Chat Room
Go Back   The Bear Insider - Covering Cal Sports 24 x 7 > The Public Place where "CyberBears" Growl > Football
Reload this Page Why did we accept the holding penalty?
Notices
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
barr2dawkins barr2dawkins is offline
New Bear
 
barr2dawkins's Avatar
 
Posts: 96
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Taichung, Taiwan
Why did we accept the holding penalty? - 09-25-2011, 08:55 AM

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
Reply With Quote
  (#2) Old
dinan3 dinan3 is offline
Real Bear
 
dinan3's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,558
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-25-2011, 08:58 AM

JT was quoted as saying he felt that udub would go for it on fourth down.
Reply With Quote
  (#3) Old
Aggie Bear Aggie Bear is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 430
Join Date: Sep 2011
09-25-2011, 09:00 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#4) Old
pappysghost pappysghost is offline
Golden Bear
 
Posts: 6,533
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-25-2011, 09:01 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#5) Old
BearsWiin BearsWiin is offline
Loyal Bear
 
BearsWiin's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,635
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aptos
09-25-2011, 09:03 AM

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?
Reply With Quote
  (#6) Old
MinotStateBeav MinotStateBeav is offline
Loyal Bear
 
MinotStateBeav's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,134
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Redmond, Oregon
09-25-2011, 09:09 AM

Taking the penalty was the right call in that situation.
Reply With Quote
  (#7) Old
goingfortheroses goingfortheroses is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 402
Join Date: Jan 2010
09-25-2011, 09:15 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#8) Old
BearsWiin BearsWiin is offline
Loyal Bear
 
BearsWiin's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,635
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aptos
09-25-2011, 09:23 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#9) Old
LethalFang LethalFang is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
LethalFang's Avatar
 
Posts: 10,183
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
09-25-2011, 09:59 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#10) Old
MiltyBear MiltyBear is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 854
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-25-2011, 10:17 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#11) Old
goingfortheroses goingfortheroses is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 402
Join Date: Jan 2010
09-25-2011, 10:40 AM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#12) Old
calumnus calumnus is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
Posts: 12,119
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-25-2011, 12:13 PM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#13) Old
BTUR BTUR is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 744
Join Date: Aug 2011
09-25-2011, 12:19 PM

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.
Reply With Quote
  (#14) Old
goingfortheroses goingfortheroses is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 402
Join Date: Jan 2010
09-25-2011, 12:43 PM

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?
Reply With Quote
  (#15) Old
calumnus calumnus is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
Posts: 12,119
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-25-2011, 01:04 PM

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Ad Management by RedTyger