Kind of beating a dead horse here, but a lot of people seem to be split on this. Technically, there is no "right" or "wrong" call in this situation, it depends on the type of person you are. If you think kicking the FG was the right decision, you are a play not to lose person. If you think kicking it was the wrong decision and they should have gone for it, you are a play to win person. The fact also is, regardless of the 3 possible outcomes (go for it and make it, go for it and miss it, and kick it) the defense would still need a stop.
The breakdown:
Playing to win (going for it). The reason this is playing to win is because if you make it, we'll assume we score a touchdown, we go up. Now, if our defense gets a stop before they are in FG range, we win the game. If we go for it and miss it, we rely on our defense to make a stop and give us the ball back, and then we would drive down and go for the win again.
Playing not to lose/to tie/for overtime (kicking the fg). The reason this is playing not to lose is because even making the FG, you still need a stop. If you go for it and didn't make it you also need a stop. The only difference is by kicking the FG, you are basically saying you are playing for the tie and OT. A counter argument to this could be, "well we could get a stop and then score a TD and win by 4". And while this is technically true, by kicking the FG, you are playing for OT. If you truly were going for a TD, you would give yourself 2 chances at the TD by not kicking the FG originally and then if you don't make it, relying on your defense to get a stop and then going for a TD again.
While there are risk/reward for both playing to win and playing not to lose, it seems that time and time again PSU plays not to lose in close games, and more often than not it comes back and causes them to lose.
Unfortunately the fact that we lost 16 points (3 from opening drive putting them in FG range, 7 from PR TD, 6 from missed/blocked FGs) on special teams, this was the game changing decision.
You can say that our defense was playing well and putting up points kept pressure on Kentucky and then we only needed a FG to tie, but I don't buy it. We had all the momentum, Trace was pumping up the crowd, and they couldn't stop us. The only reason we were in 4th down anyway was because Trace missed a couple throws. I believe in Trace and how clutch he is to make the play on 4th down. I would hope the rest of our fans agree with me here.
We dominated 3 quarters of this game, and the first half it didn't show because of special teams blunders. The 3rd quarter Kentucky took momentum, and the 4th quarter we took it back. Momentum is fickle, and playing for OT could have swung momentum back into Kentucky's favor, you never know. When you have momentum like we did, you go for the win, you play to win. That's why I believe in this situation playing to win was the right call, and we made the wrong one.
The breakdown:
Playing to win (going for it). The reason this is playing to win is because if you make it, we'll assume we score a touchdown, we go up. Now, if our defense gets a stop before they are in FG range, we win the game. If we go for it and miss it, we rely on our defense to make a stop and give us the ball back, and then we would drive down and go for the win again.
Playing not to lose/to tie/for overtime (kicking the fg). The reason this is playing not to lose is because even making the FG, you still need a stop. If you go for it and didn't make it you also need a stop. The only difference is by kicking the FG, you are basically saying you are playing for the tie and OT. A counter argument to this could be, "well we could get a stop and then score a TD and win by 4". And while this is technically true, by kicking the FG, you are playing for OT. If you truly were going for a TD, you would give yourself 2 chances at the TD by not kicking the FG originally and then if you don't make it, relying on your defense to get a stop and then going for a TD again.
While there are risk/reward for both playing to win and playing not to lose, it seems that time and time again PSU plays not to lose in close games, and more often than not it comes back and causes them to lose.
Unfortunately the fact that we lost 16 points (3 from opening drive putting them in FG range, 7 from PR TD, 6 from missed/blocked FGs) on special teams, this was the game changing decision.
You can say that our defense was playing well and putting up points kept pressure on Kentucky and then we only needed a FG to tie, but I don't buy it. We had all the momentum, Trace was pumping up the crowd, and they couldn't stop us. The only reason we were in 4th down anyway was because Trace missed a couple throws. I believe in Trace and how clutch he is to make the play on 4th down. I would hope the rest of our fans agree with me here.
We dominated 3 quarters of this game, and the first half it didn't show because of special teams blunders. The 3rd quarter Kentucky took momentum, and the 4th quarter we took it back. Momentum is fickle, and playing for OT could have swung momentum back into Kentucky's favor, you never know. When you have momentum like we did, you go for the win, you play to win. That's why I believe in this situation playing to win was the right call, and we made the wrong one.
