Replies: 12
| visibility 1
|
Expert [1376]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1467
Joined: 3/25/13
|
Ok, so Offense takes over. First and 10. They send in a
Feb 14, 2014, 12:27 PM
|
|
personnel package. The Defense reacts and sends in personnel and a playcall based on the Offensive personnel.
Correct so far?
The Offense gains 3 yards. Second and 7.
Immediately following the tackle, the Offense considers down, distance, and defensive personnel. Based on those known variables, they can either substitute, or they can call a play with the same personnel. I the Offense substitutes, then the Defense must be given a chance to substitute. If the Offense does not substitute, the Defense can still substitute if desired.
Still okay?
Within a certain timeframe, the OC calls a play based on down and distance. Likewise, the DC reacts to down, distance, and known personnel (guys already on the field) or any substitutes. The kicker is, the Defense has exactly the same amount of time to make a call.
Is it unfair the offense is forcing the defense to react quickly? Of course not.
It should be pointed out, that ZERO coaches are claiming the hurry up is unfair. Their unsupported claim is that the hurry up can cause more injuries, even though there is no evidence to support that notion. If their stance is that more plays equal a greater chance for injury, then set a play limit for each team. Obviously that's not the answer.
Fact of the matter is simple. The hurry up requires defensive coaches to react faster. For some of these guys it makes them uncomfortable to have to make quicker decisions. That's all it is.
It's not unfair, which no one but Toogie has claimed, and there is no factual backing to say it's unsafe like a couple coaches have claimed.
So other than being forced to make quicker decisions, within the same timeframe the offense does, what's the relevant issue? Again, a coupe coaches feeling uncomfortable with having to make quicker decisions is not a viable reason to create a rule. That's absurd.
I'll be glad when the silly 10 second Saban proposal is tossed aside.
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2683]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2751
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not that I agree with Saban
Feb 14, 2014, 12:38 PM
|
|
but more plays certainly means more injuries. That's just math.
I personally don't think that this very slight increased risk warrants tampering with the competitive nature of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [255]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 321
Joined: 4/17/12
|
Re: Not that I agree with Saban
Feb 14, 2014, 12:54 PM
|
|
If these same people are so worried about more plays equals more injuries then why do get so excited about expanding the season? Next years national champion will have played what 14 games? Seems like a bigger risk of injuries than playing 15 extra plays a game.
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [255]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 321
Joined: 4/17/12
|
Re: Re: Not that I agree with Saban
Feb 14, 2014, 12:58 PM
|
|
15 games sorry. We were 12-0 in 81
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
I think it's all a bunch of hogwash but,
Feb 14, 2014, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to Re: Not that I agree with Saban ] |
|
15x13=195
Which equals two (2) very long games.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29036]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 36097
Joined: 8/28/00
|
While I imagine it is true
Feb 14, 2014, 12:58 PM
[ in reply to Not that I agree with Saban ] |
|
I'd be interested to see the statistics before I grant that there is any significant difference in the number of injuries between games involving one or more HUNH teams and games not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [907]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 984
Joined: 10/10/11
|
if the number of plays
Feb 14, 2014, 2:04 PM
[ in reply to Not that I agree with Saban ] |
|
goes up and you think it is a risk to players, then OT's should be eliminated for the same reasoning. And extra games such as playoffs and conference championship games.
What the injury nannies need to realize is that football is a contact sport. People who play football assume a certain amount of risk.
No sport is without risk of injury.
Saban's argument is without merit. He just doesn't want to have to face a fast paced elusive offensive team with his big jumbo troll sized defense. He wants to rig the rules so he doesn't have to adapt any of his defensive philosophies. Too bad Nicky!
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16733]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 16763
Joined: 8/19/04
|
Re: Ok, so Offense takes over. First and 10. They send in a
Feb 14, 2014, 2:27 PM
|
|
I think this situation there is only 25 second okay clock and the rule does not apply here
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 100
Joined: 2/21/05
|
Why doesn't safety matter the entire game?
Feb 14, 2014, 2:51 PM
|
|
Why is it ok the final two minutes of the half if it's to prevent injury? It's allowed at the exact point in the game when players are most tired!? It's about competitive advantage pure & simple. Limiting this offense benefits the old guard and injuries is a cover to pass a rule change through the back door.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22361
Joined: 4/24/04
|
So that teams can still spike the ball and stuff in
Feb 14, 2014, 2:56 PM
|
|
hurry up situations at the end of the game. As much BS as the proposed rule is now, it would be infinitely worse if defenses could sub and make you run off 15 seconds when trying to spike the ball...
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 100
Joined: 2/21/05
|
Two minutes per half is absurd
Feb 14, 2014, 2:56 PM
|
|
So a team down by 10 with 5 minutes to play can't run a hurry up offense? The ramifications of this insane rule too numerous to list. I'd prefer adding a 4th time out per half than this garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7297]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2763
Joined: 11/24/13
|
I don't really care either way...but this is the best post
Feb 14, 2014, 3:14 PM
|
|
(out of many) that I have seen on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 12
| visibility 1
|
|
|