Interception Versus UCLA: What's Wrong With This Scenario?

[Grandpa Duck]

In Saturday night’s contest with UCLA, the home team has the ball on the visitor’s 44 ½ yard line, 4^thdown and 3 yards to go with 02 seconds remaining in the 3^rd quarter.  The Ducks are leading 28-13.  UCLA’s quarterback passes to a receiver falling backward who tips the ball.  Duck DB, Tysheem Johnson, dives for the ball extended full length and snatches it a few inches from the ground for an interception inside the Duck 40 yard line.  

 

Johnson leaps to his feet, raises his index finger into the air and races for the sideline with the ball safely tucked under his arm.  His celebration is much congratulated by his defensive teammates.  The Duck offense begins the 4^th quarter from the Duck 39.

 

If Johnson had done nothing on the play and let the ball fall to the ground, as it clearly would have without his action to intercept, the Ducks would have had the ball some five yards nearer the UCLA goal.

 

I first witnessed a similar circumstance in 1951 at Hayward field.  I was age 12, there with my parents.  We were in Eugene to visit my brother John, a sophomore pre-law student at the University.  George Shaw, the Duck QB and defensive half back (positions were named differently in those days and players played both sides of the ball by rule) made his 13^th interception of the year to set an NCAA record.  

 

After the game we got together with John who pointed out that because Shaw’s interception was on 4^th down and it was a deep pass that he could not possibly have returned to the opponent’s line of scrimmage, he should have knocked the pass to the ground.

 

That experience registered on me because I played defensive halfback on my grade school tackle football team.  Playing the same position at Marshfield High we were coached to call out “4^th down”, much like baseball players signal the number of outs.  That call was made so that we would know that we should never intercept on 4^th down unless there was a clear path to return the ball beyond the line of scrimmage.

 

I’m left wondering whether football coaches no longer teach what I learned 73 years ago.  What do you think?

 

[kirklandduck]

I'm going to chalk that one up to habitual instinct.  He's a defensive back and they're always looking to intercept the ball...in the heat of the moment they may not be thinking of those finer situational details and are just focusing on getting their hands on it to steal possession.

[Steven A]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:04 AM, Grandpa Duck said:

What do you think?

Situational football should always be taught. Just like batting the hail Mary down instead of trying to intercept it.

 

I know in the heat of the moment it's tough, but that is why they now get the big bucks.

 

 

[DuckFan93]

Yeah, I shook my head immediately too after that pick.   I am sure it's much easier to be smart watching from my couch, but I am sure that's a teachable moment, like dropping the ball at/before crossing the goal line.   Those are things that will be costly in close games against quality opponents.

[David Marsh]

I said the same thing to myself that the interception was actually worse than just taking over on downs. 

 

However there is something that the interception brought that less tangible than field position by far more important. 

 

A major moral boost. 

 

The third quarter sucked for the Ducks. And the interception was a nice sign of the Ducks defense standing up and taking the ball away.

 

Yes, taking over on downs is the same result as an interception (plus a few yards) but this had some extra juice in it.

 

So I can live with it even though just knocking the ball down would have been better in terms of a ball position on the field. 

[Steven A]

It is also something akin to stopping short of the goal line with an Int with little time left in the game so as to be able to run out the clock ie Bassa scoring last year vs Tex Tech.

 

However, I was yelling at him to score since that beat the spread.

[Solar]

On 9/30/2024 at 10:43 AM, David Marsh said:

I said the same thing to myself that the interception was actually worse than just taking over on downs. 

 

However there is something that the interception brought that less tangible than field position by far more important. 

 

A major moral boost. 

 

The third quarter sucked for the Ducks. And the interception was a nice sign of the Ducks defense standing up and taking the ball away.

 

Yes, taking over on downs is the same result as an interception (plus a few yards) but this had some extra juice in it.

 

So I can live with it even though just knocking the ball down would have been better in terms of a ball position on the field. 

This. I'd take the loss of 5-10 yards of field position in exchange for the morale boost. Anything more than that, at it's a negative.

 

Clearly to me the real star of the play was Muhammad, who prevented the reception the forced a turnover on down either way.