Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 89

Thread: Why did we accept the holding penalty?

  1. #1
    New Bear barr2dawkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan
    Posts
    97

    Why did we accept the holding penalty?

    In the first half, on third and 2, we stopped UW for a 1 yard game for 4-1 on their 40, but there was a holding call. For some reason we accepted the 10 yard penalty, they go on to get the first down and score.

    Why the hell did we accept the penalty, Sark wasn't going to go for it then. Am I missing something....

    p.s. Maynard is a gamer

  2. #2
    Real Bear dinan3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,580
    JT was quoted as saying he felt that udub would go for it on fourth down.

  3. #3
    Active Bear
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by barr2dawkins View Post
    In the first half, on third and 2, we stopped UW for a 1 yard game for 4-1 on their 40, but there was a holding call. For some reason we accepted the 10 yard penalty, they go on to get the first down and score.

    Why the hell did we accept the penalty, Sark wasn't going to go for it then. Am I missing something....

    p.s. Maynard is a gamer
    I know there was an earlier thread on this, but I too was confused. It seemed to me that the referee was very confused (which wasn't an anomaly.) But if you're Tedford you've got to be clear about where that ball is, ask for a measurement, do something. I know that some believe Tedford may have been thinking that Sark would go for it anyways, but I still take that chance on 4th and 1 with our run defense.
    I'm definitely not Anti-Tedford, but you can't dismiss his poor history of game management.

  4. #4
    Golden Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,533
    Tedford made the conservative choice here. I think Washington would have gone for it and probably of gotten it 9/10 times. They convert 3rd and 11 probably 6/10. 1/10 you get the ball at their 40. 4/10 you get the ball at your 20. I think you score more taking the penalty. It was a close call and I can see going either way with it. The aggressive play is to decline the penalty and make them man up.

  5. #5
    Loyal Bear BearsWiin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aptos
    Posts
    2,663
    Tedford's quote suggests that he didn't know it would have been 4th and more than a yard. Either that, or he's deliberately trying to deflect.

    "They would have went for it," he said. "Third-and-11, I'll take that over six inches any day."

    New math?

  6. #6
    Loyal Bear MinotStateBeav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Redmond, Oregon
    Posts
    4,144
    Taking the penalty was the right call in that situation.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BearsWiin View Post
    Tedford's quote suggests that he didn't know it would have been 4th and more than a yard. Either that, or he's deliberately trying to deflect.

    "They would have went for it," he said. "Third-and-11, I'll take that over six inches any day."

    New math?
    Actually, it looked like it would have been 4th and inches. Also, the conversion percentage on average on a 3 and 10+ is 20% vs 67% for 1 yd to go. Before our defense was exposed throughout the game, I would imagine that he had confidence in our D's ability to hold them on 3rd and long and get a good field position.

  8. #8
    Loyal Bear BearsWiin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aptos
    Posts
    2,663
    I haven't gone back and rewatched the game (I doubt I will), but at the time it looked to me like it was more than a yard. Perhaps the refs gave the Huskies a generous spot.

  9. #9
    True Blue Golden Bear LethalFang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    10,200
    Sark is an aggressive coach. There is a good chance he'll go for it.
    Fact is, with one yard to go near the midfield, he (and we all) really should go for it.

  10. #10
    We haven't stopped them all game on 3rd and long. However at that point of the game, we pretty much stopped them on the run so far. It was also not guaranteed that Washington would go for it as they were in their own territory and might not have wanted to give Cal a short field.

    Tedford needs to learn to look at the game and make the right calls and adjustments, not just do whatever his "coaching for dummies" say.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by MiltyBear View Post
    We haven't stopped them all game on 3rd and long. However at that point of the game, we pretty much stopped them on the run so far. It was also not guaranteed that Washington would go for it as they were in their own territory and might not have wanted to give Cal a short field.

    Tedford needs to learn to look at the game and make the right calls and adjustments, not just do whatever his "coaching for dummies" say.
    Up to that point, there were only 3 plays of 3rd and more than 5 for UW. So the sample size isn't very large.

    Assuming Sark would go for it, which is what JT believed as he indicated in his post game quotes, you're basically saying preventing them from getting less than a yard is easier than preventing them from getting 10+ yards?

    We lost so JT obviously has plenty of blame, but the call to accept is totally understandable. The D not holding them on 3rd and longs throughout the rest of the game is what's ridiculous.

  12. #12
    True Blue Golden Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    12,401
    Quote Originally Posted by goingfortheroses View Post
    Up to that point, there were only 3 plays of 3rd and more than 5 for UW. So the sample size isn't very large.

    Assuming Sark would go for it, which is what JT believed as he indicated in his post game quotes, you're basically saying preventing them from getting less than a yard is easier than preventing them from getting 10+ yards?

    We lost so JT obviously has plenty of blame, but the call to accept is totally understandable. The D not holding them on 3rd and longs throughout the rest of the game is what's ridiculous.
    I agree the call is understandable, but you have set up a false dichotomy. If you think Sark would go for it on fourth than the choice is stopping them with 4th and 1 versus stopping them TWICE with 3rd and 11.

    Tedford should have at least asked for a measurement, that would have given him more information and more time to confer with the other coaches. In the end, this was pretty low on the list of decisions that I disagreed with--I see it as basically a coin flip.
    Last edited by calumnus; 09-25-2011 at 12:43 PM.

  13. #13
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    I agree the call is understandable, but you have set up a false dichotomy. If you think Sark would go for it on fourth than the choice is stopping them with 4th and 1 versus stopping them TWICE with 3rd and 11.

    Tedford should have at least asked for a measurement, that would have given him more information and more time to confer with the other coaches.
    Well, not necessarily stopping them twice with 3rd and 11. If the offense is looking at 4th and 3+, they likely would have punted. If they got close on 4th down, though, you're right that the assumption should be they're going for it.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    I agree the call is understandable, but you have set up a false dichotomy. If you think Sark would go for it on fourth than the choice is stopping them with 4th and 1 versus stopping them TWICE with 3rd and 11.

    Tedford should have at least asked for a measurement, that would have given him more information and more time to confer with the other coaches.
    I understand what you're saying and as BTUR pointed out, chances are Sark would have punted if it was 4th and 3. So then is is it easier to stop them from getting less than a yard or 8 yards?

  15. #15
    True Blue Golden Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    12,401
    Quote Originally Posted by goingfortheroses View Post
    I understand what you're saying and as BTUR pointed out, chances are Sark would have punted if it was 4th and 3. So then is is it easier to stop them from getting less than a yard or 8 yards?
    My point was the calculus is not as simple as "stop them with 11 (or even 8) versus stop them with one" which implies that taking the penalty was absolutely 100% the right decision.

    1st, everyone is assuming Sark would go for it? I don't think that is a safe assumption at all. There is a very good chance that, up 14 to 10 already, with the ball on his own 41, and already stopped once for no gain on 3rd and 1, Sark would have punted. You cannot assume 100% that he would go for it there. Maybe if he was in Cal territory, but on his side of the field with the lead? I think there is at least a 50-50 chance he punts.

    Then, as others point out, on 3rd and 11 you are likely facing a pass, which we had not been defending well. 4th and 1 on your side of the field, I don't think most coaches risk a pass, not with the lead. An incomplete and we have the ball on the Washington 41? You probably try to run (or QB sneak) and we just stopped them for no gain on 3rd and 1 and had pretty much kept their running game in check. If I'm Tedford I like the chances that we do that again.

    Again, I think Tedford should have at least asked for a measurement to buy himself some time to consider the decision and to know exactly how much distance he was really dealing with (a yard versus inches). That much has no downside. However, I don't greatly fault the ultimate decision as the choices seem pretty close to 50-50. I don't think it can be conclusively argued that either decision would be "right."
    Last edited by calumnus; 09-25-2011 at 01:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •