact that they failed doesn’t necessarily mean their strategy was illegitimate, but you can’t say that the option to score a TD and make them fall to respond was illegitimate, because that’s exactly what happened.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I don't see why people are getting so worked up by this. It's a fairly common late game strategy move to either let the opposing team score, or conversely to intentionally go down in the field of play.

Yep, the reaction here and a few other sites has been really weird. I'm pretty sure anyone who has regularly watched football over the last decade has seen this strategy become more commonplace. Palmer even mentioned it during the broadcast, while they showed a replay. Palmer also said he thought Bernard should have gone down in bounds instead of scoring the TD. I disagree, though. I'd much rather be up by 7 with 34 seconds left than take a chance on a FG, regardless of the % for the kicker.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I think what caught people off guard was letting us score and them only having about 30-35 seconds left in the game, no timeouts and needing a touchdown. I know that's what caught me off guard. They needed a touchdown, not a field goal. The better move, imo, would have been forcing the Alabama kicker to make game winning kick. It's not like he's been automatic.

 

[Special K]

Beamer himself said they instructed the defense to let us score IF we made the first down. So no, he didn't tell them to let us score no matter what, but only after it was apparent we had the first down. Still, wrong move in my opinion, lots of things can go wrong on a field goal attempt, even a chip shot.

 

[Elefantman]

Beamer should have instructed his kick off return team to take the touch back instead of waisting 6 seconds trying to run it back from the goal line.

 

[colbysullivan]

Beamer should have instructed his kick off return team to take the touch back instead of waisting 6 seconds trying to run it back from the goal line.

THIS right here was what killed their chances. Letting us score was a calculated risk, but attempting to return the kickoff was stupid.

 

[Special K]

Beamer should have instructed his kick off return team to take the touch back instead of waisting 6 seconds trying to run it back from the goal line.

Problem for them though is that we squibbed it and it never reached the end zone, except after the SC player muffed it. If he just lets it go and it never dribbles into the end zone, no touchback and he has to scoop it quickly and do the best he can. I think the returner made the right decision to try and field it, but unfortunately for them he muffed it, it rolled back in the end zone, and he couldn't take a knee at that point and had to run it out.

 

[Elefantman]

I thought he first touched it as it was rolling into the end zone. Obviously if the ball was touched prior to reaching the end zone, he has to run it out.

 

[colbysullivan]

I thought he first touched it as it was rolling into the end zone. Obviously if the ball was touched prior to reaching the end zone, he has to run it out.

It likely would have gone into the endzone on its own if he hadn’t touched it. That’s an automatic touchback.

 

[gman4tide]

It likely would have gone into the endzone on its own if he hadn’t touched it. That’s an automatic touchback.

I'm not sure it's an automatic touchback if it hits the ground before reaching the goal line? I'm not sure though because the rules differ with my high school officiating.

 

[colbysullivan]

I'm not sure it's an automatic touchback if it hits the ground before reaching the goal line? I'm not sure though because the rules differ with my high school officiating.

They changed it a few years ago IIRC correctly. Any time a ball goes into the endzone on a kickoff, it’s a touchback.

 

[KrAzY3]

I think what caught people off guard was letting us score and them only having about 30-35 seconds left in the game, no timeouts and needing a touchdown. I know that's what caught me off guard. They needed a touchdown, not a field goal. The better move, imo, would have been forcing the Alabama kicker to make game winning kick. It's not like he's been automatic.

I broke down the odds a bit earlier, and it really sounds like a analytics fail basically. People have warmed up to the idea of things like letting the other team score, or conversely not scoring late but the specifics of the situation are key here. Over 1 minute to go with timeouts, this is the right call.

A minute with no timeouts? The odds might be close enough to warrant the choice. 40 seconds? Nope...

I went on a rant about analytics about a year ago, basically pointing out that if you have some chart printed out or something, it can't possibly be accurate because it has to be finely tuned for your opponent, who is in the game, and really specific things (in this case exactly how many seconds are left and if they have timeouts). It really does seem possible that he quickly consulted something showing it was better to let Alabama score for a slightly different scenario, then just applied it to this one even if it didn't really match.

 

[Special K]

It likely would have gone into the endzone on its own if he hadn’t touched it. That’s an automatic touchback.

I just went back and watched the kick again and I think you're right that it would have very likely rolled into the end zone if the returner had left it alone. Ball hit at about the 12-13 yard line with a good bit of mustard on it. It bounced and tumbled straight backwards and hit again at about the 5, still with a good bit of momentum. Probably would have made it into the end zone, but the returner tried to squeeze it off that 2nd bounce between the 3 and 4 yard lines. Instead he bobbled it and it rolled back about a yard deep which is where he finally corralled it to run it out.

 

[RollTide_HTTR]

Beamer himself said they instructed the defense to let us score IF we made the first down. So no, he didn't tell them to let us score no matter what, but only after it was apparent we had the first down. Still, wrong move in my opinion, lots of things can go wrong on a field goal attempt, even a chip shot.

I get this strategy. It does make some sense. The issue I have with it is that are players going to move slower/try less hard if you give them that kind of instruction and therefore make the first down and touchdown more likely?

I imagine it would be a weird mindset to be in to be thinking both "I have to blow this play up" and also "but if they get too far just let them go"

 

[Bamaro]

Dumb move. Results prove it.

 

[dWarriors88]

I think most people understand their rationale. They didn’t have any good options, but they chose the one they thought would give them the best opportunity. I just disagree that they chose the best option. I’m not speaking only from the benefit of hindsight. I posted in the game thread at the beginning of the drive after the turnover, as did others, that I wanted a TD here because I didn’t want to leave the outcome in the hands of a kicker. It seemed more likely to me that something would go wrong with a kick than that they would return a kickoff or drive the length of the field with 35 seconds left and no timeouts.

The fact that they failed doesn’t necessarily mean their strategy was illegitimate, but you can’t say that the option to score a TD and make them fall to respond was illegitimate, because that’s exactly what happened.

You're absolutely correct. Once we moved the ball to their side of the field, you can sense the game was over. SO SO happy we didn't have to watch yet another team storm the field, it was like Christmas morning as a child seeing those students and fans lined up against the hedges being trolled by our offense in the corner of the endzone