Rules Committee recommends 10 second substitution window

AUTigers001 said:

Because this thread is about the HUNH being a player safety issue. As far as the 'level of competition' being the cause of greater injury rates in the NFL, that also supports my claim that the SEC has a higher injury rate because of the level of play -- not because of anything associated with offensive style employed. That being the case, the rule proposal has no real merit as it is currently stated.

The HUNH is not a player safety issue. If people are concerned that their defense is on the field more for more snaps than their offense is, resulting in 'player fatigue' - which has the potential to, possibly, contribute to an injury, there is no rule change that can effectively change that. If a team is so fatigued that it can't function normally it's time to call a time out.

Click to expand...

This thread isn't just about player safety. It's about using the rules to garner an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have as well. The HUNH, especially the way Gus wants it run, huddles at the offensive line so as to prevent the defense from making any substitutions whether for strategic reasons or because a player is too tired to play effectively.

If what we want is to really speed the game up why not just eliminate the clock altogether then both sides can just lineup similar to a rugby scrum and have at it.

TIDE-HSV said:

It's about safety also. Saban believes that and so do I...

Click to expand...

So do I Earle. I should probably have used blue font for that last sentence.

RTR91 said:

I get what you're saying. I've thought about that myself. We huddle most of the time, which allows for the defense to substitute. They are able to keep players fresh throughout a drive. By not allowing substitution, HUNH offenses cause players to fatigue faster.

Click to expand...

i get that, but if the issue is injury from fatigue, our plan is essentially to wear down every player on their defense, right? have the o-line maul their d-line and backers and let the linemen getting to the second level and the runners smash their backers and defensive backs to pulp until they are so weakened by the 4th quarter that they essentially tap out. if they're so whipped with 15 minutes left in the game don't they also run a seriously heightened risk of injury? i just find there to be somewhat of a disconnect in saying that one form of offense that aims at exhausting the opponent physically is so much more nefarious than another offensive system that aims at exhausting the opponent physically. the point is to wear the opponent out so thoroughly that at some point in the game (be it sooner or later) that they simply can't play anymore...and that's when the injuries supposedly increase.

The biggest argument against this rule is that there is no substantial evidence that the HUNH offense causes injury to players. Does the NCAA rules require there has to be substantial evidence that it causes injuries to make this rule or can common sense prevail. I mean there is no study to show if i step in front of a train it will hurt me, but I know if i do it will kill me.

stew0729 said:

The biggest argument against this rule is that there is no substantial evidence that the HUNH offense causes injury to players. Does the NCAA rules require there has to be substantial evidence that it causes injuries to make this rule or can common sense prevail. I mean there is no study to show if i step in front of a train it will hurt me, but I know if i do it will kill me.

Click to expand...

This is the thing, why on earth should it need to show it can cause injuries? In the original article, a coach cited an example of not being able to remove an injured player from a game. Does it matter if the hurry up was why he got hurt? What matters is he was hurt and he couldn't exit the game.

There won't be enough actual data for either side to win. The NCAA doesn't require an injury report like the NFL, so a coach doesn't have to say a player is injured or how severe an injury is. Thus, researchers will have a fairly difficult time finding out the info needed/wanted.

I don't think this is like a court of law. Injury prevention and sport safety is one of those things that really don't need a "smoking gun" from sport organizations. Remember that the NCAA is ran by the Universities and they are about student safety.

stew0729 said:

The biggest argument against this rule is that there is no substantial evidence that the HUNH offense causes injury to players. Does the NCAA rules require there has to be substantial evidence that it causes injuries to make this rule or can common sense prevail. I mean there is no study to show if i step in front of a train it will hurt me, but I know if i do it will kill me.

Click to expand...

AUTigers001 said:

Because this thread is about the HUNH being a player safety issue. As far as the 'level of competition' being the cause of greater injury rates in the NFL, that also supports my claim that the SEC has a higher injury rate because of the level of play -- not because of anything associated with offensive style employed. That being the case, the rule proposal has no real merit as it is currently stated.

The HUNH is not a player safety issue.

Click to expand...

How do you know? How many injuries did the SEC have last year on average? How about the 2 - 5 years before? Without knowing all the data, you cannot prove isn't a safety issue any more than I can prove it is a safety issue with the same data. I do know for a fact I see 300+ lb defensive linemen hitting the ground because they can no longer stand. I didn't see that before the HUNH. I saw exhausted DL tap their helmets, and another guy ran on to take his place.

If people are concerned that their defense is on the field more for more snaps than their offense is, resulting in 'player fatigue' - which has the potential to, possibly, contribute to an injury, there is no rule change that can effectively change that. If a team is so fatigued that it can't function normally it's time to call a time out.[/b]

Click to expand...

That's the point though - the HUNH only acheives that fatique by exploiting the fact that defense cannot substitute. For HUNH people saying "It's never been a problem before!" and "It's within the rules!", this is only because this type of offense has not been run in the past.

Years ago in racing, a rule was mandated that every car had to have the same size fuel tank. Some teams started using 3" fuel lines under the car that held more fuel to get more laps. This was "within the rules!". The rules had to be changed to mandate a certain diameter and length fuel to level the playing field. That is the same thing that has happened here. The HUNH exploits the CURRENT rules to gain a competitive advantage by not allowing the defense to rotate their players.

The funny thing is that these HUNH coaches know that this is what their whole offensive philosophy is built upon. This rule scares them to death because they they will have to face a defense that can rotate its players and makes calls to counter what the offense is doing. Under the current rules, you have QB's yelling at referees to spot the ball and have referees stumbling around trying to get in position to officiate the game. I also did not see this before HUNH offenses came around.

TIDE-HSV said:

It's about safety also. Saban believes that and so do I...

Click to expand...

Just to reaffirm from about 8 pages ago...Totally agree with this.

TideFan in AU said:

How do you know? How many injuries did the SEC have last year on average? How about the 2 - 5 years before? Without knowing all the data, you cannot prove isn't a safety issue any more than I can prove it is a safety issue with the same data. I do know for a fact I see 300+ lb defensive linemen hitting the ground because they can no longer stand. I didn't see that before the HUNH. I saw exhausted DL tap their helmets, and another guy ran on to take his place.

Click to expand...

TIDE-HSV said:

I don't think you understand. The rule change is specifically to allow the rules already on the books to be enforced - as they are no being now...

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm naive, but I think this can be accomplished without the 10 sec rule. just better educate the refs. Get them to quit hurrying their pace just because the offense is hurrying. Allow defensive substitutions anytime the offense subs OR anytime the offense simulates a substitution. If the qb or another player runs half way to the sideline to get a play from the sideline, that is simulating a substitution and should result in a 3 sec delay to allow defense to sub.

RTR91 said:

There won't be enough actual data for either side to win. The NCAA doesn't require an injury report like the NFL, so a coach doesn't have to say a player is injured or how severe an injury is. Thus, researchers will have a fairly difficult time finding out the info needed/wanted.

Click to expand...

Not only is there not enough actual data but you can't always pinpoint what caused an injury or when it happened.

By the way, I wanted to comment on something related to this from Stewart Mandel, when he was citing Saban and Bielema as going to the NCAA about this:

"Last season his (Saban's) offense ranked 116th out of 125 FBS teams in plays run per game (65.9). Bielema, who as the coach at Wisconsin described his old-school style of offense as "real American football," oversaw an Arkansas offense that ranked 121st (64.7)."

Hmm. Of course, most of our games are over at halftime (and we send in Blake Sims to not turn it over but hand it off) and Arkansas probably led the country in three and outs last year.

If I wanted to watch HUNH, I'd watch Arena Football. I don't. And I don't watch track meets, either. If you can't recruit the athletes to get up and mix it up in the trenches, find another line of work.

I think the clock rules need to be adjusted before mandating a maximum time on the play clock for snaps. I'm not so worried about defenders having to play 10 straight plays on a drive where the offense clicks. This is still a sport about the balance of size, strength, speed, and endurance. If our NTs are becoming ineffectual after a few long drives early in the game then we need to reconsider our personnel decisions long-term.

The real issue is the combination of the no-huddle and a clock that stops so much that it adds 15-20 more snaps per game on average compared to the NFL. I lean towards changing the clock rules instead regulating the no-huddle offense directly. The clock rules being more NFL like would self-regulate no-huddle practitioners because they'd have to weigh the balance in a more possession-valued game. A quick misfire could sink you because the game clock is potentially going to hurt you more for that misfire.

I just see no-huddle as a strategy. One that coaches should have to cope with on defense by changing their personnel choices and tweaking schemes. That doesn't mean about 60% of the FBS having more snaps per game than the fastest NFL team is a good thing for player safety and longterm health. It means a lot more hits over a game and season (since this is the "thing" for coaches right now). Adjust the clock rules and we fix the real big concerns with player safety. All the other stuff about officials missing plays is on them...don't miss the plays, slow the tempo down yourself if your officials are missing assignments due to bad positioning.

BigBama76 said:

This thread isn't just about player safety. It's about using the rules to garner an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have as well. The HUNH, especially the way Gus wants it run, huddles at the offensive line so as to prevent the defense from making any substitutions whether for strategic reasons or because a player is too tired to play effectively.

If what we want is to really speed the game up why not just eliminate the clock altogether then both sides can just lineup similar to a rugby scrum and have at it.

Click to expand...

The more I have heard about this, the more I wonder if this really IS about player safety. While that issue is definitely important, I'm beginning to think that the issue is more about referees and their ability to reliably ref a game with the HUNH attack. Any good defensive coach teaches his players to read keys... and when refs are so gassed they miss calls that were keys to your players, that has to be frustrating. AU's last TD from scrimmage had OL illegally downfield - and it's a regularly missed call. At some point, you want a fair playing field... and right now, it's not there. Thing is, you probably don't get too far with the story of "the refs can't keep up with the pace of HUNH play."

BAMARICH said:

The more I have heard about this, the more I wonder if this really IS about player safety. While that issue is definitely important, I'm beginning to think that the issue is more about referees and their ability to reliably ref a game with the HUNH attack. Any good defensive coach teaches his players to read keys... and when refs are so gassed they miss calls that were keys to your players, that has to be frustrating. AU's last TD from scrimmage had OL illegally downfield - and it's a regularly missed call. At some point, you want a fair playing field... and right now, it's not there. Thing is, you probably don't get too far with the story of "the refs can't keep up with the pace of HUNH play."

Click to expand...

My thoughts as well.

BAMARICH said:

The more I have heard about this, the more I wonder if this really IS about player safety. While that issue is definitely important, I'm beginning to think that the issue is more about referees and their ability to reliably ref a game with the HUNH attack. Any good defensive coach teaches his players to read keys... and when refs are so gassed they miss calls that were keys to your players, that has to be frustrating. AU's last TD from scrimmage had OL illegally downfield - and it's a regularly missed call. At some point, you want a fair playing field... and right now, it's not there. Thing is, you probably don't get too far with the story of "the refs can't keep up with the pace of HUNH play."

Click to expand...

You may have hit it here. There are some OLD guys reffing. They're in better shape than I'll ever be, but...

...