NCAA Rules Committee proposes a rule to kill the hurry-up offense

Unbelievable. Thanks for the info.

 

That is spot on. The thing I don't understand is that no one has mentioned, if the offense substitutes a player, the defense is allowed time to substitute as well. So if they are saying a defender gets fatigued and his form and ability break down, so would the offensive player, who would have had to be on the field for just as many plays as the defender. There is no validity to this claim what-so-ever. I played both sides in high school and was on the field for EVERY play, including special teams. I only played defense in college, and it was a different game in the late 80's, but I simply don't buy player safety to this what-so-ever.

 

If Saban and his ilk are truly concerned about player safety,how about limiting players to a maximum of 275 pounds? Do away with facemasks? Use foam rubber helmets? That makes as much difference to player safety as this self serving SEC sponsered rule.

 

....The final word goes to Colorado School of Mines innovator Bob Stitt: "The only thing risking injury in an up tempo football game is the defense's pride! Nut up, it's football!"

ss

 

Idk that we can go pinning this one on the SEC. Maybe the older powers, but bringing in AtM and Mizzou has sparked a transition among other programs. See Malzahn over at Albarn and his criticism of this proposed rule.

 

Maybe Saban could learn something from a legend. And this is also directed at all those who think that the HUNH offense is some type of new creation...

 

Not many, if any, HUNH offenses snap the ball before 10 seconds has gone off the 40 second play clock.

I forget where the report was, but i read an Alabama newspaper site that stated even Baylor and Oregon rarely snap the ball within 10 seconds of the 40 second time clock starting.

1. The 40 second time clock starts when they set ball. Not on a whistle. The refs no longer start the play clock. The only time the refs start the play clock is after change of possession and a time out. And when they do, it is a 25 second time clock, not 40.

2. The majority of the people on the rules committee where at a school that had offenses that had significantly less offensive plays per game than the national average.

3. Everyone knows that the Rules committee would never had even looked at this rule, from Saban, had they not included player safety. Which there is no evidence at all showing there is any player safety issues while going against a offense that plays a HUHN.

 

I don't think it is a particularly large percentage of total plays. When it does occur though it tends to have a significant impact on the game. For example, when we go quick we are snapping the ball before the umpire has gotten more than 5 yards away from the ball after he sets it. I know those guys are slow, but they aren't 10 second 10 yard dash slow.

The reality of this rule would be that the umpire would sit on top of the ball for 10 seconds and then move away which would in effect push any sub 10s to 15s or so.

 

The argument is that these offenses threaten to snap the ball before 10 seconds. As long as they line up ready to snap the defense can't substitute.

 

Larry Fedora takes subtle jab at Saban in ripping defensive sub proposal

Posted by John Taylor on February 14, 2014
Larry Fedora
AP

To say a new proposal that would essentially put a restrictor plate on up-tempo offenses has gone over like flatulence in church would be an understatement.

The proposal — and it’s just that at the moment — has been almost unanimously assailed by those who cover the sport and, more importantly, those coaching in the sport who’d be directly impacted if the proposal is implemented. Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy rightly ripped into the proposal. Arizona’s Rich Rodriguez was none too pleased with it, and neither was Washington State’s Mike Leach among myriad others.

Most scoff in the general direction of the NCAA Football Rules Committee hiding behind the “player safety” argument, with no data to back up the contention at that. Leach, with all swords swinging, called the entire charade “disgusting… insulting that they are hiding behind player safety just because somebody wants an advantage.”

You can add Larry Fedora to the growing chorus of those questioning the rationale behind the proposal. The North Carolina head coach, who would be one of many impacted by the rule that would call a delay of game (?!?) penalty on any team that snaps the ball before 10 seconds have run off the play clock, said the committee is “questioning our intelligence with trying to push this under player safety.” He also took direct — and rightful — aim at the rule allowing defensive substitutions not applying in the last two minutes of the half or the game.

“Now if you’re just going under the assumption that if you play more plays you have more chance for injury – I agree with that,” Fedora said in a phone interview with the Raleigh News & Observer. “But if you’re going to say this is under player safety, but we’re going to do it in the last two minutes of the game, well then are we saying we’re not concerned with player safety in the last two minutes of the game? I mean, come on. I just don’t get that.”

Arkansas’ Bret Bielema and Alabama’s Nick Saban, longtime opponents of up-tempo offenses, had a seat — but not a vote — at the table of the committee that forwarded the proposal to the NCAA Rules Oversight Panel. In discussing his disgust over the proposed rule change, Fedora took a not-so-thinly-veiled jab at Saban and his collection of recruiting talent.

“I think you’ve got more chance of players getting hurt if the opposing team has too many five-star players on it,” Fedora said. “So let’s just say one team can only sign two five-star players on its team. How about that?”

Earlier this month, the Tide once again claimed the mythical recruiting national championship with a class that featured a whopping six players rated as five-star recruits by Rivals.com.

The oversight panel will consider the rules committee’s recommendation and make a ruling on March 6. Leach has been quoted as saying he “doubts it will pass.”

Here’s to hoping to some of Leach’s and the other coaches’ common sense rubs off on the panel and the beginning of next month is the last we hear of this absurd proposal.

 

Just read an article over on ESPN saying the Chairman is backing off the new rule proposal.

It appears, in this case, the NCAA including the obligatory "for player safety" came back and bit them in the ***. Since there is no data supporting their position, they have nothing to fall back on this time. As expected, this will fade away, as it should.

 

Fade away for good, or just until a later review cycle? Saban's initial comments against hurry-up were directed at how it is negatively impacting the game - nothing to do with player safety. I thought the player safety thing came up because that's the only type of rule change that could be considered during this cycle.

 

I think the defense should be able to tag team during the play. So, a player could go to the sideline during a play to tag another to come in. The defense gets to substitute, the offense gets a momentary advantage, all players are safe, everybody happy happy happy. MIght have to add a ref. Am I kidding? Only if you think it's a terrible idea...

 

Probably just this cycle (I didn't read the entire article, so I'm just guessing). However, the ONLY way I foresee this kind of change ever gaining momentum is if there is truly a player safety issue. I think even the NCAA knows that to be the case, and why they initially claimed it as a reason to introduce the proposal.

The push-back in the coaching ranks is more than enough to keep it from ever passing. That doesn't even address the fan outcry, which would be very big.

 

Good idea. I was going to propose a rule that would require all FBS (Division 1) teams to ONLY schedule other FBS teams, thus doing away with the cupcake FCS/FBS games. After all, the kids that play for FCS teams don't have the advantage of large, well funded training staffs. The FCS teams also have fewer scholarships. So, there's a safety issue there.

Of course I'm not being serious, but my proposal would hold more water than the current one...and that's to say that my proposal is asinine.

 

HTML:

I actually would love that rule lets do that instead

 

We know that excessive size is dangerous to both the player himself and the opponents. Why not limit players to a range of 150 lbs to 250 lbs. That way nobody would be too overpowered.
And the speed of some of these men! Horrific impacts are the root cause of so many injuries! how about we bind players ankles with bungies so that they can't go so fast? It would place a premium on positioning, reaction andd the mental aspects of the game. And would reduce injuries dramatically (I have no evidence of this, which is to say exactly the same evidence that the SEC puts forth in arguing against the no huddle.) And those at home could just speed up the video and see the game in apparently the same speed we see it in today. Or you could play it at the new speed and have time to go take a leak during a break away for a touchdown....without missing any action.

 

Is there anything you think you don't know?

1. Who the F*ck said anything about the refs getting out of the way?
2. Since you went off and said something about the refs, the Big 12 brought in another ref to help set the ball so they wouldn't be impeding the pace of the game. So if the Big 12 can do it, so can the rest of the nation.
3. The umpire only needs to be 5-8 yards off the ball. His primary job is watching the linemen get after it.

 

WGAS? If the offense substitutes, then the defense has a chance as well.

If the defense wants to sub without the offense substituting, then they need to have a group ready to go in, and let those on the field know they are coming out after the next play.

Really not hard to do.


If a defensive coach is worried about being tired and out of shape...then get your players in shape.

That or stop getting the fat slow guys.

 

I'm in agreement with you. I don't like the rule change.

What I was pointing out is that the assertion that the rule change wouldn't make any difference because even HUNH don't generally snap the ball in the first 10 seconds is false. My point was that whether or not they snap the ball, the offense can force the defense into keeping their current personnel by lining up over the ball quickly.

I don't see this as a problem. It's the way football has been played and teams have run hurry up offenses for at least 50 years.