That Vikings touchdown linked above is, perhaps, and example of a quick-thinking lateral. And it does happen in other plays. In the Penn State Maryland game, Maryland tried to do a play where the QB passed it backwards to a receiver (so that counts as a lateral) and then the receiver was supposed to pass it downfield. But he was immediately swarmed by two PSU defenders who sniffed out the play. As he was about to be tackled, he managed to throw the ball forward backhanded over his head to another guy on his team. They still lost yards on the play, but not as many as they would have. And because it was a forward pass, if it hadn't been caught it just would have been an incomplete pass. Not a fumble.
And the example of a lineman trying to return an interception is a good one and happens often enough that it's something they could practice once or twice ahead of time to make have the lineman give the ball to a linebacker or defensive back. And I have seen that sort of thing happen.
But a turnover is such a huge swing in fortunes, that the team that gets the ball doesn't want to risk giving it up. Because if they try a lateral and fumble and the other team gets it, not only does the other team get the ball, they get a new first down, regardless of what the situation was before the play started. So the lineman who has the ball is just trying to make sure that he doesn't drop it. And those scenarios tend to be chaotic and sufficiently rare that coaches don't want to take up their limited time practicing them.
Backyard touch/flag football does employ a lot of impromptu laterals. It's one of the reasons why its infinitely more fun to play than "real football."
But I agree that there's not a always a proper analysis of risk-benefit and that coaches often fall back on conventional wisdom because if doing the unusual thing fails, they'll take more blame then the conservative option. This is true - though less so than it used to be - on decisions on when to punt or go for it and when to try a field goal vs go for it vs punt.* And to some extent, that might be true of the dictum that players need to hold onto the ball for dear life no matter what and never make an impromptu pass. There are cases, as you suggest, when the benefits outweigh the risks, but again, those are fairly rare and hard to predict, so they're hard to prepare for or practice. In rugby, every player on the field is somewhat skilled in handling the ball so they can all be relied on to pass and catch. That's not true in gridiron. In fact, in the old days, the linemen had so much tape and even plaster on their hands that they couldn't really hold a ball in their hands. That's less true now - the lineman have special padded gloves, but more manual dexterity with their hands. But they don't practice doing much with the ball other than falling on it in a fumble situation.
And its not the only sport where coaches are routinely failing to assess the statistical odds properly. Baseball is plagued with this, which is why the SABRmetrics revolution is such a big deal and why there are t-shirts and what not proclaiming "Stop BUNTING." Because it turns out that bunting is the wrong play in most of the cases where it's usually used. The application of advanced stats have also shown some problems in conventional hockey and basketball wisdom.
Generally speaking, prolonging your offense's time on the field is desirable. It's called controlling the clock. For reasons I don't entirely understand, it's more physically taxing to play defense than offense, so it behooves a team to keep it's offense on the field, and its defense off the field, as much as possible, even if it's only progressing slowly up the field, and tire out the opponents defense. I've seen many many games where it looks like one team is running the ball too often and not getting consistent results early. But then late in the game, its running game starts to magically work more effectively. That's because they've worn out the defense. Obviously, if they can score quickly and often, they'll do it and just run up a score, but it's still good to grind the clock sometimes. On the other hand, the no-huddle/hurry-up offense also tires-out the defense so there is a balance to think about there. And you don't want to get into too many third-and-longs or many third downs at all, if you can manage it.
Keep in mind that running the ball eats up more clock time than passing. Passing plays tend to be shorter and incomplete passes or running out of bounds stop the clock. This is why the Army-Navy game seems to go by quicker (or it would if not for all the commercials). Because both teams hardly ever pass. There's nothing more enjoyable than to see one's team just run it up the gut consistently and then score after a five or seven minute drive. And there's nothing more frustrating if your team is the one giving that up.
*Some innovative high school coaches in particular have realized that they need to defy the conventional wisdom because the conventional wisdom is mostly based on major college and pro football where the defenses know how to contain, the place-kickers can kick 50 yard field goals, and the punters can kick it far and accurately. But in high school, where the punters and kickers aren't usually that strong, turning it over on downs versus punting is often just a difference of about 20 yards, so rarely or never punting may actually be the best strategy, even if you fail on fourth down about half the time.
And the example of a lineman trying to return an interception is a good one and happens often enough that it's something they could practice once or twice ahead of time to make have the lineman give the ball to a linebacker or defensive back. And I have seen that sort of thing happen.
But a turnover is such a huge swing in fortunes, that the team that gets the ball doesn't want to risk giving it up. Because if they try a lateral and fumble and the other team gets it, not only does the other team get the ball, they get a new first down, regardless of what the situation was before the play started. So the lineman who has the ball is just trying to make sure that he doesn't drop it. And those scenarios tend to be chaotic and sufficiently rare that coaches don't want to take up their limited time practicing them.
Backyard touch/flag football does employ a lot of impromptu laterals. It's one of the reasons why its infinitely more fun to play than "real football."
But I agree that there's not a always a proper analysis of risk-benefit and that coaches often fall back on conventional wisdom because if doing the unusual thing fails, they'll take more blame then the conservative option. This is true - though less so than it used to be - on decisions on when to punt or go for it and when to try a field goal vs go for it vs punt.* And to some extent, that might be true of the dictum that players need to hold onto the ball for dear life no matter what and never make an impromptu pass. There are cases, as you suggest, when the benefits outweigh the risks, but again, those are fairly rare and hard to predict, so they're hard to prepare for or practice. In rugby, every player on the field is somewhat skilled in handling the ball so they can all be relied on to pass and catch. That's not true in gridiron. In fact, in the old days, the linemen had so much tape and even plaster on their hands that they couldn't really hold a ball in their hands. That's less true now - the lineman have special padded gloves, but more manual dexterity with their hands. But they don't practice doing much with the ball other than falling on it in a fumble situation.
And its not the only sport where coaches are routinely failing to assess the statistical odds properly. Baseball is plagued with this, which is why the SABRmetrics revolution is such a big deal and why there are t-shirts and what not proclaiming "Stop BUNTING." Because it turns out that bunting is the wrong play in most of the cases where it's usually used. The application of advanced stats have also shown some problems in conventional hockey and basketball wisdom.
I will also add that killing the play sooner, rather than later, increases the number of downs, which itself increases the risk of losing the ball. How do you measure those comparative risks (risk of improvisation versus risk of losing the ball through prolonging your offence)? I happened to be watching these highlights as you posted your reply. Both offences get turned over quite regularly.
Keep in mind that running the ball eats up more clock time than passing. Passing plays tend to be shorter and incomplete passes or running out of bounds stop the clock. This is why the Army-Navy game seems to go by quicker (or it would if not for all the commercials). Because both teams hardly ever pass. There's nothing more enjoyable than to see one's team just run it up the gut consistently and then score after a five or seven minute drive. And there's nothing more frustrating if your team is the one giving that up.
*Some innovative high school coaches in particular have realized that they need to defy the conventional wisdom because the conventional wisdom is mostly based on major college and pro football where the defenses know how to contain, the place-kickers can kick 50 yard field goals, and the punters can kick it far and accurately. But in high school, where the punters and kickers aren't usually that strong, turning it over on downs versus punting is often just a difference of about 20 yards, so rarely or never punting may actually be the best strategy, even if you fail on fourth down about half the time.
Comment