Convert or two point conversion

It looked like MARCEL BELLEFEUILLE and GREG MARSHALL were having a heated discussion on what to do at that point of the game. Marcel wanted to go for 2 while Greg wanted to play it safe. One point guaranteed vs a possible two. Either way it would have helped to have that additional point or two at the end of the game when Winnipeg was on the 5 yard line with time left on the clock.
On another point: what were the two defenders thinking to let the Winnipeg receiver so wide open on that second to last play? Can't blame Shivers for that one.

The convert would have given us a 5-point lead at the time, and a 6-point lead if they were successful for 2. I don't get it. I would have gone for the easy point. looking back, it would have given us an 8-point lead at the end of the game, forcing Winnipeg to go for 2 IF they scored a TD.

The defenders were playing in a zone, and the Winnipeg receivers stacked up on the short side. Dennis let Ralph run past him (he was staying in his zone - no issue there) and Barker was coming on a Safety blitz from the wide-side. That left nobody at Safety, therefore allowing Ralph to split the zone. Good thing we stopped him at the 3-yard-line.

It was a terrible coaching decision that made no sense whatsoever.

Another call be our coach that could have lost us the game....

Marshall called a safety blitz on that second last play. Barker as safety was right on the line of scrimmage leaving those two all alone back there. Seems like Marshall is a gambler who almost had it all blow up. It may not have been pretty but it had me on my feet!

Oskee wee wee

I noticed the Barker blitz as well and had me pretty upset after Ralph hauled in at the two yard line. If you want to blitz i don't know why you wouldn't blitz the front seven and leave the other 5 back.

While the choice of going for 1 or 2 is not so clear cut, when you've got the lead by 4 pts., as it is with other spreads, I stand with Bellefeuille on this one. I also think that If anyone was arguing it with MB, it should have been Dave Easley the ST coach rather than the DC and, that any ST coach should have a laminated card in his pocket which eliminates making such decisions in the heat of the moment ...... by those decisions having been made in conjunction with the HC before the start of the season. i.e.

If the TD just scored puts you up by ____ points, go for a ______ point conversion.

1 -- 2
2 -- 1
3 -- 1
4 -- 2
5 -- 1
6 -- 1
7 -- 1
8 -- 1

etc. And, a similar listing for "down by."

1 -- 1
2 -- 2
3 -- 1
4 -- 1
5 -- 2

The late-in-the-game variation would be to "always keep the players' chances positive." i.e. If down by 15, with time running down, and you score a TD, go for 1, leaving the 2 pt. attempt (to tie) to follow the possible 2nd comeback TD. If you go for it on the first TD and miss ... the impact is a "negative," immediately after the "positive" TD, and the chance to tie would then require more than an 8-pt TD.

good post. well thought out

And MB was so confident in his decision that he had to use our time out on an extra point try. No excuse for that. The HC is paid to think a play ahead so he should have known which way he was going to go. MB makes things up on the fly, and that makes him prone to emotional or poor decisions. Marshall was right was a dumb call.

MB made the right call, a touchdown ties regardless, a two point convert makes it an eight point difference. I for one am trying of all the MB bashers.

going for 2 was a horrible call and made no sense.

Going for two with a four point lead is the only choice that would make sense. There is very little difference between a four point lead and a five point lead - both require a TD or two field goals to take the lead. But a six point lead means two field goals only ties the game. I agree with OttawaCat's list, that there should be no discussion needed.

See thats where your wrong...
if we go for 2 and dont get it were up by 4. they get a td and now were down by 3 so a field goal will only tie up the game for us. If he had of just kicked that extra point a field goal would give us the lead.

Agree there should be a set of rules agreed in advance. I can see the decision for "4" being contentious, but I think the conventional wisdom is that on an unconverted 4 point lead, you go for 1. That was the question the Cats didn't answer decisively last night.

However, I think your example chart has the wrong decision for "5". :wink: I think the conventional wisdom is that unconverted leads of 1 point and 5 points are the most typical cases where teams go for two: with an unconverted 5 point lead, a single point gives you only a 6 point lead, meaning that the opposition could take the lead with a touchdown plus a single. If you make a two point convert to extend your lead from 5 to 7, a touchdown+single by the opposition can only tie: the opposition can only steal your lead if they score a TD and then play for the win instead of the tie and make a two-point convert. If the opposition does not score a touchdown, they must score other points (e.g. FG) more than once, regardless of whether your lead is 5 (you failed the two-point), 6 (you made the single) or 7 (you made the two-point).

I also think each rule depends on how much time is left in the game, and situationally might be overruled based on trends in the game i.e. how well the defense has been containing the opposition, unusual weather, etc.

Also to make things worse, didn't our time-out get used up having to re-set up for a two-point conversion?

Really glad our defense got the stops at the end of the game or we could have been screwed without that timeout.

Our defense has been keeping us in games all season, actually. One of the best in the CFL for sure.

That front seven is awesome. :rockin:

Right there I think is the reason, given the Ti-Cats bend but don't break defense, I would suspect Marcel thought "There is a chance we may give up some field goals. I have a choice that they can win with two field goals with the covert, or we can be in that same situation if we don't make the 2 and force a tie with two field goals if we do make it"

I believe it was the wrong decision at the time and even more so after hindsight.