National Title Game Thread

[Average Reds]

I just watched the espn highlights of the game and they referenced Sarkisian five times. "Sarkisian is dialing up the plays" and then Hurts scores the go ahead touchdown on the broken play. Seems like no one can stand Kiffin.

I think I mentioned it in the game thread last night, but that is exactly what I was thinking at the time.

However, the more I think of it, the more I am convinced that it wasn't hate for Kiffin that drove the commentary, but a desire to shield Saban from the consequences of his decision to remove Kiffin a week before the Championship Game. (Which, of course, was driven by the fact that Kiffin is an asshole, so we're kind of agreeing here.)

Edit: BTW, I missed a hell of an ending going to bed in the third quarter. Sucks getting old ...

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I just watched the espn highlights of the game and they referenced Sarkisian five times. "Sarkisian is dialing up the plays" and then Hurts scores the go ahead touchdown on the broken play. Seems like no one can stand Kiffin.

I have to think his stock went up a little bit because of this loss.....no? As DoTB pointed out, the playcalling on the offensive side of the ball merits some questioning in the second half.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Edit: BTW, I missed a hell of an ending going to bed in the third quarter. Sucks getting old ...

I had the game on the radio with the Clemson announcers. I feel sound asleep listening to the game just after Clemson scored their TD to make it a game. Damn am I no longer a gangster.

 

[mauf]

He was generally complimentary of Clemson, and as Rinaldi is wrapping it up he throws in that it didn't help that #94 got a PF on the last drive.

It wasn't the time to say that, but he has a point. Dabo Sweeney was working the officials all night, and even made physical contact on at least one occasion. The officials were right to show restraint and not throw a flag on Clemson at a critical juncture. They should've given Alabama the same consideration.

 

[DJnVa]

Great game.

So why the onside kick there? If Bama recovers they get one shot to Aaron Rodgers it. Booting it down the middle of the field and hope some up man decides to run with it to kill the last second seems like a better choice. But it worked, so whatever.

 

[ethangl]

Great game.

So why the onside kick there? If Bama recovers they get one shot to Aaron Rodgers it. Booting it down the middle of the field and hope some up man decides to run with it to kill the last second seems like a better choice. But it worked, so whatever.

I don't think Bama was expecting an onsides kick, so they didn't have their hands team on the field. Non-handsy people would have had to have the awareness that they needed to either recover possession cleanly and with a knee on the ground, or quickly smother it before it travelled 10 yards.

(Side note, can a game end on a special teams penalty?)

I'm guessing there was no film of Clemson doing this in the past, so it was basically impossible to prepare for. You saw that the Bama players didn't know what to do — that makes it a pretty brilliant call in my book.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I don't think Bama was expecting an onsides kick, so they didn't have their hands team on the field. Non-handsy people would have had to have the awareness that they needed to either recover possession cleanly and with a knee on the ground, or quickly smother it before it travelled 10 yards.

(Side note, can a game end on a special teams penalty?)

I'm guessing there was no film of Clemson doing this in the past, so it was basically impossible to prepare for. You saw that the Bama players didn't know what to do — that makes it a pretty brilliant call in my book.

This nails it. An onside kick is a somewhat successful play when it is expected, but when it is unexpected it has a pretty high - I think over 40% - chance of being successful. I may well be wrong, but my guess is that the kicker was told to do onsides in the absence of a hands team and do a muff kick down the side of the field if the hands team were out there.

 

[Buster Olney the Lonely]

Fun one live boys. Worth every penny.

That's amazing that you got to see it live. So jealous. The announcers said that it was about 60-40 Clemson fans (on TV I saw more orange though)--does that seem about right to you?

 

[Infield Infidel]

For the onside kick, there was only one second left, even if a receiving team player just falls on it a second probably runs off the clock. For the kicking team though play stops immediately since they can't advance the ball. A bad thing is if it goes out of bounds, but the kick wasn't near the sideline.

 

[nolasoxfan]

It wasn't the time to say that, but he has a point. Dabo Sweeney was working the officials all night, and even made physical contact on at least one occasion. The officials were right to show restraint and not throw a flag on Clemson at a critical juncture. They should've given Alabama the same consideration.

The same consideration for dragging a wide receiver down in the end zone on one of the final passing plays of the game? You want the refs to overlook that penalty? Really..???

 

[kenneycb]

For the onside kick, there was only one second left, even if a receiving team player just falls on it a second probably runs off the clock. For the kicking team though play stops immediately since they can't advance the ball. A bad thing is if it goes out of bounds, but the kick wasn't near the sideline.

If his knee is on the ground, I imagine they give Alabama one play.

 

[joe dokes]

For the onside kick, there was only one second left, even if a receiving team player just falls on it a second probably runs off the clock. For the kicking team though play stops immediately since they can't advance the ball. A bad thing is if it goes out of bounds, but the kick wasn't near the sideline.

That's not quite how it works. They had a Pereira-type in the radio booth. He explained that if the recovery of the onside kick -- by either team -- was made while the player was already down (like diving or falling on it or being on one knee when fielding it), then no time would run off the clock. Which is exactly what happened. It didn't matter which team recovered. Which is why it was a tiny bit risky.

If his knee is on the ground, I imagine they give Alabama one play.

This is correct, according to the on-air ref.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

That's amazing that you got to see it live. So jealous. The announcers said that it was about 60-40 Clemson fans (on TV I saw more orange though)--does that seem about right to you?

I don't know if it was 60-40. We had more people in clearly Bama sections than they did in ours. But if I had to put a number on it. I'd say 55-45. Outside stadium had more orange so I think we had more people travel without tickets.

 

[Al Zarilla]

On Mike and Mike this morning they were going over all the things that could have happened on the play Clemson called and it could have been "Malcolm Butlered" came up twice. Giggity.

 

[Drocca]

I stayed up and enjoyed ever second but am paying for it today. I really hate how late (and weeknight) this and the BBALL national championship game is.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I stayed up and enjoyed ever second but am paying for it today. I really hate how late (and weeknight) this and the BBALL national championship game is.

Go West young man.

 

[dhappy42]

Took me a night's sleep to think of this so not blaming Saban, but with 4 seconds left, why didn't the Alabama defense just tackle every receiver and draw pass interference calls? Clock would have run out and if I understand the rules correctly Clemson would still get one untimed play... and be compelled to go for 3 and a tie.

It'd be sort of like the end-of-game punt play the Ravens ran where the team intentionally committed holding, running out the clock, rather than punting the ball and risks by a return... except in reverse.

 

[loshjott]

Asked and answered.

 

[snowmanny]

I've read theories about this on the internet.

 

[kenneycb]

Meh, I bet they would still go for it given their playcall choice on the last play with one TO still left.

 

[Infield Infidel]

That's not quite how it works. They had a Pereira-type in the radio booth. He explained that if the recovery of the onside kick -- by either team -- was made while the player was already down (like diving or falling on it or being on one knee when fielding it), then no time would run off the clock. Which is exactly what happened. It didn't matter which team recovered. Which is why it was a tiny bit risky.


This is correct, according to the on-air ref.

Thanks for the correction

 

[dhappy42]

Meh, I bet they would still go for it given their playcall choice on the last play with one TO still left.

Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.

 

[Drocca]

Took me a night's sleep to think of this so not blaming Saban, but with 4 seconds left, why didn't the Alabama defense just tackle every receiver and draw pass interference calls? Clock would have run out and if I understand the rules correctly Clemson would still get one untimed play... and be compelled to go for 3 and a tie.

It'd be sort of like the end-of-game punt play the Ravens ran where the team intentionally committed holding, running out the clock, rather than punting the ball and risks by a return... except in reverse.

Why are you pretending you thought of this when it is discussed in multiple posts right above you?

 

[dhappy42]

Why are you pretending you thought of this when it is discussed in multiple posts right above you?

Not pretending. Didn't see the posts above. Not bragging about thinking of it either. Doesn't surprise me at all that others thought of it first. Is there a prize for thinking of it first? Sincerest and groveling apologies for not doing due diligence thread review. Too busy banging your mom. (Is that how it's done here?)

 

[kenneycb]

Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.

That's a significantly dumber and riskier play than relying on your defense to actually play defense.

 

[InstaFace]

That's a significantly dumber and riskier play than relying on your defense to actually play defense.

I can see the logic of calling the Harbaugh Hold-'Em defensive play on the play that ultimately resulted in the TD. 6 seconds left, so even DPI in the end zone leaves them with only time enough for one play. That takes Swinney to a decision: take the FG, go to OT, and trust that your play in the 2nd half gives you an advantage there? Or a Tom Osborne-esque decision to go for the 1-yard TD and either win it or lose it on that one play?

I can't see the logic in Saban calling Harbaugh Hold-'Em a second time, but I don't think that's what dhappy was suggesting. However, with 6 seconds left they still had the time to try for the (ultimately successful) TD and if it failed, kick the tying FG. Makes sense to me there.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Alex Scarborough ESPN Staff Writer
Nick Saban issues a statement: "Bo Scarbrough suffered a fracture to his right lower leg during the game. The injury is non-surgical and we anticipate he will make a full recovery."

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Why are you pretending you thought of this when it is discussed in multiple posts right above you?

Because he's a fucking dunce.

 

[kenneycb]

I can see the logic of calling the Harbaugh Hold-'Em defensive play on the play that ultimately resulted in the TD. 6 seconds left, so even DPI in the end zone leaves them with only time enough for one play. That takes Swinney to a decision: take the FG, go to OT, and trust that your play in the 2nd half gives you an advantage there? Or a Tom Osborne-esque decision to go for the 1-yard TD and either win it or lose it on that one play?

I can't see the logic in Saban calling Harbaugh Hold-'Em a second time, but I don't think that's what dhappy was suggesting. However, with 6 seconds left they still had the time to try for the (ultimately successful) TD and if it failed, kick the tying FG. Makes sense to me there.

I guess we have different interpretations of "again" as well as "and again".

 

[InstaFace]

Sorry, I was addressing the wrong post:

Meh, I bet they would still go for it given their playcall choice on the last play with one TO still left.

They went for it on the final meaningful play from scrimmage because they had that TO, so if Renfrow was tackled short of the goal line (or an incomplete, or a sack, or any play that lasted less than 6 seconds) they could call TO and kick the tying FG. I think it's a very different calculus with 2 seconds left and one play to win, lose or go to OT. What about their final playcall makes you think otherwise?

 

[dhappy42]

I guess we have different interpretations of "again" as well as "and again".

Assuming Alabama did the intentional DPI trick with 6 seconds left, but the clock didn't run out. (Was it 6 or 4? I forget.) Say there's still 3 seconds left and Clemson lined up for TD to win instead of going for a FG to tie. What's the downside of another intentional DPI to run out the clock? Half the distance? What's that,18 inches?

 

[E5 Yaz]

What's the downside of another intentional DPI to run out the clock?

Other than you can't run out the clock on a defensive penalty?

Apologies if that had been discussed earlier

 

[Marciano490]

I think he's saying to get it down to 1 second with the ball at the 6 inch line and force Swinney to choose whether to kick a FG or run a play that will take the rest of the time off the clock if it fails.

 

[InstaFace]

I think he's saying to get it down to 1 second with the ball at the 6 inch line and force Swinney to choose whether to kick a FG or run a play that will take the rest of the time off the clock if it fails.

But that's the same as doing it with 3 seconds. You pretty much can't run a play in fewer than 3 or 4 seconds. If you commit a defensive penalty on the last timed down, then as everyone here knows, the offense gets one untimed down. So at that point, as someone else posted last night, as soon as Watson sees the flags fly for the intentional holding, he can try to run it into the endzone without any downside to him.

It only makes sense on the 2nd-to-last timed down when well-within FG range, and then only if leading by 3 as Alabama was. Harbaugh's call was run on offense.

 

[dhappy42]

Other than you can't run out the clock on a defensive penalty?

Apologies if that had been discussed earlier

Right. Covered that. The idea is run out the clock so Clemson has one untimed down - only one scoring chance instead of two. (Or some seem to think maybe three.) One shot.

 

[kenneycb]

Assuming Alabama did the intentional DPI trick with 6 seconds left, but the clock didn't run out. (Was it 6 or 4? I forget.) Say there's still 3 seconds left and Clemson lined up for TD to win instead of going for a FG to tie. What's the downside of another intentional DPI to run out the clock? Half the distance? What's that,18 inches?

The chance of fucking up some gimmick defense instead of relying on one of the best defenses in the country? You assume DPI or holding leads to no TD. It does not. That is a major flaw in your plan.

 

[dhappy42]

But that's the same as doing it with 3 seconds. You pretty much can't run a play in fewer than 3 or 4 seconds. If you commit a defensive penalty on the last timed down, then as everyone here knows, the offense gets one untimed down. So at that point, as someone else posted last night, as soon as Watson sees the flags fly for the intentional holding, he can try to run it into the endzone without any downside to him.

It only makes sense on the 2nd-to-last timed down when well-within FG range, and then only if leading by 3 as Alabama was. Harbaugh's call was run on offense.

Better example is 49ers v Saints. Someone up thread mentioned it while I was banging Drocca's mom.

 

[E5 Yaz]

The chance of fucking up some gimmick defense instead of relying on one of the best defenses in the country?

But why do that when you can be cleverererest?

 

[dhappy42]

But why do that when you can be cleverererest?

It's not really about being cleverer. It's about being Belichickian, using the rules to your advantage.

Unless I'm missing something, with short yardage, say inside the three, and only a few seconds left in a game, it's ALWAYS a good idea for defensive backs to commit intentional defensive pass interference.

What's the downside? Half the distance and automatic first down. Half the distance is a mostly meaningless yard or yard-and-half. Automatic first down is totally meaningless if the clock runs out and the offense gets one untimed play.

 

[dhappy42]

Flip the problem around. You're Clemson. Which situation do you prefer:

A) 1st and goal on the 3, and 00:06 on the clock?

B) 1st and goal on the 1.5 yard line, 00:00 seconds on the clock and one untimed down (because the game can't end on a defensive penalty)?

 

[SumnerH]

Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.

That should be an automatic TD awarded to Clemson under Rule 9 Article 3 (b)--the refs have a breadth of penalties available under the rule, but the TD is the minimum penalty that is actually a penalty in that situation.

Flat-out tackling all the receivers the first time (rather than aggressively going after one who's being targeted and getting a DPI) should probably be the same under 9.3(c), though there's almost no chance they call that in real life.

Unfair Acts
ARTICLE 3. The following are unfair acts:
...
b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced
only by halving the distance to its goal line.
c. An obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs
during the game (A.R. 4-2-1-II and 9-2-3-I).
PENALTY—The referee may take any action he considers equitable,
which includes directing that the down be repeated,
including assessing a 15-yard penalty, awarding a score, or
suspending or forfeiting the game [S27].

 

[dhappy42]

That should be an automatic TD awarded to Clemson under Rule 9 Article 3 (b)--the refs have a breadth of penalties available under the rule, but the TD is the minimum penalty that is actually a penalty in that situation.

Flat-out tackling all the receivers the first time (rather than aggressively going after one who's being targeted and getting a DPI) should probably be the same under 9.3(c), though there's almost no chance they call that in real life.

Great point. I didn't know about that rule. Have you (or anyone) ever seen it implemented? Doesn't seem "automatic" though if it's at the discretion of the officials to determine whether the fouls are deliberate and repeated. Can you imagine the uproar if the officials awarded a TD on a DPI?

 

[twothousandone]

it's ALWAYS a good idea for defensive backs to commit intentional defensive pass interference.

What's the downside? Half the distance and automatic first down. Half the distance is a mostly meaningless yard or yard-and-half. Automatic first down is totally meaningless if the clock runs out and the offense gets one untimed play.

I think you are discounting the likelihood of a defensive stop. There's got to be SOME probability of that-- incomplete, int, sack. If the receiver gets half a step, and the DB realizes he can't bat the ball away? Certainly reach out and drag him down. But jam the wideout at the line, he goes outside to get around you, and now he's walking a tightrope on the side line and you are looking right back at the QB, stride for stride with the wideout? There's no reason to tackle him there.

Then there's the actual final play. Was the DB too far off the line? Should he have played it differently and better? If so, then tackling the guy isn't a no-brainer. With the way it worked out, it was the better option.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I've read theories about this on the internet.

I would just like to note that he is a UM guy.

 

[runnels3]

I had the game on the radio with the Clemson announcers. I feel sound asleep listening to the game just after Clemson scored their TD to make it a game. Damn am I no longer a gangster.

Just had to mention that Sean McDonough's play-by-play throughout and especially at the end was exceptional. The game stands on its own obviously, but he really did take it to another level. Simply a great broadcaster, and he is ours!

 

[mauf]

The same consideration for dragging a wide receiver down in the end zone on one of the final passing plays of the game? You want the refs to overlook that penalty? Really..???

I was talking about the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that moved the ball from the 30 to the 15. That's what Saban was chafed about. Literally no one has suggested that the DPI call was questionable. (The official wrongly stated that the foul occurred in the end zone, but that had no effect -- the ball was spotted at the 2, which is about where the contact occurred.)

 

[Greg29fan]

(The official wrongly stated that the foul occurred in the end zone, but that had no effect -- the ball was spotted at the 2, which is about where the contact occurred.)

I think it would have been half the distance to the goal instead of a spot foul and would have put the ball at the six instead of the two.

I thought that was a huge blown call.

 

[mauf]

I think it would have been half the distance to the goal instead of a spot foul and would have put the ball at the six instead of the two.

I thought that was a huge blown call.

I don't think the half-the-distance rule applies to DPI.

Edit: This site confirms my interpretation, but I'm not sure how reliable it is.

 

[Marciano490]

Great point. I didn't know about that rule. Have you (or anyone) ever seen it implemented? Doesn't seem "automatic" though if it's at the discretion of the officials to determine whether the fouls are deliberate and repeated. Can you imagine the uproar if the officials awarded a TD on a DPI?

Automatic isn't in the rule, it's in Sumner's post and it's used correctly. Once awarded, as it should've been, it's an automatic TD.

I was talking about the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that moved the ball from the 30 to the 15. That's what Saban was chafed about. Literally no one has suggested that the DPI call was questionable. (The official wrongly stated that the foul occurred in the end zone, but that had no effect -- the ball was spotted at the 2, which is about where the contact occurred.)

I only recall one replay of the penalty (the rest were on the amazing catch and the bs review) and it seemed like the OL and DL were both shoving each other. If anything, it probably should've been offsetting, though, in the refs' defense, it was the Alabama player that went to the head.

 

[mauf]

I only recall one replay of the penalty (the rest were on the amazing catch and the bs review) and it seemed like the OL and DL were both shoving each other. If anything, it probably should've been offsetting, though, in the refs' defense, it was the Alabama player that went to the head.

There was an awful lot of nonsense on both sides that the refs overlooked. If a couple of those other plays were flagged, then yeah, I'd be pointing to Bama's lack of discipline. But calling that penalty after you've swallowed your whistle for the entire game is indefensible.