|
|
|
|
#1
12-30-2005, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Football Rules- Why don\'t teams decline this kind of penalty?
Maybe they are worried they will convince the team to try the field goal instead of the punt if they don't let them back up. Letting them back up guarantees a punt.
|
|
#2
12-30-2005, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Football Rules- Why don\'t teams decline this kind of penalty?
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe they are worried they will convince the team to try the field goal instead of the punt if they don't let them back up. Letting them back up guarantees a punt. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't make any sense at all. Why would the offensive team let the defense decide if it was going to go for a field goal? -McGee
|
|
#4
12-30-2005, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Football Rules- Why don\'t teams decline this kind of penalty?
Using the holiday bowl example, you think Oregon suspected the Oklahoma kicker would do worse kicking from the 37 than the 32? If so, given that Oklahoma wanted to take the penalty and is presumably more familiar with their punter's capabilites, can't we question Oregon's judgment?
Even if Oregon doesn't buy into the argument, a number of teams would do the same in Oklahoma's shoes, so why don't these teams who buy into the "more room to punt" argument decline the penalty when on defense?
|
|
#5
12-30-2005, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Football Rules- Why don\'t teams decline this kind of penalty?
Ok, let's say Oklahoma was thinking we have a 60% chance to make the field goal and a 50% chance of a touchback from the 32, but a 55% chance of a touchback and a 10% chance of a field goal from the 37.
Maybe they think the extra chance of a touchback is not worth the risk if they can't back themselves up. Maybe the other team thinks this scenario is a possibility , but decides to themselves that they want to trust their offense and don't need field position. Not saying this is normally the case but this could be possible.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
