Falling Down At The One Yard Line (1 Viewer)

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So this is something that happens every once in a while, and I'm certain it's been discussed before, but the end of yesterday's NYG - TB game sparked a bit of debate amongst my friends.

If you didn't see the end of the game, the score was tied at 34. After a couple of long passes, the Giants had 1st and 10 at the TB 11 yard line with 1:20 left on the clock. TB had only one timeout left, so the Giants could have run the clock down to 0:02 and attempted a game-winning FG.

On first down, Eli handed off to the RB Brown, who ran practically untouched to about the 1 yard line, and then fell down before going into the end zone.

The clock ran down to about 35 seconds before the next play. On second down, once again the TB defense stepped aside, and this time Brown took the handoff and walked into the end zone.

Was this the right call? Or should Brown have fallen down at the 1 again?

 

[BobbyLayne]

What was the debate about?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What was the debate about?

Accidentally submitted the OP before finishing the post. It's been updated, and now includes a pole!

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

What was the debate about?

should brown have stopped at the one again and set up a game winning field goal instead of scoring and allowing TB the time to drive down and almost have a shot at tying it back up.I think both moves were correct. I take the TD on the second one, #### can go wrong on the fg attempt.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The first "fall down" accomplished its means to an end. I would rather have the sure points and hope my defense can hold a long field at home. I favored the choice in the bowl and I favored it yesterday. You don't want to second guess a botched snap, a bungled kick or a sell-out block.

 

[jon_mx]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

 

[jon_mx]

The first "fall down" accomplished its means to an end. I would rather have the sure points and hope my defense can hold a long field at home. I favored the choice in the bowl and I favored it yesterday. You don't want to second guess a botched snap, a bungled kick or a sell-out block.

It is basically an extra point. Unless it is Tony Romo, fall down and kick the game winning FG. The odds are not even close.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

Pretty sure stepping in the end zone gives them the lead 100% of the time.

I voted Yes - Yes. First fall down ran the clock down from just over a minute to around 0:33 seconds. At that point, take the TD and trust your defense. A minute is a long time to give an offense, hard but doable, 30 seconds is miracle time.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

I'm also on board with running down the clock and kicking the FG. Some will argue that it's situation-specific, and I think that's understandable. In this case, if you'd watched the game, the Bucs WRs could pretty much do whatever they wanted against the Giants secondary, so there was no way I would have given them the ball back. Of course, as if on cue, TB got the ball back with ~30 seconds left, and with one deep pass they moved into Giants territory. On the next play they completed another deep pass into the red zone, but it was reviewed and overturned - although it was one of those gray-area type calls where they easily could have ruled it a catch. Freeman ended up getting picked off on the next play which effrectively ended the game (though someone forgot to tell Schiano it was over). But even though TB didn't end up scoring, in my opinion you got a glimpse of why you don't want to give the ball back to your opponent in that situation, when there's an alternate strategy that gives you a very high-percentage chance to win the game.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

Pretty sure stepping in the end zone gives them the lead 100% of the time.

Right, but that gives them the lead and gives the ball back to the opponent with enough time to come back and tie (or try for the win).The ~98% FG attempt doesn't just give them the lead, it gives them the win.

If you think the chances of TB driving for a tying TD with 30 seconds left is less than about 2%, then sure, give them the ball back. But in general, and especially in this case the way the game had played out to that point, you had to figure that the chances the Bucs would drive down and score were much higher than the chances the Giants would mess up a chip shot FG.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

The first "fall down" accomplished its means to an end. I would rather have the sure points and hope my defense can hold a long field at home. I favored the choice in the bowl and I favored it yesterday. You don't want to second guess a botched snap, a bungled kick or a sell-out block.

The Giants D had proven throughout the game that their defense couldn't hold a long field.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

This has been looked at before. Conversion rate on XPs is 98%, give or take. The odds that the Bucs go down the field and then win in OT is bigger than 2%. Running the clock out and kicking the FG is the right play.

 

[Ray]

C) He should have stopped at the one and stood there; forcing the defenders to either tackle him or push him into the end zone.

 

[Sam Quentin]

yes to both

each moved increased the chance of winning IMO

 

[Sam Quentin]

This has been looked at before. Conversion rate on XPs is 98%, give or take. The odds that the Bucs go down the field and then win in OT is bigger than 2%. Running the clock out and kicking the FG is the right play.

I think the time left makes a huge differenc

 

[Smack Tripper]

The first "fall down" accomplished its means to an end. I would rather have the sure points and hope my defense can hold a long field at home. I favored the choice in the bowl and I favored it yesterday. You don't want to second guess a botched snap, a bungled kick or a sell-out block.

It is basically an extra point. Unless it is Tony Romo, fall down and kick the game winning FG. The odds are not even close.

Extra points are probably 97 percent effective. Running into the endzone is 100 percent effective. Things aren't always that cut and dry, but with no timeouts and limited time, at home. I don't know, if I'm coaching, maybe its human nature, but do I want to be questioned for my decision to kick a FG that could go wrong or have to answer questions about my defense, which would have underperformed as a unit?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Extra points are probably 97 percent effective. Running into the endzone is 100 percent effective.

But what do you mean by "effective"? Comments like these have no meaning because they're leaving out the most important part - the time remaining. Running into the endzone in this situation is 100% effective at giving you the lead with 30 seconds left. Kicking the FG in this situation is 97% effective at giving you the lead with 0 seconds left - i.e. giving you a win. You need to compare the probability of missing the FG to the probability of giving up a game-tying (or -winning) TD with 30 seconds left. Watching the game, I was certainly more comfortable with the chances of making a FG than I was with the chances of stopping TB from scoring. The Giants secondary was pretty ineffective. As it turned out, the Bucs nearly did drive right down the field.

The more I think about it, in general I think it's probably pretty close to a coinflip. I don't know the probability of scoring after receiving a kickoff with 30 seconds left, though I assume it's in the single-digits. It might even be less than 2% for all I know. In this specific instance, though, I wouldn't want to put the ball back in Freeman's hands when you could simply take a knee and then kick a very high-percentage FG for the win.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Another wrinkle: At the very least, fall down on second down and make the Bucs waste their final timeout. If they were willing to let you walk in the endzone on second down, then presumably they would burn the TO and let you walk in on third down. At least then you're giving them the ball back with 30 seconds and 0 timeouts, as opposed to 30 seconds and 1 timeout. That further limits their options on the final drive.

 

[mbuehner]

Where's the option for letting time expire and going to OT so Eli can throw another TD?

 

[cheese]

I actually think they nailed it. There was too much time to just score on the 1st play so he killed another 45 seconds. On the second play, just take the points and the game is pretty much iced.

I am not sure I agree with the 98-99% number being thrown around for the "go down twice" option. It might be true that if the kicker gets off a kick from there, he makes it 98% of the time. You could also get a penalty that moves you back. You could also botch the snap/hold. You also have more pressure than a normal XP and different timing. Long shot, but you also might botch the time management all together in terms of getting the clock run down (such as a false start inside 10 seconds).

There are just so many variables, I think you score the 2nd time.

 

[Warrior]

I call BS on the 98-99% success rate of kicking a field goal from the 1 to win the game. Extra points are MUCH different than a game-winning FG as time expires. I'd guess it's maybe 94-95%.

Very little is riding on an extra point to put your team up 7-3 in the first quarter. Less jitters from the snapper, holder and kicker. Not to mention MUCH more riding on the defense to sell out and block the kick.

Apples to oranges and it's not close to 98-99%.

 

[renesauz]

He did the right thing both times I think, although I wouldn't have faulted him for kneeling at the 1 the second time also.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I actually think they nailed it. There was too much time to just score on the 1st play so he killed another 45 seconds. On the second play, just take the points and the game is pretty much iced. I am not sure I agree with the 98-99% number being thrown around for the "go down twice" option. It might be true that if the kicker gets off a kick from there, he makes it 98% of the time. You could also get a penalty that moves you back. You could also botch the snap/hold. You also have more pressure than a normal XP and different timing. Long shot, but you also might botch the time management all together in terms of getting the clock run down (such as a false start inside 10 seconds).There are just so many variables, I think you score the 2nd time.

Valid points, though I'd say:- I'm pretty sure that the ~98% figure already incorporates things like botched snaps, etc. NFL kickers simply don't miss 2% of kicks from that range. Most of that 2% has to be precisely because of botched snaps, blocked kicks, etc. No reason to double-count those possibilities.- I'm not sure how there's more pressure. As far as timing goes, at least in this instance, the Giants still had all their timeouts available IIRC, so if that was a concern I'm sure they would have simply taken a timeout. - I believe the fact that the Giants had timeouts remaining also makes the possibility of a 10-second runoff a non-factor, as I think the offense can opt to burn a timeout instead of taking the time off the clock. If the Giants had no timeouts in this situation then it's definitely a riskier proposition. Probably the worst thing that happens here is you false start and lose five yards, but even then we're still talking about a very high-percentage FG.I do think 30 seconds remaining is about that time where it's a tossup which strategy is better. More than 30 seconds and I continue to try to run down the clock. Less than 30 seconds I take the free TD.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I call BS on the 98-99% success rate of kicking a field goal from the 1 to win the game. Extra points are MUCH different than a game-winning FG as time expires. I'd guess it's maybe 94-95%.

Very little is riding on an extra point to put your team up 7-3 in the first quarter. Less jitters from the snapper, holder and kicker. Not to mention MUCH more riding on the defense to sell out and block the kick.

Apples to oranges and it's not close to 98-99%.

Looks like it's 100%.ETA: Though cheese correctly points out that this may not pick up the times when the snap is botched and the holder attempts a pass or something, so this may not be accurate. If that's the case I wouldn't know how to look up those instances.

 

[cheese]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if the kick doesn't get off I don't think you'd find it there for obvious reasons. Also, if the penalty moves you back before the kick you won't find it here. These are long shots I guess, but so is a hail mary if you leave time.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Normally I'm all in favor of both letting them score and not scoring from the 1 when they're trying to give it to you. It was definitely the right decision not to score on the first one, on the second run I can see taking the touchdown. A FG from the 1 converts at about 97%, so there's a 3% chance you botch it. I'm not sure the Bucs' odds of scoring a touchdown with 30 seconds left and 0 timeouts are any better than that, and I would imagine it's pretty even.

EDIT: Looks like the Bucs had 1 timeout. That might tip the scales a bit but I'd imagine it's still pretty close.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I call BS on the 98-99% success rate of kicking a field goal from the 1 to win the game. Extra points are MUCH different than a game-winning FG as time expires. I'd guess it's maybe 94-95%.

Very little is riding on an extra point to put your team up 7-3 in the first quarter. Less jitters from the snapper, holder and kicker. Not to mention MUCH more riding on the defense to sell out and block the kick.

Apples to oranges and it's not close to 98-99%.

Looks like it's 100%.

Good link, seriously, those are interesting numbers. And i know the playoffs are like comparing green apples to red apples, but in fairness, we've had the botched snap in Seattle, we've had Cundiff exist as examples of chippies that went awry. Then again, thats playoff pressure and the whole bit.I think, if I'm to be totally fair, where the difference lies between this scenario and last year's super bowl is, they were trailing in the bowl and tied yesterday.

If you miss that rare shot at a winning FG in regulation, you still have OT to deal with and can win there, so the kneel and kick argument looks better.

In the bowl, I was ok with him running in because they were trailing. The run put them up by 4 at the time meaning the Pats had to drive the field.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if the kick doesn't get off I don't think you'd find it there for obvious reasons.

Ah, good point. Not sure if there's a way to query for those instances.

 

[Sarnoff]

Another wrinkle: At the very least, fall down on second down and make the Bucs waste their final timeout. If they were willing to let you walk in the endzone on second down, then presumably they would burn the TO and let you walk in on third down. At least then you're giving them the ball back with 30 seconds and 0 timeouts, as opposed to 30 seconds and 1 timeout. That further limits their options on the final drive.

This would probably have been optimum.

 

[12punch]

Hang on, let me ask the patriots

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Hang on, let me ask the patriots

Belichick usually gets these things right.

 

[Amused to Death]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

Pretty sure stepping in the end zone gives them the lead 100% of the time.

I voted Yes - Yes. First fall down ran the clock down from just over a minute to around 0:33 seconds. At that point, take the TD and trust your defense. A minute is a long time to give an offense, hard but doable, 30 seconds is miracle time.

Voted yes-yes as well for the same reasons. First attempt you let the clock run. Second attempt I want the sure points. Someone made the valid point that can be a botched snap on ANY play. Defense is always trying to swipe the ball away from the center. Sometimes they succeed.

 

[Woogie Lee]

Yes

Yes

I'm on board with the way that it actually went down.

 

[jon_mx]

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to consider it any different than an extra point. If you think you can only model things with identicle circumstances, you will have no data because every situation is different.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

From the transcript of Coughlin's post-game interview:

Q: Did you think about taking more time off the clock before scoring the winning points?

A: I did. I did. That is something, I’m not comfortable with not taking the touchdown. I’m going to take the touchdown. I could have taken some more time off. That’s on me.

 

[jon_mx]

there is a point where running it in makes sense, but it is with much less than 35 seconds on the clock. Give an NFL team 35 seconds and most of them will get at least a hail Mary shoot at the end zone.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Dug this up at Advanced Football Statistics. They've developed a measurement, based on actual NFL games in the past, of a team's current chances of winning based on score, time remaining, down and distance. Here's what he had to say about the Super Bowl (note there was 1:00 left in that case):

Bill Belichick may have made one of the gutsiest calls in Super Bowl history: instructing his defense to allow the Giants to score the go-ahead touchdown with just a minute remaining. The only gutsier move would've been for the Giants to respond by not scoring. Instead, Ahmad Bradshaw's six-yard run and subsequent pratfall into the end zone may have been the most counterproductive score of all time.That run came on second down, with 1:04 remaining. Here's why the Giants didn't want a touchdown in that situation. The best-case scenario for New York would have been to run the ball one more time, draining the clock and forcing the Patriots to expend their final timeout. Then, with just a few seconds remaining, send in the field goal unit for what would have been a 99 percent kick in perfect indoor conditions to take the lead by a point, leaving virtually no time for the Patriots to respond. Using Win Probability (a simple estimate of who's going to win based on score and other variables), we know that if Bradshaw been able to stop his momentum and fall prior to scoring, the Giants would have had a 0.98 WP—in other words, a 98 percent chance of winning.While it looked as if Bradshaw was pulling the video-game trick of burning an additional second or two prior to scoring, he told reporters after the game, "I tried to declare myself down and tapped down. My momentum took me into the end zone." When he scored, the Patriots had a minute left and one timeout, which typically amounts to a 0.88 WP. The touchdown actually cost the Giants 0.1 WP and unnecessarily kept the Patriots' hopes alive.The smartest play of all would've been for Belichick to have allowed the touchdown even earlier. The Patriots certainly could have done so on the play prior to Bradshaw's touchdown run, when he was stopped for a one-yard gain, forcing New England to burn its second timeout. In fact, they probably should have allowed a touchdown as early as the two-minute warning.That's the point at which the Win Probability of receiving a kickoff down by four or six points (0.23) exceeds the Win Probability of trying to stop the Giants from bleeding the clock dry (0.2). The Patriots would have had almost two minutes, two timeouts, and all four downs available to get a touchdown and steal the win. The lesson: New England didn't lie down soon enough.

So as a baseline you can start with a 12% chance of a Bucs TD followed by an overtime win half the time afterwards -- or 6%. Since the game was outdoors we can also increase the chance of a FG miss from 1% to 2%. Except that Tampa only had 33 seconds left, instead of a minute, which would dramatically reduce their chances of getting the TD. If you assume that having less time on the clock cut the Bucs chances by 2/3rds -- to 2% -- you get a wash. So it's a pretty close call on whether the final TD was a good idea. There's probably no right answer with that little time on the clock in that game situation. Both options are strong. Not scoring on the first play was unquestionably the right call however.

 

[Jed]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

Pretty sure stepping in the end zone gives them the lead 100% of the time.

I voted Yes - Yes. First fall down ran the clock down from just over a minute to around 0:33 seconds. At that point, take the TD and trust your defense. A minute is a long time to give an offense, hard but doable, 30 seconds is miracle time.

The only problem is it was almost a miracle. They could have easily ruled Mike Williams with a catch near the 20 with 19 seconds left... which would give them about 3 short plays to the endzone.He should have knelt down when he did, and also a second time instead of scoring.

 

[Joe Summer]

The correct play is to kick a FG as time expires, so yes he should fall down. A 20 yard FG has about a 98-99 percent success rate. No other option gives that high of a certainty of victory. You give the other team nearly a minute to tie the game and they will do it at a far greater probability than 2 percent of the time. I would guess about 20 percent of the time.

Pretty sure stepping in the end zone gives them the lead 100% of the time.

I voted Yes - Yes. First fall down ran the clock down from just over a minute to around 0:33 seconds. At that point, take the TD and trust your defense. A minute is a long time to give an offense, hard but doable, 30 seconds is miracle time.

But why even give them a chance at a miracle? You have a 99.4% chance of winning the game if you kick the field goal. It seems to me that the chances of scoring a TD in 30 seconds are slightly higher than 0.6%, no?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

So it's a pretty close call on whether the final TD was a good idea. There's probably no right answer with that little time on the clock in that game situation. Both options are strong. Not scoring on the first play was unquestionably the right call however.

My immediate reaction yesterday was that he shouldn't have run in on second down. After giving it more thought I think it's close enough that neither strategy is clearly better than the other. Given the way the Giants secondary has been playing, I think I still would have been more comfortable taking my chances with the FG (or, as I said earlier, at least make TB burn their time out before giving them the ball back).