The Saban Rule?

[Atomic Jacket]

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.

Yet you were proposing a rule change to prevent fake injuries from becoming the natural countermeasure to the uptempo offense by forcing defenses to sit out even longer than one play. That change is even more onerous than the rule change being proposed, since it would likely impact games in which uptempo is not even being used. Any player who gets injured legitimately now has to sit out for a longer time, simply to accommodate a gimmick offense that only a few teams are using? That change seems more extreme and disruptive than the compromise rule change that is being proposed, which allows both the hurry-up offense to be used and defenses to safely swap out fatigued players.

 

[Animal02]

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.

And how many have died from "fatigue"? The answer to "fatigue is more conditioning.....NOT changing the rules.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Wow, did not realize there were very many out there that agreed with limiting how fast the O can run plays!!!!

I think this running plays quickly gives an advantage to a team that does NOT have the depth of a Bammer or LSU or other..... So, being a GT fan, I am totally against changing this rule. If sa(t)an could figure out how to stop this any other way, he would not be forwarding this "player safety" nonsense, in my opinion. When he has NFL talent 3 deep on his defense, he wants to beat you into submission....

 

[Rodney Kent]

The coaches who are calling for the rule change because of injuries are not fooling anyone. It is a smoke screen by them to slow down the coaches using the new offense. You win games with good defense. It is easy to stop an offense with a good defense, and it carries no excuses. You stop them with three and out, and you don't have to worry about tiring or lettting them stay on the field. The defensive coach will just have to be smarter and become more aggressive with his defense.

The most lame excuse I have heard repeatedly by a losing defense is that it had to stay on the field too long. That is no excuse, it is lame; all the defense has to do is stop the offense on the first three downs of each drive. Presto!!! The defense does not get tired.

 

[Rodney Kent]

The one worst ploy I hate the most in today's offenses is the initial line-up of the offense, and then the stopping of the play and resultant looking to the sidelines for an okay or change in plays. I fully understand the coaches want to see how the defense lines up, but the defense can always line up at random and then switch after the play is signaled from the sideline.

This is a boring ploy, and slows the game down. It is not fun to the fan to sit and wait for all these false offensive calls. Let the team run the play it had intended or let the quarterback change it at the line, but quit wasting time and delaying the game with the delayed calls from the sidelines. It is a waste of time and is boring.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The one worst ploy I hate the most in today's offenses is the initial line-up of the offense, and then the stopping of the play and resultant looking to the sidelines for an okay or change in plays. I fully understand the coaches want to see how the defense lines up, but the defense can always line up at random and then switch after the play is signaled from the sideline.

This is a boring ploy, and slows the game down. It is not fun to the fan to sit and wait for all these false offensive calls. Let the team run the play it had intended or let the quarterback change it at the line, but quit wasting time and delaying the game with the delayed calls from the sidelines. It is a waste of time and is boring.

That's why there's a play clock. The offense has the option to use every second play clock every snap if they so choose and are penalized for going over it. I don't see what difference it makes if the majority of that time is spent in the huddle or at the LOS. Maybe you should be lobbying for a shorter play clock?

 

[Animal02]

That's why there's a play clock. The offense has the option to use every second play clock every snap if they so choose and are penalized for going over it. I don't see what difference it makes if the majority of that time is spent in the huddle or at the LOS. Maybe you should be lobbying for a shorter play clock?

I agree except once the O Line is "in position" and can snap the ball without penalty......they should not be able to stand up and look around etc.

 

[Arkfbplayer52]

I hate the way the no huddle is spreading throughout college football. It's a gimmick scheme predicated on rushing to the LOS in hopes that the defense cannot properly substitute or get aligned properly. It's taking away from the quality of the game. It should be about out scheming and beating the man in front of you.

College Refs have been horrid at allowing these defenses to properly substitute too which has been a huge issue. The NFL does a much better job of protecting the defense from getting screwed. Also the NFL Headlinesmen do not rush to the LOS to set the ball for teams that want to constantly go no huddle.

College should take the same approach.

 

[forensicbuzz]

There you go. If you want to make sure the defense has an opportunity to substitute, have the head linesman control when the ball is spotted. That makes more sense that legistlating a run-off time on the clock.

There is no such thing as a "gimmick" offense. The offense either works or it doesn't. You have misdirection in all offenses, including "pro-style" offenses. Everything you do on offense is about gaining an advantage in some way. Even if you line up and just smash the player in front of you, you do that because you have a size/speed advantage, otherwise you do something else. I find it laughable that people call innovative thinking "gimmicky," just because it's non-traditional. (no offense intended to anyone who used the term "gimmick" in this thread)

 

[awbuzz]

One thing I think should change is letting offensive linemen come out of a set position to look over at the sideline for a play call. Once they crouch down, even if their hand isn't on the ground, they should not be allowed to stand back up without false start being called. If the quarterback wants to "test" the defense then look over at the sidelines that's fine, but make those big linemen stay crouched. It's too much of an advantage for an offense to allow these linemen to keep bobbing up and down. Make em get set and run the darn play.

Can we "like" more than once???? Man would I love that to be a new rule!

 

[Animal02]

I hate the way the no huddle is spreading throughout college football. It's a gimmick scheme predicated on rushing to the LOS in hopes that the defense cannot properly substitute or get aligned properly. It's taking away from the quality of the game. It should be about out scheming and beating the man in front of you.

College Refs have been horrid at allowing these defenses to properly substitute too which has been a huge issue. The NFL does a much better job of protecting the defense from getting screwed. Also the NFL Headlinesmen do not rush to the LOS to set the ball for teams that want to constantly go no huddle.

College should take the same approach.

College football changed the rules a few years ago to speed up the game times. Now people are whining about the reverse.

 

[Animal02]

Can we "like" more than once???? Man would I love that to be a new rule!

The other rule I would like to see is a 15 yard unsportmanlike penalty for motioning for a penalty flag. I am sick of seeing that happen on EVERY play that a receiver drops or misses a catch.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The other rule I would like to see is a 15 yard unsportmanlike penalty for motioning for a penalty flag. I am sick of seeing that happen on EVERY play that a receiver drops or misses a catch.

I think it's funny when they do that and nothing happens, the ref is saying STFU by not throwing the flag and that's good enough for me. WR's are better off keeping their hand waves to themselves because it probably does more harm than good. To me it just makes them look like whiners like the basketball players who call for a foul every time they're bumped by a defender.

 

[Rodney Kent]

dressedcheese: Personally, I think it looks stupid and makes the team look stupid. I see quite a lot of teams get a false start after the pause in play. It may be doing the team more harm than good. If the coach is going to call the plays, then I had rather use Johnson's method and then give the quarterback the option to change the play.

My first priority in this aspect of the game is to pick a quarterback who is smart and is a real field general. I would work with him constantly and while we watched film. I would ensure myself that he was capable of calling good plays at the right time, then I would let him call most of the plays himself. If I saw a chance to use a particular play at a particular time, I would then send in a sub with the play. To me, that is the essence of a good quarterback, a true field general leading his troops.

If you believe Ralph Friegden, Godsey was extremely good at knowing which play to call.

 

[Boomergump]

dressedcheese: Personally, I think it looks stupid and makes the team look stupid. I see quite a lot of teams get a false start after the pause in play. It may be doing the team more harm than good. If the coach is going to call the plays, then I had rather use Johnson's method and then give the quarterback the option to change the play.

My first priority in this aspect of the game is to pick a quarterback who is smart and is a real field general. I would work with him constantly and while we watched film. I would ensure myself that he was capable of calling good plays at the right time, then I would let him call most of the plays himself. If I saw a chance to use a particular play at a particular time, I would then send in a sub with the play. To me, that is the essence of a good quarterback, a true field general leading his troops.

If you believe Ralph Friegden, Godsey was extremely good at knowing which play to call.

Godsey is a great example of a field general. Well stated.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

dressedcheese: Personally, I think it looks stupid and makes the team look stupid. I see quite a lot of teams get a false start after the pause in play. It may be doing the team more harm than good. If the coach is going to call the plays, then I had rather use Johnson's method and then give the quarterback the option to change the play.

My first priority in this aspect of the game is to pick a quarterback who is smart and is a real field general. I would work with him constantly and while we watched film. I would ensure myself that he was capable of calling good plays at the right time, then I would let him call most of the plays himself. If I saw a chance to use a particular play at a particular time, I would then send in a sub with the play. To me, that is the essence of a good quarterback, a true field general leading his troops.

If you believe Ralph Friegden, Godsey was extremely good at knowing which play to call.

So you don't like it because it upsets your sensibilities of what football should look like. All I can say to that is everybody is entitled an opinion. However, its within the rules so I don't think it creates any unfair advantage. I think it's goofy looking too, but as a fan, I'd be more concerned with how effective it is.

 

[Animal02]

So you don't like it because it upsets your sensibilities of what football should look like. All I can say to that is everybody is entitled an opinion. However, its within the rules so I don't think it creates any unfair advantage. I think it's goofy looking too, but as a fan, I'd be more concerned with how effective it is.

If the line is "set" i.e. they can snap the ball without penalty, then I think it is an unfair advantage.

 

[Rodney Kent]

dressedcheese: Yes, you are correct, I do not like it even though it is legal.

 

[decatur jacket]

If the line is "set" i.e. they can snap the ball without penalty, then I think it is an unfair advantage.

Why not just make the rule that once the center has grasped the ball to prepare to snap, the linemen are frozen to their position? Its one thing to point to defenders, but a lineman cannot change his stance, or it is a false start. It's too common in these type offenses where a defender nearly jumps offsides because the entire line stood up from their position. My wish is that Gotsis would blow up a guard next time we play Clemson and they do this.

 

[gtdrew]

I think, if I were a DC, I'd ave a defensive player "lay on the ball" for three or four seconds after a tackle is made to try and get players on/off.