I'm sure some of you will look at the premise, and think that it's crazy. I just ask that you keep an open mind as you read through the explanation. Of course you never hope for a negative play, but sometimes due to the circumstances, they can be helpful in the long run. The starting point of the diverging scenarios: We scored a TD with 3:29 in the 4th quarter, putting us up 2, 37-35 What could have happened: Successful PAT, putting us up 3, 38-35 Now ND gets the ball with 3:29 in the 4th, losing by 3. The good news is if we stop them here, we win outright. Unfortunately, this puts them in desperation mode, and every set of downs is 4 down territory. Kizer had been killing us in the 2nd half, and now for this drive he gets an extra down (with each first down) to keep the ball moving. With 3:29 to go, they have plenty of time to have a not overly rushed drive, and if they move the ball at all, would leave us with little to no time left afterwards. If they manage a FG on this drive, we wind up with the same result, but minus the chance we got with a final drive to win in regulation. If they score a TD, we lose outright. What happened: PAT gets blocked and returned for defensive PAT, ties the score at 37-37 Now ND gets the ball with 3:29 in the 4th, tie score. They have no real motivation to do anything except not to blow it. They attempt a drive, but there is almost no urgency at all. ***This is the key difference between the two scenarios 1st and 10 - run for 2. 2nd and 8 - sack for -4 (playing it safe to not blow the tie?) 3rd and 12 - basically giving up on the drive with a 2 yard run up the middle. 4th and 10 - punt ***The 3rd and 12 run and 4th down punt only happen because of the tie score! We now get the ball back with 1:43 and a chance to win it in regulation. We were actually moving the ball on this drive and were flirting with game winning FG range before it got derailed with a penalty and a bad snap. In Summary: What we got because of the blocked PAT: A halfhearted offensive series for ND's final drive. A chance to win it on our final drive in regulation with almost certain OT if we don't score. What we avoided because of the blocked PAT: An all out ND offensive series with 4 downs to work with for the entire drive. Win, lose, or OT based on the outcome of ND's final desperation drive. (IF ND managed a scoring drive, we would have been left with no time for a meaningful final drive.) In Conclusion: Yes, the blocked PAT was a negative play, but the resulting scenario had hidden positives for us that made it relatively easy to overcome. Appendix: What might have been even worse! What if ND had blocked the PAT and NOT returned it for the defensive PAT? Now ND gets the ball with 3:29 and down 2 points, 37-35 Now we get an all out ND offensive series with 4 downs to work and all they need is a FG to win! Oh please gawd no!
I think there is some merit to the idea that they were playing conservatively after the tie. That was a mistake IMHO.
It certainly led to a more dramatic ending. I like the last play. It was one of many great plays in that game.
I was thinking the same thing but dismissed the idea because we did stop their offense on the next drive. However, your point about using 4 downs and playing with desperation has real merit. I hadn't even considered the block + 2 point lead theorem. That could have been disaster. Well played Charlie! Well played!
I definitely thought we scored too quickly. However, I was interested to see if Bedford could rise up and make a stand. I was extremely nervous about his chances!
After the game I thought about both possibilities. I would like to thing we would have at least kept them to a field goal or maybe stopped them. They would have been playing four downs but desperation causes mistakes very often. We were so lucky to get that kick that kept them from great field position I think that is what saved the game. After the 15 yard penalty they should have had the ball at the 40 and would have run more aggressive plays.
Yes, I thought we scored too quickly, just like Tech in 08, but you can do woulda, coulda, shoulda scenarios until the cows come home. The fact is we won and I'll take it regardless of how it finally worked out.
A bit of a different slant --- what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being forced to come back many times, and taken to 2 OTs against a team touted to be in the football final four, pushed this team to perform gut check after gut check. An early season game, high-profile ND in town, only game on TV, 102,000 butts in the stands, the pressure cooker was on and stayed on all night. The best steel is forged at high temperatures. Hook 'em.
Good points. I thought our punter had a great game as well. We had field position most of the game I think.
Whether it helped or not......The bottom line is Charlie SHOULD have used a time out for the PAT.....Another coaching blunder to add to the list. It would have cost us the game had the overtime not turned out as it did. But since we won all is forgiven, unless he keeps adding to the list.
No, the kid makes sense. I told my wife the same thing when ND got the ball- meaning ND would now play super conservative. Good point. There are recordings in the huddle before the kick , if you play it slowly backwards you can clearly hear Charlie inform the team to allow Notre Dame to block and return the kick.
I could have sworn that was Domingue out there lined up, that was Strong? If the NCAA finds out, UT forfeits the game as Charlie is out of eligibility . Let's keep this to ourselves boys
Even though I agree with the OP, this was not well played. It was a momentum killer. Since it worked out, all is forgiven. But this is not good coaching.
Thank you all for the comments. I enjoy thinking about the game theory angle in different football situations. Time running out situations often drastically change the decision making of both teams, and I think many coaches don't consider how the opposing coach's decision making will change towards the end of the game.
When ND ran the ball on that first down, I knew they were playing for the tie and gambling they would stop us in OT. If we hadn't messed up at the end of the drive with the penalty and bad snap, we would have won it. But it all turned out good in the end.
This is almost like saying if Steve Buchele has never gotten a Vasetcomy he would have used Condoms and Shane might not have been born!!!!!
Actually discussed this with the guy next to me in the stands Sunday night. Although there was nothing positive about that 2-point conversion, I certainly noticed Kelly not making any supreme effort with 3 mins and the ball and was quite surprised they gave it back to us with time to drive and kick a game-winning FG. Noted at the time that there's no way that would have played out that way if they'd been down 3. Nice post.
No, Charlie should NOT have used a time out. The time out was far more valuable than the 5 yards we would have given up with a delay of game penalty. What Charlie SHOULD do is instruct his Special Teams coach to (1) teach the guys to keep their heads out of their asses after a big score so they will be ready to make the next play, and (2) if point 1 fails again, to go ahead and take the delay penalty instead of rushing things to the point of disaster.
You don't need 2 time outs when you have the lead, but taking a delay penalty wouldn't have been bad either. Rushing to get the play off played a big role in the blocked kick. Players and coaches do need to get their heads on straight in big moments for us to have a chance at getting back to contender status.
A condom would not have contained The Seed of Shane, just as Steve's fettered man-tubes were effortlessly vanquished. The life force of a soul destined to be Texas QB is savage and invincible.
