New duplicate number rule.
- Thread starter ALA2262
- Start date
Perfect! Didn't the three stooges have an episode where Curley wore a decimal or a fraction? This must be a very important topic if we can work the three stooges into the conversation.
At your service:Perfect! Didn't the three stooges have an episode where Curley wore a decimal or a fraction? This must be a very important topic if we can work the three stooges into the conversation.
I'd be in favor of no names or numbers on jerseys, just to hear Verne call a game.I wonder if this was Verne L's idea? Without it, he might butcher several player's names, but now - if he can just keep up with who plays offense and who plays defense......well, never mind - he can't even do that!
If we have any 3'6 recruits comes in, I am all for letting them wear 1/8.
What I want to know is why Moe is wearing Hydrogen Peroxide as his number...
Thanks for reminding me about that. Haha.Perfect! Didn't the three stooges have an episode where Curley wore a decimal or a fraction? This must be a very important topic if we can work the three stooges into the conversation.
And LOL, that is FANTASTIC! Bahahaha.At your service:
Sauce for the goose. It's not just us who wouldn't communicate. It's all our opponents, too.
Not knowing who's on the field would be a great equalizer for outmanned teams -- even moreso than the spread offense. We worked hard to get all sorts of advantages in strength, speed, technique and preparation. We outman, outcoach and outprepare just about everybody we play, and work hard to keep it that way.
I'd rather not sacrifice those advantages when it actually benefits our opponents more than it benefits us to hide the identity of players on the field.
Plus, it would be chaos to watch from the stands. All that to deny an opponent the same information they'd be denying us? It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Good question, especially on defense. Offense is a little easier because of eligible receiver rules and the requirement of exactly 7 on the LOS, and exactly 4 in the backfield.
Defense, where you can line up any way you want, is harder to prescribe.
It would be funny if some rebellious coach would field an entire offense that were all wearing the same number. Maybe all the third string had on #3. They could all run in at once and create havoc.
Is there some rule or convention against numbers over 99?
Is there some rule or convention against numbers over 99?
There will be, I'm sure, some leeway given when you have a team beating another team by 50 and they're emptying the bench of walk-ons. And I wish good luck to whichever official is charged with maintaining an in-game depth chart, anyway.
This rule was aimed smack at Miles and the handful of other schools that have started numbering certain players/positions with subterfuge in mind. It also, by a much smaller degree, impacts officiating (and will impact it more with the new targeting rules) -- if you eject a linebacker #50, and then another linebacker #50 shows up to take his place, what then? Is it the same guy?
UA wasn't doing anything improper, anyway. This wasn't necessarily a problem yet, but the rule change heads it off before it develops into one.
I think it was the 1972 Senior Bowl (following the 1971 season). Both John Reaves (Florida) and Pat Sullivan (I refuse to dignify that school by naming it) had worn #7 for their respective teams. Since they couldn't decide who would wear #7 for the game, they resolved the issue by issuing Reaves jersey #7R and Sullivan jersey #7S.
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
-