A side topic brought up in the thread about the Ryle/Cov Cath game last Friday. If you have just scored a touchdown to put your team ahead by 34 points, and the two-point conversion will give you a 36 point lead and thereby start a running clock in the game, is that a reason that should push a coach towards trying to go for the two-point conversion?

 

Why or why not?

The only time I would do it is if I thought the other team was capable of coming back and beating me. Then I would do it to get the running clock, shorten the game and reduce their chances of coming from behind for a win

Let's see.... IF you were playing a rival and you get on them pretty quickly 34-0. You have an opportunity to speed up the game? Absolutely.

 

Now it's 41-0 and clock is already running? NO.

Let's see.... IF you were playing a rival and you get on them pretty quickly 34-0. You have an opportunity to speed up the game? Absolutely.

 

Now it's 41-0 and clock is already running? NO.

 

I'm not talking about piling on...I'm talking specifically about scoring the two-point conversion that puts you up 36 points and starts the clock running.

If you dont have a kicker sure it is.

I think it depends on what you want to work on. For example, last year Beechwood played Russellville in the state semifinals. Beechwood went up 34-0 but decided to kick instead of go for two. I'm certain they wanted a few more reps to help prepare for the championship game.

 

In most cases, however, if you're up by close to a running clock margin you're pretty much ready to get the game over with (as is the opponent).

Shorten the game. That's the reason people call it a mercy rule. I have been involved in many games where the running clock has been placed on us; fewer where we put a running clock on others. It seems the best for both teams to prevent injuries and ejections from stupid penalties made out of frustration.

I'm not talking about piling on...I'm talking specifically about scoring the two-point conversion that puts you up 36 points and starts the clock running.

 

Yes, as I stated above the highlighted statement you have. If you were playing someone and had an opportunity to get the clock moving, then YES.

 

Do you think it's bad?

I think there's rarely a time I wouldn't go for it. Bad things happen in games where your opponent is overwhelmed just as they do in a tight game. Get the clock running, get my backups in, make sure no one crucial gets hurt in a game that is over.

Absolutely I would, why not?

I have done it before, and it really made people mad. I did it to protect our bodies. Bear Bryant said when you get a game won, start working on winning the next one. Getting out of a game with as many healthy bodies is the priority for me and it is best for our team.

 

Sportsmanship..... a 35 point win, versus a 36 point win, versus a 41 point win.... not that big of a difference unless a score comes late in a game by the first string.

Yes, as I stated above the highlighted statement you have. If you were playing someone and had an opportunity to get the clock moving, then YES.

 

Do you think it's bad?

 

Nope. The running clock is what it is. The game has gotten to the point that it is essentially out of reach for one team, and the clock shortens the game so there is less time for injury.

Put this twist on it and it is not running up the score. You score two quick touchdowns to go up 14 to 0. On touchdown number 3, you elect to go for 2 and get it now making the score 22-0. Well guess what you do on touchdowns 4 and 5? Kick the PAT's and now score is 36-0 and nobody gets there feelings hurt or the feeling that you are piling on.

 

This is how Dale did it all of those years. The starters would play one series each in the second half and then it was time for the reserves to get game action, albeit in a shortened format.

I'm all for the running clock!!

I know I may be in the minority, but I would put the running clock off as long as I could. That may sound funny at first, but here's why: I would prefer a team that is far better then an opponent get a 28 point lead and start substituting positions to build more players with real game experience. It seems a lot of the problem with the game in question, is that some key players were hurt. This way players aren't as likely to be injured, and, if they are injured at some point of the season, that team now has more depth. I'm not saying put the entire JV in at a 28 point lead. I'm saying start substituting younger RB's, QB's and receivers and letting them get time with a quality line.

 

But, that's just my thoughts on the matter.