National Title Game Thread

McBride11

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
22,114
Durham, NC
Didnt he come back for a few plays after the initial injury? Or they just showed him walking back from the locker room?
If he came back that is impressive.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,086
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
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.
From the NCAA RuleBook:


When the ball is snapped on or inside the Team B,
17-yard line and outside the Team B two-yard line, and the
spot of the foul is on or inside the two-yard line, the penalty
from the previous spot shall place the ball at the two-yard
line, first down (A.R. 7-3-8-XIV).
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
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?
We're not talking about awarding a TD on a single DPI. I don't think there'd be all that much uproar (I mean, some, yeah, but fairly normal amounts) if Alabama was repeatedly mugging all Clemson's receivers. Or if they committed more normal-looking DPI a couple of times, were warned by the refs, and did it again.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
We're not talking about awarding a TD on a single DPI. I don't think there'd be all that much uproar (I mean, some, yeah, but fairly normal amounts) if Alabama was repeatedly mugging all Clemson's receivers. Or if they committed more normal-looking DPI a couple of times, were warned by the refs, and did it again.
Well, I was talking a bout once. And it wouldn't necessarily require "mugging."

Someone else said it might take two times. (Is two times repeatedly?) I doubt it. There were 5 seconds left at the snap.

We're getting hung up on the "what if this, that and a third thing happened" type nitpicking.

It's a simple observation. The Alabama defensive backs could have held or hugged (or "mugged" if you prefer) all of the Clemson receivers on at the two yard line (earlier I mistakenly said three) with 00:06 to go and deprived Clemson of one of their two shots at scoring. The downside? Maybe the hug-em and mug-em trick backfires if Clemson runs.

Whether Alabama could have done that twice and gotten away with it or whether the refs would have called an "automatic" TD (what other kind is there?) I don't know.

Big picture: again, it seems to me there's little or downside for intentional DPI when your opponent is inside the three yard line with less than 10 seconds remaining in the game.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Automatic isn't in the rule...
I know.

[QUOTE}...it's in Sumner's post and it's used correctly. Once awarded, as it should've been, it's an automatic TD.
[/QUOTE]

How can a subjective decision, one that requires an official to decide an act is intentional, no matter how "obvious," be automatic? Seems to me that's like saying holding results in an automatic 10-yard penalty.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I know.

[QUOTE}...it's in Sumner's post and it's used correctly. Once awarded, as it should've been, it's an automatic TD.
How can a subjective decision, one that requires an official to decide an act is intentional, no matter how "obvious," be automatic? Seems to me that's like saying holding results in an automatic 10-yard penalty.[/QUOTE]

No, automatic is modifying the TD, not the decision to award the TD, which is discretionary as the plain language of the rule makes clear. An automatic TD is one the refs, in their discretion, reward the unpenalized team even though they didn't cross the goal line.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Gaslighting is ineffectual when there's good documentation.
Oh brother. I was originally talking about Alabama doing it once. My "again" comment was in response to someone asking a "what if" about it maybe being necessary twice. I'm not gaslighting. You're taking comments out of context. Go away.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
No, automatic is modifying the TD, not the decision to award the TD, which is discretionary as the plain language of the rule makes clear. An automatic TD is one the refs, in their discretion, reward the unpenalized team even though they didn't cross the goal line.
Semantic swamp. What's the difference between an automatic and non-automatic TD?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
In that context? It's obvious. Nobody else had your reading. You call me out for trying to hold you to things you write in terms of odds of this or that, but then turn around on the smartest guy in the room to impose your own idiosyncratic interpretation on something that he didn't write at all.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
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 ...
You're right. A defensive stop wins the game right there. You'd have to weigh the probability of a defensive stop against the probability of an Alabama overtime win, assuming Clemson would go for a FG on the one-play, untimed down.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
In that context? It's obvious. Nobody else had your reading. You call me out for trying to hold you to things you write in terms of odds of this or that, but then turn around on the smartest guy in the room to impose your own idiosyncratic interpretation on something that he didn't write at all.
In that context? It's obvious. Nobody else had your reading. You call me out for trying to hold you to things you write in terms of odds of this or that, but then turn around on the smartest guy in the room to impose your own idiosyncratic interpretation on something that he didn't write at all.
You talkin' to me?

What "reading?"

I haven't called you out for trying to hold me to anything.

"Ideosyncratic" interpretation of what? The situation or the repeated mugging at the goal line rule? How's my interpretation idiosyncratic of either?

And why are you again trying to make this discussion about me? Wouldn't it be better just to say something like, "It'd have been a bad idea for Alabama to commit DPIs on purpose because a stop wins right there."? My initial post on this was posed more as a question than an assertion anyway.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
This is absurd, you can't be this obtuse to have been as successful as you were.

I'm talking about your repeated misreading of Sumner's use of automatic. That's all. Game's over. Thread's over. Proceed on your own if you wish.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
This is absurd, you can't be this obtuse to have been as successful as you were.

I'm talking about your repeated misreading of Sumner's use of automatic. That's all. Game's over. Thread's over. Proceed on your own if you wish.
You're making a mountain out of a semantic mole hole.

There's no such thing as an "automatic" touchdown. All touchdowns, no matter how obvious, require some kind of subjective decision by referees, even if its something like not calling a penalty on the offense.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
Oh brother. I was originally talking about Alabama doing it once. My "again" comment was in response to someone asking a "what if" about it maybe being necessary twice. I'm not gaslighting. You're taking comments out of context. Go away.
Huh? It was the entire focus of our back-and-forth, over multiple posts:

You [bringing up the idea of multiple infractions]: Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.
Me [entering to discuss that idea]: That should be an automatic TD awarded to Clemson under Rule 9 Article 3 (b)....b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced only by halving the distance to its goal line.
You [continuing to discuss the idea of repeated fouls]: 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?
Me [idem]: We're not talking about awarding a TD on a single DPI.
You [needle scratching off record]: Well, I was talking a bout once.

Rather than getting defensive, you might want to take a look at it and see if what you intended to say in your mind comports with what you actually wrote, because it's highly confusing for the reader. And it's not the first time on this board that you've posted a seeming non sequitur and then acted bewildered when other people got confused.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
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.
You're missing that you're giving the offense a free chance to try and win the game once they see what's going on. With a solid decision-making QB who can run, like Watson, every time you commit DPI you're giving him a shot to run it into the endzone where nothing bad can happen to him on that play.

Run some numbers and you'll see how the calculus changes. To keep the numbers simple: Let's say that any throwing play to the endzone from inside the 8 yard line, in which the defense plays it straight, you've got a 40% chance of scoring a TD, a 50% chance of an incomplete / failed play, and a 10% chance of an INT. On a hold-everyone defensive playcall, it "works" 80% of the time (no TD, penalty called), and they score anyway 20% of the time. Also, FGs from there are 100%.

With the Tigers at the 3 with 6 seconds left (= 2 plays), against the Tide playing it straight, their odds of winning are 40% TD on this play + (50% of an Incomplete * 50% winning in OT) = 65%.

Whereas, if the Tide do a Harbaugh Hold from the 3 (or the 1, or the 0.5) then the Tigers win the 20% of the time they defeat the playcall, and the rest of the time are left with one untimed down. They can take a 50% chance of victory in overtime, or a 40% chance of winning or losing in one play. Dabo, I think, would take the FG and OT from there, giving him a net 60% of winning. Hey, an improvement for Alabama!

But suppose you're not satisfied with holding him with 6 seconds left. Instead, you go to hold them all again (and the officials don't call an Unfair Act). In fact, suppose you can hold them as many times as you want. Here are the Tigers' win chances:

1x: 20% + (80% * 50%) = 60%
2x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))) = 68%
3x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))) = 74.4%
4x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))))) = 79.52%

Every play where you give them some nonzero chance of scoring, and extend the game by one play, without any chance of effecting a defensive stop, you are raising the offense's overall chance of winning. And you're raising it by more if you think Clemson had a better than 50% chance to win in OT, or raising it by less if you think the chances of a TD when all receivers are being held is less than 10%, but the directionality is the same either way - better chances for Clemson to win, the more times you do it. You never have upside with that defensive strategy once you're down to the game's final play.

Compare that to the Giants' "send 12 men on the field for every play" tactic on the final drive of SB 46. There, with under a minute left but still plenty of clock to burn, Coughlin was trading 5 yards of penalty for the decreased chances of a big gain on any (unfair) play. It's devious, but it increases his team's chances to win (unless he thinks the odds the refs will call a Patently Unfair Act on the last drive of the super bowl are meaningfully different from zero, which I doubt). Here, you gain some win expectancy if you do it with clock remaining, but once you're down to one play, there's nothing left to gain from it, you can only lose.
 
Last edited:

RoDaddy

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2002
3,247
Albany area, NY
Amazing game obviously. Moving forward, I hope the Pats take a long look at Leggett and Renfrow as potential TE and slot receiver picks in the draft - Leggett early as a hedge against Gronk not coming back or not resigning Bennett, and Renfrow late or as an UDFA as a possible replacement for Jules expiring 2017 contract
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Huh? It was the entire focus of our back-and-forth, over multiple posts:

You [bringing up the idea of multiple infractions]: Alabama could do the DPI thing again. And again.
Me [entering to discuss that idea]: That should be an automatic TD awarded to Clemson under Rule 9 Article 3 (b)....b. A team repeatedly commits fouls for which penalties can be enforced only by halving the distance to its goal line...
I never even considered that they might have do it twice until someone else brought it up. But You win. Let it go.

Again, thanks for the rule cite.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
You're missing that you're giving the offense a free chance to try and win the game once they see what's going on. With a solid decision-making QB who can run, like Watson, every time you commit DPI you're giving him a shot to run it into the endzone where nothing bad can happen to him on that play.

Run some numbers and you'll see how the calculus changes. To keep the numbers simple: Let's say that any throwing play to the endzone from inside the 8 yard line, in which the defense plays it straight, you've got a 40% chance of scoring a TD, a 50% chance of an incomplete / failed play, and a 10% chance of an INT. On a hold-everyone defensive playcall, it "works" 80% of the time (no TD, penalty called), and they score anyway 20% of the time. Also, FGs from there are 100%.

With the Tigers at the 3 with 6 seconds left (= 2 plays), against the Tide playing it straight, their odds of winning are 40% TD on this play + (50% of an Incomplete * 50% winning in OT) = 65%.

Whereas, if the Tide do a Harbaugh Hold from the 3 (or the 1, or the 0.5) then the Tigers win the 20% of the time they defeat the playcall, and the rest of the time are left with one untimed down. They can take a 50% chance of victory in overtime, or a 40% chance of winning or losing in one play. Dabo, I think, would take the FG and OT from there, giving him a net 60% of winning. Hey, an improvement for Alabama!

But suppose you're not satisfied with holding him with 6 seconds left. Instead, you go to hold them all again (and the officials don't call an Unfair Act). In fact, suppose you can hold them as many times as you want. Here are the Tigers' win chances:

1x: 20% + (80% * 50%) = 60%
2x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))) = 68%
3x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))) = 74.4%
4x: 20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * (20% + (80% * 50%))))))) = 79.52%

Every play where you give them some nonzero chance of scoring, and extend the game by one play, without any chance of effective a defensive stop, you are raising the offense's overall chance of winning. And you're raising it by more if you think Clemson had a better than 50% chance to win in OT, or raising it by less if you think the chances of a TD when all receivers are being held is less than 10%, but the directionality is the same either way - better chances for Clemson to win, the more times you do it. You never have upside with that defensive strategy once you're down to the game's final play.

Compare that to the Giants' "send 12 men on the field for every play" tactic on the final drive of SB 46. There, with under a minute left but still plenty of clock to burn, Coughlin was trading 5 yards of penalty for the decreased chances of a big gain on any (unfair) play. It's devious, but it increases his team's chances to win (unless he thinks the odds the refs will call a Patently Unfair Act on the last drive of the super bowl are meaningfully different from zero, which I doubt). Here, you gain some win expectancy if you do it with clock remaining, but once you're down to one play, there's nothing left to gain from it, you can only lose.
Good work. Thanks for doing the math.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Amazing game obviously. Moving forward, I hope the Pats take a long look at Leggett and Renfrow as potential TE and slot receiver picks in the draft - Leggett early as a hedge against Gronk not coming back or not resigning Bennett, and Renfrow late or as an UDFA as a possible replacement for Jules expiring 2017 contract
Renfrow is a RS sophomore. He's likely to play the next 2 years in college.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Fowler said Clemson "thrives as an underdog". How many times have they been underdogs the last 2 years? Once or twice?
It's a legit statement. Todd McShay posted the following tweet during the game. They were underdogs to some teams for reasons we all understand, but 2 of those below have been Oklahoma the last 2 years, and they pasted them, so they've been pretty good since that WVU OB blowout.

Clemson 5th-year seniors played in 7 "bowl" games. They were underdogs in all 7. They won 6 of 7. Underrated Tigers finally get their due.

Also, in regard to the last play. Hunter told my son the play was one read. If he wasn't open immediately, Deshaun was to throw it away and they would kick the FG. So I would think he would have needed a pretty clear path to the endzone to run it in and risk losing the game.
 
Last edited:

Buster Olney the Lonely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2006
4,520
Atlanta, GA
It's a legit statement. Todd McShay posted the following tweet during the game. They were underdogs to some teams for reasons we all understand, but 2 of those 6 below have been Oklahoma the last 2 years, etc.

Clemson 5th-year seniors played in 7 "bowl" games. They were underdogs in all 7. They won 6 of 7. Underrated Tigers finally get their due.
That is pretty amazing. It shouldn't bother me but the fact that the Sooners were favorites over Clemson last year made me nuts. Especially considering Clemson dismantled Oklahoma in a bowl just one year prior by the score of 40-6. And Deshaun was injured, so Cole Stoudt played.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,947
Silver Spring, MD
Also, in regard to the last play. Hunter told my son the play was one read. If he wasn't open immediately, Deshaun was to throw it away and they would kick the FG. So I would think he would have needed a pretty clear path to the endzone to run it in and risk losing the game.
Incredibly risky. If that play developed exactly as-is except Renfro was covered and Watson had to throw it away, the clock more than likely expires.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Incredibly risky. If that play developed exactly as-is except Renfro was covered and Watson had to throw it away, the clock more than likely expires.
Paid off, but shocked the first option wasn't Williams. Watching the play again though it's clear it was Hunter or bust.

That's cool about Paul's kid's relationship with Hunter. Hopefully he got to party the following nights.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I'll find out what he thinks about the play and how much time a throw away would take. I'm guessing if he throws it in the ground near the feet he has enough time. But if you just airmail it, I don't know. Does clock stop when ball leaves field of play or when it lands? If you airmail it and it has to come down, there is no time left.
 

LeftyTG

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,345
Austin
I'll find out what he thinks about the play and how much time a throw away would take. I'm guessing if he throws it in the ground near the feet he has enough time. But if you just airmail it, I don't know. Does clock stop when ball leaves field of play or when it lands? If you airmail it and it has to come down, there is no time left.
I think it is when the ball lands. It reminds me of this play:

 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,854
It's a simple observation. The Alabama defensive backs could have held or hugged (or "mugged" if you prefer) all of the Clemson receivers on at the two yard line (earlier I mistakenly said three) with 00:06 to go and deprived Clemson of one of their two shots at scoring. The downside? Maybe the hug-em and mug-em trick backfires if Clemson runs.
The play was a roll-out towards the right. Who beats Watson to the pylon if the DBs tackle the WRs?
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator, tOSU Denier
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think it is when the ball lands. It reminds me of this play:

I think that the play is dead as soon as the ball either touches the ground or goes out of bounds. I would think Watson was told to throw it straight into the dirt.

I can't figure out whether Renfrow ran a perfect route to just past the stick, or whether he was a few inches shy and got lucky that a CB wasn't right up on him. Big picture, who cares, but still.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I was talking to my son about the play today and he's hanging with Hunter and a few others tonight, so he's gonna find out a few things we're curious about.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I was talking to my son about the play today and he's hanging with Hunter and a few others tonight, so he's gonna find out a few things we're curious about.
What it's like to get leftovers from a southern-school football star after he makes the national championship game winning TD pass? Hell, even I'm curious.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
What it's like to get leftovers from a southern-school football star after he makes the national championship game winning TD pass? Hell, even I'm curious.
I was telling him on the drive home that he should mess with Hunter's GF, tell her that now that Hunt's a legend forever, he'll need to upgrade the GF and that she'll have to work with the newest class of walkons. He doesn't have the heart to mess with her, but I told him it would be an upgrade on the leftovers. That got him thinking.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Got a little bit of info. He says it's a timed play and there was enough time to ditch it. Looking at vid again, ball is in his hands with 3 seconds left. So throwing it in ground would have worked.

Some other stuff. Minka Fitzpatrick was totally cool throughout game. Conversational when play was to other side. Hunter said he's friends with the dude from these two games. Just a real nice guy he said. Congratulated him after, etc.

Tony Brown, the DB that was guarding Hunter on the last play was talking smack all night. Telling Hunter he couldn't play and saying stuff like what are you doing out here one three? Wouldn't say his name. Hunter told him to come over and guard me and find out and then he gets him for the game winner. So that's kind of funny.

Hunter also thinks even though the call was to dump if he wasn't open, he thinks DW4 would have run it in if he had some space. So we were pretty close to a f-up for the ages if he tucked it against coaches advice and didn't make it.