A Few Thoughts About Football And The Perception of Time
On Nov. 19, 1966, after four quarters battling a particularly tough Michigan State team in East Lansing, Notre Dame Coach Ara Parseghian made one of the most fateful decisions in clock management in Alabama football history.
With 1:10 left to go in the game and needing about 40 yards for a game-winning field goal, the Fighting Irish stopped fighting. Parseghian chose to ride the clock to a 10-10 final score – choosing to “Tie one for the Gipper” as Sports Illustrated's Dan Jenkins put it.
As you and I well know, that tie kept both teams from suffering a loss on their record and allowed the AP voters to vault them both over the undefeated – and untied – Crimson Tide in the final polls of the season.
The debate over that atrocity has been discussed exhaustively elsewhere, what I’m sort of curious about in this piece is the question of time and the differences in how different cultures perceive it.
I was thinking of the infamous incident last week when considering the contrasts between football, meaning our American game, and soccer, the game everyone else in the world means when you juxtapose the word "foot" and "ball." It seems patently obvious that the sanctity of the clock is undisputed in both games but the manner of its importance is quite different in execution (as opposed to games like baseball and cricket which function without a clock at all).
What struck me was the outrage at what happened in Spartan Stadium that day in 1966 – and across the whole of Alabama fandom later in the year – simply wouldn’t happen in soccer because the role of the clock is so vastly different. In football, the clock is an element of the game to be manipulated. Time is at a premium and you are constantly trying to control it. In soccer, it’s an unalterable part of the universe so worrying about it isn’t going to do any good.
According to soccer's "laws of the game" a match consists of two 45 minute periods where the clock runs continuously. The referee has the leeway to add time to the clock due to delays caused by injury or substutitions but no representative of either team.
As for this whole tie ballgame business, there is a well known quip attributed to Coach Bear Bryant about how unsatisfactory he found the experience. But it is also worth recalling what Bryant had to say in specific reaction of Parseghian's decision to run out the clock.
"I do not question what other coaches do, because I don't know what their plan might be," he told the Birmingham News. "But everything we do at Alabama is based on winning. If I directed our team to go for a tie late, I believe they would be disappointed in me, I would not be practicing what I preach."
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You definitely have a point.
Our whole culture is more time focused than most places in the rest of the world. I’ve spent some time in Africa and those folks have no concept of anything starting or stopping on time.
But I think even more interesting is the concept of winning and losing. I’m glad we got rid of the tie in football but I think our American culture is moving away from winning and losing towards no winners, no losers, just participants.
We don’t want people to be hurt by losing so we just don’t have either. Losing, is painful, but it actually teaches you more than winning. But, we want to eliminate it. Hence we will bail out anyone having a hard time, losing their home etc. We are trading freedom and the possibility of winning for security and the impossibility of losing.
I hate the NCAA more than UT & AU combined. At least with UT & AU you got a fighting chance.
...
I’m glad we got rid of the tie in football…
I know this makes me the oddball, but I actually wish the tie were still around. I hate overtime, and not just because we aren’t very good at it. I hate it for two primary reasons:
1) I believe overtime is more advantageous for certain styles of play than it is for others and
2) It’s basically a mutated version of the game played in order to determine a winner after 60 minutes of play by standard rules failed to do so.
That’s why I hate shoot outs in soccer, because that’s not how the game is played. When there is overtime in soccer, it’s the same game being played, so I don’t mind it.
I actually favor the return of the tie, sometimes teams really are equal at the end of 60 minutes.
i find i agree with this logic. because isn’t taking the risk on a dangerous play to win instead of settling for the tie the same as the risk you face in overtime?
Rogar Gadel
uses this logic when explaining the OT rules in the NFL that basically the incentive to win in regulation should be as high as possible. I think it makes sense.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
I hate overtime, too...
Especially college football overtime. It’s far too easy to score. They should at least start the teams off in their own territory (maybe at the 40 yd-line). However, it’s much more interesting to see a team go for a two-point conversion to end regulation than it is to see them play for overtime. You get to discover which coaches have pride and courage (Coach Bryant, Tom Osborne), and which ones don’t (Ara “Tie One for the Gipper” Parseghian). There’s nothing better than seeing a great coach faced with a moral choice, and then choosing the right path, no matter what the result.
by crimsontsunami on Apr 24, 2009 7:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Just
my opinion here. I think Americans are more time obsessed in regards to ‘specific time’ or relating to a schedule because we are a commerce culture. Everything here revolves around business in some way. Not saying that is better or worse than countries but it makes sense.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
perhaps...
…but there are other cultures that involve commerce that have dramatically different perceptions of time (Singapore, for example) and it’s worth noting that the US hasn’t always been so specifically “schedule” driven and that modern mode of thinking isn’t homogenious. think of the contrast between the south with it’s agrarian roots and the north with it’s industrial tradition.
Us Americans can be Late Too!
Watching soccer with some friends from across the pond, I also pondered this. They have it so easy, with their simple rules and touchable sidelines. We deal with the same thing in Norte Americano developed basketball (minus the possibility of a tie).
But really, I think it has less to do with the culture, and more to do with how young the games are, relatively. Football and Basketball have had their rules come into being after the advent of the stopwatch, while the first soccer games probably used Stonehenge as their game clock.
by Alabama ManDance on Apr 23, 2009 2:04 PM CDT reply actions
To this day
I am still baffled how ND fed that line of crap to anyone in the Assoc. Press., or whatever it was called back then. Seriously, a tie, a flippin’ tie! That’s the reason I can’t stand anything ND. Could you imagine what Ara said before they went back on the field? “O.k. guys, you all have played to a magnificent tie, but I just don’t think we can pull this off, so let’s just cover our a$$ and tie!” Thats off subject, but it has always been a sore-subject with me.
Winning, Losing, and Time
One of the things I find interesting about this conversation is that, while Ara ‘won’ a national championship by tying a game is that — in the time that has passed since 1966 — he has actually lost respect for his fateful, if gutless, decision from many true aficionados of the sport.
Contrast this with Tom Osborne’s equally fateful yet courageous decision to play to win (going for two) rather than tie (completing the PAT) in their national title matchup with Miami — a decision that caused Nebraska to lose the game and the title. In the immediate aftermath of that contest, Osborne took a good deal of heat from those who felt he should have played to tie the game and ‘win’ the national championship. However, since time has passed, Osborne is generally praised for having the guts to play to win.
One of the nice things about being an Alabama fan is that studying our rich tradition — one that is so inextricably linked with college football history in general — is that it gives you such an appreciation of the lessons of winning, losing, and time itself. Why are Stabler’s run in the mud, Biscuit’s sack, Tiffin’s kick, Langham’s strip, and Prothro’s catch so amazing? Because we won? You bet. But also because nothing quite like them ever happened before, and we doubt we’ll ever see plays like them again.
And only time will tell.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Apr 23, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Me used two bee smartt...
…but not so much now. All apologies to Mr. George Teague (but not Lamar “Towel Head” Thomas.
by NiceLittleSaturday on Apr 23, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions
this kind of spurred another thought about this issue. when we look back and think of famous plays by specific players – they have a resonance for the tradition of alabama football but not necessarily a resonance to the game beyond. but coach bryant does. it’s his stature that gives things like “the junction” and “the tower” their gravitas – not necessarily the things themselves.
but i look at soccer and i think of incidents indelible with the game and it’s the relationship with the player that gives it power. none moreso than maradona’s “hand of god.”
perhaps the power of the coach over the play of the game itself – the control of the clock – lends this to football in a way that doesn’t happen in soccer. there certainly have been legendary coaches in soccer but none who transcend it in the way i am considering it in terms of this specific point.
2 points
osbourn’s choice was all or nothing, Parseghian has the luxury of already having the tie sewn up, for osborn the choice was 1 or 2 point conversion. osborn faced tougher odds and still took the shot. he did what a real coach should do. what Parseghian did was just b*tch made, straight b*tch made, and thats all noter damn has and will ever be because of it.
welcome to the SEC kiffykins...
by tempebamafan on Apr 23, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I have found that
most Europeans that I’ve met dislike American football and baseball. The clock management rules in football provide for seemingly endless breaks and the game can be slow developing. Baseball is a fairly uneventful game with good pitching.
Soccer and basketball do not suffer from that stigma, as they are quick and constant action.
Personally, I appreciate the complex strategies and half-time adjustments in football. That is a part of the experience. Whereas I view soccer and basketball as simple play.
[No offense to the obvious athleticism that elite players in the NBA and FIFA possess.]
My dad.
This is why my dad really hates and I mean hates ND. I grew up with it but not just because he did but when he explained what happend that season to me, well I have always hated ND also. It was funny when I was growing up in late seventies and eighties most Alabama fans hated ND first and Tenn. second. Times haven’t changed to much for me but Ohio St. is on the top spot now and Tenn. since Fulmer is gone has become OK but I’m sure idiot Kiffen may change all that if he wins…but that is a BIG if.
Ahh! I'm feeling better already
Too bad Beuerlein is probably not. To this day, one of the best hits on a QB I have ever witnessed.

by 

















