4th and goal

[Turbine]

The score was 3 to 39 it is fourth and goal for Texas, UL's defense has held.

I asked the question below of a local radio host.

"Was Texas avoiding the field goal and going for 7 instead of 3
a) running up the score . . . or
b) indicative of UL's special teams play and Texas missing 3 extra points?

Personally I think it was (b) UL's stellar play on special teams that affected Texas decision to kick.

However the host suprised me and split the (a) option into two parts.

He said

Going for 3 would have been running up the score

Going for 7 was not.

What do you think?

[Corndog308]

He must have been the wuh-wuh-wuh-wuhtta boy with his woo-woo-wooden spoon. I think he's retarded. Of course the answer is (B). I just don't think that the Texas coach wanted his fans to question his #2 ranked Longhorn's special teams play again. It was definitely probable that we would've blocked the field goal.

[BrockMeaux]

I think that if UT were having trouble moving the ball in short yardage situations, then I'd understand going for it on 4th and 2 since it was a tune-up game. But being real, as soon as they lined up everybody on both sidelines knew they were going to make it because they had been running the ball down our throats and passing at will all night. I applaud Mack Brown for putting on the breaks about halfway through the 4th (fair catching all punts, conservative running, relaxed defense), but at the moment where they went for it on 4th, they were running up the score. In my opinion, of course.

[TheFan]

The score was 3 to 39 it is fourth and goal for Texas, UL's defense has held.

I asked the question below of a local radio host.

"Was Texas avoiding the field goal and going for 7 instead of 3
a) running up the score . . . or
b) indicative of UL's special teams play and Texas missing 3 extra points?

Personally I think it was (b) UL's stellar play on special teams that affected Texas decision to kick.

However the host suprised me and split the (a) option into two parts.

He said

Going for 3 would have been running up the score

Going for 7 was not.

What do you think?

Running up the score would have been going for 3 pionts. Going for 7 gave a chance for the defence to stop Texas, because everyone know that there going to run up the middle (even thought we had a better change at blocking the field goal than stoping them). If Texas would have play action passed then yes they would have been running up the score.

[Bert]

Running up the score would have been going for 3 pionts. Going for 7 gave a chance for the defence to stop Texas, because everyone know that there going to run up the middle (even thought we had a better change at blocking the field goal than stoping them). If Texas would have play action passed then yes they would have been running up the score.

They only had 39 points so they were not running up the score, not yet anyway. I agree UL had a better chance of blocking the kick and Mack Brown knew it. How much was Texas averaging on each rush does anyone know? I bet they didn't have that far to go to score. I think they were kicking chicken, but I agree they were not running up the score. Not yet anyway.

[ATXCajun]

The score was 3 to 39 it is fourth and goal for Texas, UL's defense has held.

I asked the question below of a local radio host.

"Was Texas avoiding the field goal and going for 7 instead of 3
a) running up the score . . . or
b) indicative of UL's special teams play and Texas missing 3 extra points?

Personally I think it was (b) UL's stellar play on special teams that affected Texas decision to kick.

However the host suprised me and split the (a) option into two parts.

He said

Going for 3 would have been running up the score

Going for 7 was not.

What do you think?

I don't know. I personally don't have a problem with running up the score, especially if it is just a by-product of trying to run out the clock. Throwing every down is a little rude. It's hard to tell these kids to be aggressive and then pull back. Reminds me of the softball game I played Tuesday night. We played a team that couldn't get us out to save their lives. We had to start batting on the opposite side and such to get out. In a way, it may have been more humiliating to them that we were going out of our way to get out and end the game, as opposed to pouring it on. There was a 15 run rule, but unfortunately they were entitled to a last at bat, which meant that we went to bat again when the score was 14 to 1. Maybe football needs a run rule? No, getting run-ruled is humiliating too. Anyway, it sounds to me from the player interviews that the boys are handling that very maturely and are just applying lessons learned and looking forward to next week. I think they see it as a meaningless tune-up as much as Texas does.