There are 103 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Declining the safety

Originally posted by Painter49er:
Lordfangio, I'm just busting your chops! Of course I was screaming your same thought at the TV when it happened. We won though - nothing to sweat anymore.

I bet 90% of fans were screaming about not taking the points.
Originally posted by Gore_21:
Yeah, but before hearing Harbaughs thoughts as chaz said harbaugh though it was an 8 point game or something like that I was thinking the main concern is injury. 0 percent chance of injury on a kneel down unless you are playing the bucs. chances of squib punt injury on onside, very great plus you put the defense back out on the field. Already been a brutal game, chance of injury is much greater on a play like below. Also, why put the defense back out there if they recover it.



Well, Carroll has been on record as saying he likes what Schiano did and would consider doing it himself:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/20/carroll-wishes-hed-thought-of-schianos-approach-to-kneeldowns/
I'll take the snap/how fast it takes to get a knee down over the antics/injuries that can happen on a safety return.

BTW Gore_21 is making some great posts tonight!
Originally posted by sfout:
Dude you're so off base on your 2nd point.

The entire reason he declined the safety was to prevent the chance of giving Seattle the ball to try an onside punt, expose the team to injury, and just plain extend the game to a point where it was unnecessary?

Why take the safety when you can decline the penalty and take the kneel down? Remember the other 30 teams in the NFL that aren't from Tampa don't try and crash the QB in victory formation.

Wait, you can do an onside punt? I've been watching football for years and never seen that attempted in the NFL. I would have loved to see that
Your first point is totally off base.

In both scenarios the Chickens would need a miracle, but the option Harbs took provided less risk. Obvious call.
Originally posted by pitseleh:
I'll take the snap/how fast it takes to get a knee down over the antics/injuries that can happen on a safety return.

BTW Gore_21 is making some great posts tonight!

Thank you. I try to put a little thought into my post and try not to do 1 word responses like a lot of people on here.

Yeah, onside kicks (or punt) in this case are dangerous. Especially for the return team which would have been Seattle but think of the gunners who jobs on those plays are to go and hit the person that will likely receive the ball as hard as you can. Less likely they get hurt than the defenseless player catching the ball but there is a chance when you are hitting someone that hard you can hurt your neck or something else. Anyways, all the discussion is moot if harbaugh thought it was an 8 point game with a safety and that's the reason he choose to decline. Will have to watch his press conf and see how he words it.
Originally posted by ApatheticIAm:
Wait, you can do an onside punt? I've been watching football for years and never seen that attempted in the NFL. I would have loved to see that

Yeah, on the free kick you can. but it's a lot harder cause you cant slam it off the ground or hit one of those cheap grounders as effectively.
  • sfout
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,019
From NFL.com

It's not often you see an NFL coach take points off the board in a one-score game. Yet when Jim Harbaugh did it Thursday night, it made total sense.

With 43 seconds left in the San Francisco 49ers' dominant second half, officials called a chop-block penalty on Seattle Seahawks offensive lineman Paul McQuistan.

The penalty took place in the end zone, which meant a safety for the 49ers. That made the score 15-6 and essentially ended the game with a minute remaining. At least it was over until Harbaugh declined the penalty.

Say what?

In a strange sequence, Harbaugh decided not to take the penalty (or the two points) because the Seahawkscame up 1 yard short on the fourth-and-17 play. The ball was turned over on downs. Harbaugh preferred to take the ball up 13-6 rather than let theSeahawks attempt an onside free kick after a safety.

There's almost no way the Seahawkscould have scored twice at that point, but Harbaugh's reasoning was sound. You never know what could happen.

"We can just kneel on the ball and the game will be over," Harbaugh said. "Otherwise, they can onside kick it and give them a chance."

Harbaugh also prevented any chance of his players being hurt on additional plays. After all, Pete Carroll wasn't going to pull a Greg Schiano and try to bust up a victory formation.

When you have a chance to kneel on the ball to end the game, you take it. Even if that means taking points off the board.
  • dugo
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 1,038
Originally posted by btthepunk:
Because Brandon Jacobs told the Seahawks we wouldnt be expecting an onside kick and they should try it.

I knew it..fricken jacobs and blabbering game plans to league
not going to lie, I didn't think you were allowed to onside a free kick, I was screaming. Great call by Harbaugh I guess
WRONG
Either way would have been fine. It's only the gamblers that should be upset.
No matter the situation Harbaugh made the right choice.

You kneel and the games over. After the schiano thing anyone getting caught with trickery on the kneel is a fool and deserves it. We, in my opinion, lost a trip to the SB last season on a kick. Why take the chance?
[ Edited by WINiner on Oct 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM ]
Originally posted by lordfangio:
2 reasons why I think this was very foolish:

1. The spread was 7.5 or 8...accepting the safety means we would have covered...now I totally understand Harbaugh never ever ever altering how he PLAYS the end to accomodate the betters, but he didn't have to CHANGE anything, just accept the penalty! Because IMO it actually IS slightly advantageous to the team to cover because you WANT people to bet on you because that means more people hoping you win which means potentially more people cheering making the crowd a bigger factor when the other team's offense is on the field. Sure it's a stretch and again, I wouldn't alter/risk anything to ensure covering, but if it's right there on the table and you don't even have to do anything to get it, take it! (not to mention he went for 2 vs. Carroll at the end in the what's your deal game when up by a million, so why turn down free points here)

2, and more importantly, suppose something bizarre happened on a kneeldown like a fumbled QB/center exchange or Carroll going Schiano on us, etc., why would you want it to be a 1 possession game and leave even a 0.00001% chance of losing when you can completely slam the door shut even more by making it a 2 possession game? It's one thing it it would have made it go from a 4 point game to a 6 point game or an 18 point game to a 20 point game or something, but this would have made it go from a 1 possession game to a 2 possession game which can be significant! (and we would have gotten the ball either way so it's not like there would have been a difference in terms of who would have the ball)

I think this had more to do with taking a needless injury on the punt! Just take the the turnover on down Kneel and out the game who cares you could muff or fumble the punt. I think he made the right call know need to risk that because the hawks are a dirty cheap team anyways best to get out with the W and healthy
Originally posted by sfout:
From NFL.com

It's not often you see an NFL coach take points off the board in a one-score game. Yet when Jim Harbaugh did it Thursday night, it made total sense.

With 43 seconds left in the San Francisco 49ers' dominant second half, officials called a chop-block penalty on Seattle Seahawks offensive lineman Paul McQuistan.

The penalty took place in the end zone, which meant a safety for the 49ers. That made the score 15-6 and essentially ended the game with a minute remaining. At least it was over until Harbaugh declined the penalty.

Say what?

In a strange sequence, Harbaugh decided not to take the penalty (or the two points) because the Seahawkscame up 1 yard short on the fourth-and-17 play. The ball was turned over on downs. Harbaugh preferred to take the ball up 13-6 rather than let theSeahawks attempt an onside free kick after a safety.

There's almost no way the Seahawkscould have scored twice at that point, but Harbaugh's reasoning was sound. You never know what could happen.

"We can just kneel on the ball and the game will be over," Harbaugh said. "Otherwise, they can onside kick it and give them a chance."

Harbaugh also prevented any chance of his players being hurt on additional plays. After all, Pete Carroll wasn't going to pull a Greg Schiano and try to bust up a victory formation.

When you have a chance to kneel on the ball to end the game, you take it. Even if that means taking points off the board.

Exactly. This happens a lot of times where a runningback has a clear path to the end-zone, but will just fall on the one yard line so they can get a kneel-down.

The thing is, even if we weren't afraid of the Seahawks getting miracle plays, the kneel-down is a much safer option, health-wise. I don't see injuries a lot during onside kicks, but that sounds like a great way for our starters to get injured. People like Vernon Davis are on the hands-team. Them trying to jump in the air for the ball while Seattle defenders rush at them at full-speed sounds like a dangerous proposition.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home