Calling a timeout with 2:03 left in the game, is that good?

Hoopster

I have always wondered, and I have never worked it out...but I always found it odd that NFL teams always call time outs at like 2:05 remaining so that they can get two time outs in a row(the second being the two minute warning of course).

Think about it though. All they are saving is five seconds. If they let the clock run down to the two minute warning, they lose those five seconds and the clock stops. But, now they have their timeout left, and can potentially save 40 seconds with it when the team is going to try and run the clock down to zero.

I would rather save 40 seconds then then five, right?

I have no time right now to run through the possible scenarios...anybody else want to?

stevek

<< <i>I have always wondered, and I have never worked it out...but I always found it odd that NFL teams always call time outs at like 2:05 remaining so that they can get two time outs in a row(the second being the two minute warning of course).

Think about it though. All they are saving is five seconds. If they let the clock run down to the two minute warning, they lose those five seconds and the clock stops. But, now they have their timeout left, and can potentially save 40 seconds with it when the team is going to try and run the clock down to zero.

I would rather save 40 seconds then then five, right?

I have no time right now to run through the possible scenarios...anybody else want to? >>



It depends on the circumstances of the game, and how far behind they are. It's not black or white. Sometimes they want the clock to run after the two minute warning so if they score and take the lead, the other team doesn't have decent time to score.

TomGshotput

It is the wrong call, but not for the reason you say

The important thing is to stop the other team from picking up the first down. If they do that, they are certain to get the ball back. If they can't do it, when the timeout is called is meaningless, since the game will run out, so it really does save five seconds. Assuming they have all their timeouts

But it is still a bad call, because if you call timeout at 2:05, the two minute warning will stop the clock no matter what, so there is no extra incentive to run the ball, so the other team might pass, which is generally more efficient

WinPitcher

But it is still a bad call, because if you call timeout at 2:05, the two minute warning will stop the clock no matter what


But it does not stop at 2.00 it stops when the play is over right? So the clock could now read 1.45? I could see some situations where it could be beneficial, but in general I would think it is not a good idea.


Steve

grote15

Definitely depends on down and distance and whether you are trying to come from behind on offense or trying to get the ball back on defense. As Steve pointed out, the clock does not stop automatically at 2:00, ir stops when the play is over and if it's 3rd down and you need the ball back, I can see calling for the TO because if you stop the opposing offense on 3rd down after calling TO, you give your offense more time to work with. And even if you have no timeouts left on offense when you get the ball back, more time on the clock is preferable to having a timeout with less time on the clock, especially since if you're on offense you can "create" your own quasi-timeout by spiking the ball, running out of bounds, etc. On the other hand, if you're on Defense, you have no control at all and are at the mercy of the opposing offense as they run the clock down as far as they can.

1420sports

it could be ... to answer your initial question. But it would be much easier to say yay or nay if a specific situation was in question.

your team has 3 timeouts left, and the other team has the ball, up by 3, with 2:05 left and running down. TIMEOUT IS CALLED Say it is third and long, you stop them, it is now 4th and long at the two minute warning, two timeouts left, and a pretty good chance that they will punt.

In that situation, I would rather have the 40 seconds than a third timeout

ziggy29

Mostly it depends on which down it is and how many timeouts you have left. Keep in mind that when you are trailing and need to get the ball back, timeouts tend to be MUCH more valuable on defense because on offense you can choose to call plays which are not likely to eat much of the clock, whereas on defense the other team chooses plays that chew up as much clock as possible. To stop every play from burning 40-45 seconds, you need the timeouts on *defense*.

So if there was 2:05 left and the offense just ripped off an 8-yard gain to make it second and 2, I don't use the timeout because they are very likely to get a first down.

But if a running play up the middle got stuffed and it was 2nd and 9, I probably call time out. Chances are the offense will stay conservative and run again into the two-minute warning. (Though in that case, since they can't kill much time with a run, they *might* take their one chance at a pass since an incompletion would be no worse than a running play for no gain -- either way, the clock stops at 2:00. They'd just have to make sure to eat at least five seconds on the pass play.)

Basically, the thing is this: Trailing in a close and late game, you want to use your timeouts on defense and in a situation where you are in a favorable position to prevent the offense from getting another first down. There's little point in wasting a time out on (say) 2nd and 2, because a first down is likely and you'd have fewer timeouts left than they have offensive plays to run if they get it.

On offense, you have MUCH more control over the clock with no timeouts left. You can run sideline routes, you can run hurryup offense, you can spike the ball to stop the clock after a first down play over the middle.