The Saban Rule?

Animal02

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,054
Location
Southeastern Michigan
I guess the only argument for player safety is that the more plays that are run in a game, the more likely someone gets hurt. This is football. Play the darned game. There are both advantages and disadvantages to every style of play. If you run up tempo and you get stopped a few times, it can be crippling for your defense. Whatever. This rule is like saying to a basketball team that you can't fast break or full court press. Sorry, but it is thumbs down on this rule for me. Every team should decide its style of play and live or die with the results.

I saw another stat (cannot find it now) that showed the difference between the hurry up offenses and Bama....number of snaps per game, and the hurry up was only about 2 more.
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
The proposed rule would not be in effect with two minutes left in each half. Rules that change based on how much time is on the clock are stupid. (Like the clock starting after running out of bounds except for the last two minutes)

I tend to agree. I guess the impetus for the rule is that it is supposed to add excitement since it gives the team with the ball a chance to score at the last second. If it were up to me, I'd have the game clocking running except when a timeout is called.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,035
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Redding added he studied film of two games involving up-tempo offenses and only once in each game did a team snap the ball within 10 seconds of the 40-second clock starting.

From the article...if it only happened once in two games, why are they trying to legislate it. Sounds like a non-issue based on Redding's comment.
 

GTJason

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,496
Saban should just take a page out of the UGA playbook and have players fake injuries when hurry up teams are rolling. Almost got them the W over Clemson
 

Jerry the Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,459
Location
Chapin, SC
I like the new rule. I must admit I am a traditionalist and love the game as it was played back post forward pass up to the 90's. This hurry up game is like basketball on grass to me. I just think the huddle and allowing both sides of the ball a chance to make adjustments between plays is integral to the integrity of the game as it was originally designed to be played.

Go Jackets1
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,035
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I like the new rule. I must admit I am a traditionalist and love the game as it was played back post forward pass up to the 90's. This hurry up game is like basketball on grass to me. I just think the huddle and allowing both sides of the ball a chance to make adjustments between plays is integral to the integrity of the game as it was originally designed to be played.

Go Jackets1
As it was originally designed to be played included: 1) no forward pass (I saw you post-forward pass caveat), 2) no substitutions from offense to defense, let alone within the defense, 3) etc. many, many other innovations. I think the game is evolving based on what most fans want to see, and to some extent, what the coaches are complaining about. There have been many rule changes that have made this a more offense-oriented game.

I hate the hurry-up too, mostly because we suck a shutting it down, but I would hate more to have some rule saying you have to wait 10 seconds after the ball is set before you can run a play. Before I saw that, I'd like to see a rule that once the QB starts his snap count, the only players allowed to move are pass-eligible players. That would stop the whole line looking to the side. to me that's worse than the early snap count.
 

Atomic Jacket

Banned
Messages
238
This rule change has to be made. Auburn and Clemson have been abusing the loophole in the rules which forces defenses not to sub out when the offense does not sub out. This is a safety issue. The rule change is a nice compromise because it allows the uptempo pace to remain but gives defenses a window to get a fatigued man off the field and a fresh man on the field. It is not equitable to allow the offense the freedom to decide when to sub out a fatigued player but not afford the defense that same freedom, and it's not safe. We do not want to see this new trend in football end in the death or cardiac arrest of a defensive player who was unable to get a relief.

Also, as a practical matter, if this rule does not pass, coaches will feel free to tell their players to just fake an injury every 2nd or 3rd play to allow a substitution and slow the pace. The game would grow to 4 or 5 hours long. Coaches have been tentatively doing this already to a limited extent, probably waiting to see if the NCAA and officials would take action to stop this abuse and exploitation of the rules. If the NCAA chooses not to take action, I believe it will open the door to an explosion of fake injuries to take away the unfair advantage the uptempo gives the offense. Fake injuries are technically against the rules, but it is an unenforceable rule. No one can know what's going on in the mind of a player. If he feels hurt, he needs to lay down and let the refs stop the game. No one can know if he was faking it. That can just be between him and the coach. I think the NCAA knows this is the ultimate endgame of the uptempo if it is allowed to stand on status quo. Therefore, I think the NCAA will deem it has no other choice but to make this rule change, which will be a nice compromise between banning the uptempo and allowing it to exploit the rules.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
This rule change has to be made. Auburn and Clemson have been abusing the loophole in the rules which forces defenses not to sub out when the offense does not sub out. This is a safety issue. The rule change is a nice compromise because it allows the uptempo pace to remain but gives defenses a window to get a fatigued man off the field and a fresh man on the field. It is not equitable to allow the offense the freedom to decide when to sub out a fatigued player but not afford the defense that same freedom, and it's not safe. We do not want to see this new trend in football end in the death or cardiac arrest of a defensive player who was unable to get a relief.

Also, as a practical matter, if this rule does not pass, coaches will feel free to tell their players to just fake an injury every 2nd or 3rd play to allow a substitution and slow the pace. The game would grow to 4 or 5 hours long. Coaches have been tentatively doing this already to a limited extent, probably waiting to see if the NCAA and officials would take action to stop this abuse and exploitation of the rules. If the NCAA chooses not to take action, I believe it will open the door to an explosion of fake injuries to take away the unfair advantage the uptempo gives the offense. Fake injuries are technically against the rules, but it is an unenforceable rule. No one can know what's going on in the mind of a player. If he feels hurt, he needs to lay down and let the refs stop the game. No one can know if he was faking it. That can just be between him and the coach. I think the NCAA knows this is the ultimate endgame of the uptempo if it is allowed to stand on status quo. Therefore, I think the NCAA will deem it has no other choice but to make this rule change, which will be a nice compromise between banning the uptempo and allowing it to exploit the rules.
I disagree. I see no exploitation whatsoever. Ingenuity, heck yes, exploitation.... hmmm.... All hurry up offenses are doing is extending the widely accepted 2 minute drill over the entire game. Furthermore, there is zero data showing this to be dangerous in any way, shape or form.

There's nothing preventing the defense from subbing anyway. Run your fat tub of goos onto the field as soon as the previous play is whistled dead. Yes, it takes planning and coordination, but it's not impossible. Worse comes to worse, call a timeout if you need to rest your players. Constructing rules to discourage ingenuity in the game just because some cannot adapt is absurd.
 

Atomic Jacket

Banned
Messages
238
I disagree. I see no exploitation whatsoever. Ingenuity, heck yes, exploitation.... hmmm.... All hurry up offenses are doing is extending the widely accepted 2 minute drill over the entire game. Furthermore, there is zero data showing this to be dangerous in any way, shape or form.

There's nothing preventing the defense from subbing anyway. Run your fat tub of goos onto the field as soon as the previous play is whistled dead. Yes, it takes planning and coordination, but it's not impossible. Worse comes to worse, call a timeout if you need to rest your players. Constructing rules to discourage ingenuity in the game just because some cannot adapt is absurd.

Defenses cannot sub out if the offense does not sub out. If the defense tries to sub out when the offense has not subbed out, all the offense has to do is snap the ball during that process and it becomes a penalty against the defense, offsides or too many men on the field.

The exploitation factor comes in because the offense is taking advantage of the fact that the defense is locked into the game until the offense decides to sub out. The purpose is prevent their most fatigued player from being able to get a relief (which is dangerous) and to cause the defense to be too fatigued to be in proper position to defend the play. This is completely different from the 2-minute offense, in which the purpose is not to fatigue the defense, but to score before the clock runs out.

I am in support of ingenuity, but not when it becomes a safety issue. The rule change allows ingenuity to be used in the uptempo offense. After all, most uptempo coaches admit they rarely get a play off in 10 seconds. But it also preserves safety by simply allowing the defense a guaranteed window to sub out.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,035
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Yeah, I don't see it being dangerous. The whole reason teams like Alabama, LSU, tOSU, Texas, USCw, ND (and many more) have been so successful year after year is because they don't have second stringers, they've got 1A and 1B, and sometimes 1C players. Their depth is such that as the game approaches the late 3rd quarter and 4th quarter, they pull away because their players are better rested. Most decent teams can hang around for a while (not every team in every instance) because the 1st-1st talent gap isn't too big. But as the weaker team's 1's get tired, the stronger team begins to dominate because there's not a drop off in talent going to the back-ups. That's part of the game.

The Hurry-up Offense is more about not allowing the Defense to substitute so that the offense has an advantage in scheming, not anything to do with fatigue. For instance, if you have a run-stuffer at SDE that only plays 1st & 2nd downs but the other team forces you to use that DE to cover the TE coming off the line or a back in the Flats on 3rd down because you can't get him off the field, then the Offense has an advantage. The Offense is playing the same number of plays, at the same speed. They're just as tired.

As DCS said, there is zero evidence that the hurry-up offenses produces more injuries.

Besides, like I said in my previous post, I don't understand why they're trying to regulate this. Based on what was said in the article, only 1 play in each game reviewed was actually snapped prior to a 10-second run off. If that's the case, then why make a rule. I mean if you run 80 plays a game, and only 1 play would be legistlated, why? Additionally, if only 1.2% of the plays in a game are affected, how can anyone claim this is a safety issue?
 

Atomic Jacket

Banned
Messages
238
Besides, like I said in my previous post, I don't understand why they're trying to regulate this. Based on what was said in the article, only 1 play in each game reviewed was actually snapped prior to a 10-second run off. If that's the case, then why make a rule. I mean if you run 80 plays a game, and only 1 play would be legistlated, why? Additionally, if only 1.2% of the plays in a game are affected, how can anyone claim this is a safety issue?

The reason hurry up offenses are not snapping the ball within 10 seconds is because defenses have not been trying to sub out their fatigued players between plays. If defenses tried to do this, then offenses would catch on quickly and snap the ball immediately to catch the defense offsides or with too many men on the field. This rule change gives the defense a guaranteed window to sub out, so that with proper coordination, they can safely get the fatigued man off the field and the fresh man on the field.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,035
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Until there's proof that this is increasing injuries, I don't see the justification for a rule. This is similar to the discussion to remove cut-blocking from football. To me, that has more merit than this rule. There's documented evidence that cut blocking produces injuries. That being said, there are very few coaches out there calling for legistlation away from cut-blocking. I don't buy the fatigue thing, it's about the Defense being able to sub personnel groupings and inact defensive schemes, not safety.

Yes, we'll see more fake injuries, and we'll probably see some kind of "flop" rule instituted where an injured player has to come out for a set number of plays or be cleared to return by the team physician or something like that. I'd also like to see an automatic ejection rule for both the player and the head coach when there is clear evidence of a flop.

I understand what you're saying, and I can't say you're wrong. I can only say that I think the reason for the rule is not about safety and that Sabin and others are more interested in limiting the offensive advantage gained by not allowing substitutions on Defense.
 
Last edited:

Atomic Jacket

Banned
Messages
238
Assuming we set all logic and rationality aside and just accept your point of view, as a practical matter, this compromise rule change would still need to be made to prevent fake injuries as a countermeasure against the exploitation of the uptempo offense. Right now, fake injuries happen sporadically and not in any systematized way. But if uptempo becomes tacitly approved by the NCAA's rejection of this compromise rule, then coaches will learn how to deliberately and skillfully make use of fake injury in a way that is impossible to detect and enforce. It will make the game of football into a mockery. Therefore, I think the NCAA will feel it really has no other choice but to approve this rule, which is a good compromise that allows the use of uptempo, allows fatigued defenders to be safely relieved, and prevents the need for the use of fake injury.
 

Mack

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,361
The ten second rule does not sound like an unreasonable change, but how many seconds have normally elapsed between the whistle at the end of a play until the teams line up for the next play? If a defensive team is on their toes, then they should start their substitutions immediately after the whistle blows ending the last play. Since the offense has the advantage in time of starting their next play (bringing in subs), it seems reasonable for the defense to have some time for their substitutions.

Oldgoldandwhite: I do think Saban is a good coach, but it does appear that he bends the rules to suit his will. I am not saying that. Alabama pays its players, but there has been rumors about this way back when I first started following football. Of course, Auburn was also accused in many of these rumors. In fact, Bobby Dodd turned in the Auburn coach for breaking recruiting rules years ago.[/quot Yep Dodd told many that if they cheated. He would turn them in.If Dodd gold you something you could bank on it.......not now.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,035
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Assuming we set all logic and rationality aside and just accept your point of view
First of all, your "rationality and logic" does not invalidate mine, so the veiled jab in unappreciated. I've not attacked you in any way, so keep it on point. I don't appreciate being patronized just because we have differing opinions.

Second, I disagree about any type of compromise rule. Just like you (euphemistic "you") don't create rules for what "may" happen, you don't compromise the existing game for what "might" happen if a sequence of events occur at some future time. Regardless of what some coaches (disadvantaged by the up-tempo game) are saying, there is no proof that this has anything to do with safety. If it was, then there would be a much louder clammer about cut blocking. Both the play clock and the blocking are part of the game. Players learn to adapt. Sabin, et. al. are looking to negate a competitive advantage that their opponents have used to level the playing field. They're not interested in a fair game, they're interested in winning. Anything they can do to improve their chances to win is fair game to them (and most any coach not named Dodd).

The way to limit fake injuries is to disqualify an injured player for a set number of plays after coming off the field. Currently, that number is 1. But if it becomes an issue (and not until it does), that number can increase until it becomes a hinderance for the defensive player to fake an injury.

I don't have all the answers, but I do know you don't legistlate away a legal strategy just because the opponent may break a rule to negate said strategy. To me that's illogical.
 

Animal02

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,054
Location
Southeastern Michigan
I disagree. I see no exploitation whatsoever. Ingenuity, heck yes, exploitation.... hmmm.... All hurry up offenses are doing is extending the widely accepted 2 minute drill over the entire game. Furthermore, there is zero data showing this to be dangerous in any way, shape or form.

There's nothing preventing the defense from subbing anyway. Run your fat tub of goos onto the field as soon as the previous play is whistled dead. Yes, it takes planning and coordination, but it's not impossible. Worse comes to worse, call a timeout if you need to rest your players. Constructing rules to discourage ingenuity in the game just because some cannot adapt is absurd.

A simpler tweak would be to not penalize a defensive player running off the field if it does not affect the play (sort of like hockey does) no defensive breaking a huddle with more than 11 or inside the hashmarks once the huddle is broken. That would allow defenses to try to substitute without getting penalized too much.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
This rule change has to be made. Auburn and Clemson have been abusing the loophole in the rules which forces defenses not to sub out when the offense does not sub out. This is a safety issue. The rule change is a nice compromise because it allows the uptempo pace to remain but gives defenses a window to get a fatigued man off the field and a fresh man on the field. It is not equitable to allow the offense the freedom to decide when to sub out a fatigued player but not afford the defense that same freedom, and it's not safe. We do not want to see this new trend in football end in the death or cardiac arrest of a defensive player who was unable to get a relief.

Also, as a practical matter, if this rule does not pass, coaches will feel free to tell their players to just fake an injury every 2nd or 3rd play to allow a substitution and slow the pace. The game would grow to 4 or 5 hours long. Coaches have been tentatively doing this already to a limited extent, probably waiting to see if the NCAA and officials would take action to stop this abuse and exploitation of the rules. If the NCAA chooses not to take action, I believe it will open the door to an explosion of fake injuries to take away the unfair advantage the uptempo gives the offense. Fake injuries are technically against the rules, but it is an unenforceable rule. No one can know what's going on in the mind of a player. If he feels hurt, he needs to lay down and let the refs stop the game. No one can know if he was faking it. That can just be between him and the coach. I think the NCAA knows this is the ultimate endgame of the uptempo if it is allowed to stand on status quo. Therefore, I think the NCAA will deem it has no other choice but to make this rule change, which will be a nice compromise between banning the uptempo and allowing it to exploit the rules.
Cardiac Arrest? Really? These are 20 year old kids we are talking about. Trust me, you will just slow down, before you will die, at that age. C'mon man. They are not at the same stage of life we are (sorry, I don't know how old you are). Being tired is not a safety issue at 20 years of age.
 

Atomic Jacket

Banned
Messages
238
Cardiac Arrest? Really? These are 20 year old kids we are talking about. Trust me, you will just slow down, before you will die, at that age. C'mon man. They are not at the same stage of life we are (sorry, I don't know how old you are). Being tired is not a safety issue at 20 years of age.

Young players have died at football practice from the high school level to the NFL. We don't want to see this start happening more frequently.
 
Top