Duality -- Victors Board HOF

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:50:05 06/15/03 Sun
Author: HOF Man
Author Host/IP: 138.88.133.5
Subject: Duality

"One of the aspects of football that is hard for newcomers to understand is its inherent duality.

We talk of an "offense" and "defense" as though it were like baseball, where one team is "at bat," so to speak, and the other can do nothing more than stop the team at bat from scoring.

Football really isn't like that.

Once the ball is snapped, there is no such thing as offense or defense--the ball is up for grabs and either team can take it as long as the play goes on.

On any given snap, 17 of the 22 players on the field are eligible to advance the ball. (Ironically, "offensive linemen" are ineligible to carry the ball, yet "defensive linemen" have the right to do so.) This is what coaches teach you when you're playing on the "defense."

You have every right to strip the ball away from the carrier or catch a pass from the QB.

When Marlin Jackson caught a pass and advanced it 19 yards for a touchdown against Notre Dame, it was called a "defensive score," but the truth is that once he caught that pass, he was the "offensive" player and Carlyle Holliday was the defender, trying to tackle him.

It was akin to a basketball player stealing the ball and scoring a layup. (When you think of football in this manner, you can see more closely how it is derived from rugby.)

Why am I droning on like this?

I'm trying to explain the mindset of a coach that calls plays differently depending on where his team's field position is--i.e., he calls plays "conservatively."

With 33 seconds to go in regulation, Michigan nominally possessed the ball, but it was Penn State that was in field goal range. All the PSU players needed to do was get the ball back through a fumble recovery or interception, and Robbie Gould would have had a chance for a medium-range kick. People talk about "red-zone opportunities" when a team possesses the ball inside its opponent's 20, but really, anytime the ball is there, regardless of whom is on "offense," it is a redzone opportunity for the team closest to its opponent's endzone.

So, what's a coach to do when his team is nominally in possession of the ball in what effectively is a scoring chance for the other team? If the coach has a chance to sit on the ball and force OT, he isn't just preventing his team from scoring, he is preventing both teams from doing so.

By taking a knee at the end of regulation, Lloyd Carr prevented PSU from having a chance to score in the final seconds.

When there's 33 seconds to go and the score is tied, the clock is a huge factor for both teams. If you don't have a scoring opportunity, your best bet is to go to overtime and therefore take the clock out of the game (not to mention taking punting/kickoffs out of the game, as well). PSU did get the ball once after that, but it was in overtime--and then, there was no clock to worry about and Michigan had a chance to match the Nits score-for-score.

It was the right call."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]