Here's one way to slow down up tempo offenses

[BamaFlum]

Why is there one official rushing to set the ball when his "team" isn't ready? The official spotting the ball should at least make sure the zebras are where they are supposed to be before signalling the ball in play. Otherwise, they might as well be wearing jerseys for the HUNH team.

This. When is the last time you saw the official check his "teammates" before setting the ball?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[KrAzY3]

Actually if the refs would just do their job as it is already written in the rule book then nothing will need to be done. The refs are to spot the ball and rule "ready for play" when everyone (including all the officials) is in place.

I agree 100%, and for anyone that sees this style offense live, it is immediately apparent that the whole point is to not let the defense get ready for play. I remain convinced that this is nothing more than a gimmick, and an exploitation. It isn't a superior offense in any way other than it tries to start a play before people are set.

Without a doubt, the primary issue is that the refs are treating it like a two minute drill, even when the game isn't nearing an end, or even close. I think we'll all accept that we don't want the refs to be the ones slowing the game down when it's a close game late, and we kind of accept that they're running around and trying to do their best to not have be the ones to run the clock down... but, come on now. There just isn't any need to do this the entire game. At least the NFL doesn't seem to be so willing to go along with this nonsense...

If I am a coach and I'm facing this sort of gimmick, I would try to insure I'm doing all I can to even the odds as well. I'd work the refs really hard, to try and make sure they're giving my defense the time it should have to get ready. The fake injury thing? It's cheap, sure... but we're talking about a cheap offense here. If that kind of flagrant bending of the rules is fine, what's the big deal about a fake injury now and then?

 

[JessN]

Again, you will just put a "Clock" within a "clock" and it will be even harder to officiate.

I have a one-sentence fix:

* All offenses must come to a set huddle except inside the last two minutes of each half.

No clock-within-a-clock required.

 

[Catfish]

I have a one-sentence fix:

* All offenses must come to a set huddle except inside the last two minutes of each half.

No clock-within-a-clock required.

In its simplicity lies its genius. DT_Armataz_01_37:

 

[AgentAntiOrange]

Uptempo no huddle is an exploitation of the rules anyway, so if this is the response then so be it. It's not honorable but it isn't illegal nor will the NCAA want to touch player safety issues with a ten foot pole. Hell LSU has been doing it for years against us and we don't even go tempo. But it gives them extra time to call down a perfect play.

I agree with some of you that the offensive teams using the hunh are exploiting the rules to their advantage, so it doesn't bother me at all if defensive teams try to exploit the rules in response to the hunh teams. I've been surprised that we haven't seen more of it, quite frankly.

Totally agree. Two can play that game, IMO. Don't try to skirt the rules if you don't want other teams doing the same to you...

I'm not sure what rule, specifically, is being exploited. Once the play clock starts the offense has every right to snap the ball immediately, just stand in position, whatever they want. If the refs are hurrying to set the ball then that's an issue to address with the refs but it is not an exploitation of any sort by the offense. I would also argue that for years and years defenders have lay on top of offensive players and/or the ball in an effort to slow things. IMHO, this is no different than offenses running to the line to try and pressure the ref to hurry up and spot the ball.

I do think that uptempo still hasn't been effectively regulated with their substitution equity. Especially when they can quickly sub a back or te for a receiver or vice versa and the defensive change doesn't get adaquete time to respond and set their player.

If the offense subs then the offense must also the defense to sub. I believe the ref stands over the ball until the defensive player has joined his huddle or appears to be in position on the field.

 

[Vertical]

I agree 100%, and for anyone that sees this style offense live, it is immediately apparent that the whole point is to not let the defense get ready for play. I remain convinced that this is nothing more than a gimmick, and an exploitation. It isn't a superior offense in any way other than it tries to start a play before people are set.

Without a doubt, the primary issue is that the refs are treating it like a two minute drill, even when the game isn't nearing an end, or even close. I think we'll all accept that we don't want the refs to be the ones slowing the game down when it's a close game late, and we kind of accept that they're running around and trying to do their best to not have be the ones to run the clock down... but, come on now. There just isn't any need to do this the entire game. At least the NFL doesn't seem to be so willing to go along with this nonsense...

If I am a coach and I'm facing this sort of gimmick, I would try to insure I'm doing all I can to even the odds as well. I'd work the refs really hard, to try and make sure they're giving my defense the time it should have to get ready. The fake injury thing? It's cheap, sure... but we're talking about a cheap offense here. If that kind of flagrant bending of the rules is fine, what's the big deal about a fake injury now and then?

Agreed. I just don't see this as within the spirit of fair play.

If in baseball we allowed pitchers to throw as many pitches as they could as fast as they could even before the batter was in the box, would you call that fair play? If he could throw three strikes when no one was up at the plate, how is that even interesting?

How is it a measure of how good of a team you have if all you're doing is trying to snap the ball before your opposition is ready? All that means is you're faster than they are. Is this a track meet? Or are we playing football? I feel like some teams would gladly snap the ball every play against a team that wasn't ready and couldn't defend a play and still consider themselves the better team? How is that accurate? Why not just remove the defense from the field, have only the offense out there at once, and give each offense 30 minutes to run as many plays as they could and see who can score the most in those 30 minutes? I mean, honestly, if what you're trying to do is eliminate any chance of anyone defending against you, by deliberately trying to snap the ball when they're not ready, aren't you completely missing the point of the game?

It's like playing against someone who has found some cheeseball exploit in an online game that you can't really defend, and having him be all proud of himself for 'beating' you when all he did was use one single exploit to his advantage, not play within the spirit of the game.

 

[257WBY]

If Alabama picked up the pace on offense, it would be very exciting to the fan base. AJ could spread the field with these WRs and destroy teams like VT. Nine punts, TJ under 100 yards, AJ under 50%, and no WR over 100 yards were not exciting. Kick returns for TDs were exciting. Clemson has beaten LSU and UGA in their past two games. Maybe they're on to something.

 

[JIB]

I'm not sure what rule, specifically, is being exploited. Once the play clock starts the offense has every right to snap the ball immediately, just stand in position, whatever they want.

This is not accurate. The play clock often starts before the ball is set and the ready to play whistle is blown.

 

[CrimsonPride25]

I would hate to see Alabama go to a HUNH style. The key to our recent success has been controlling time of possession and pounding the defensive front for 4 quarters to the point that they are exhausted by the end of the game. Not only does it wear down the opposing defense but it gives ours time to rest on the sideline.

 

[257WBY]

I would hate to see Alabama go to a HUNH style. The key to our recent success has been controlling time of possession and pounding the defensive front for 4 quarters to the point that they are exhausted by the end of the game. Not only does it wear down the opposing defense but it gives ours time to rest on the sideline.

Alabama has the depth on defense where it wouldn't be a concern. A pounding running attack is still an option when the defense walks a LB out to cover the slot. A back like Yeldon would have a field day. A smart QB like AJ would carve defenses up.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I would hate to see Alabama go to a HUNH style. The key to our recent success has been controlling time of possession and pounding the defensive front for 4 quarters to the point that they are exhausted by the end of the game. Not only does it wear down the opposing defense but it gives ours time to rest on the sideline.

Even more to the point - Alabama's success stems from discipline and execution, not sand-lot football tactics trying to catch the other team in a 'gotcha'.

HUNH might be legal, but it cheapens the sport. Those of you who think it's 'more exciting', well, I'll never understand you. I don't get the interest in watching football games with basketball scores - why even have a defense? It's far more interesting to watch the 'chess match' games where each team focuses on executing to the highest standard.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

If Alabama picked up the pace on offense, it would be very exciting to the fan base. AJ could spread the field with these WRs and destroy teams like VT. Nine punts, TJ under 100 yards, AJ under 50%, and no WR over 100 yards were not exciting. Kick returns for TDs were exciting. Clemson has beaten LSU and UGA in their past two games. Maybe they're on to something.

Yeah, they are on to something. They're onto realizing that the game (and its rules) has been tilted so far into the offense's favor that there's little to no room left for strategic adjustments by the defense. That's what their onto.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Yeah, they are on to something. They're onto realizing that the game (and its rules) has been tilted so far into the offense's favor that there's little to no room left for strategic adjustments by the defense. That's what their onto.

Which is why I have zero issue with 'faking injuries' - like HUNH, it's simply manipulating the rules for the team's benefit. Neither lives up to the 'spirit of the rules', so if one team wishes to cheapen, the other may as well join the club in their own manner.

 

[imauafan]

I have no problem with a hurry up offense at any point in the game, even the entire game, I think it can be fun to watch when executed properly. However, I think the refs should take their time to get the ball set and for the chains and down marker to be set, and they should strictly enforce the players must be set for 1 second rule and once set, they can't move until the ball is snapped. The refs themselves need to be in proper position when the play starts. Otherwise I think the HUNH is fine.

 

[B1GTide]

Yeah, they are on to something. They're onto realizing that the game (and its rules) has been tilted so far into the offense's favor that there's little to no room left for strategic adjustments by the defense. That's what their onto.

Still, it is not like Saban to leave a strategic advantage unleveraged - unless he sees a better option.

Managing the clock with lengthy possessions shortens the game and gives the team with the best defense an advantage. Saban isn't taking some higher road here - he is employing the strategy that best leverages Alabama's advantages.

 

[257WBY]

Even more to the point - Alabama's success stems from discipline and execution, not sand-lot football tactics trying to catch the other team in a 'gotcha'.

HUNH might be legal, but it cheapens the sport. Those of you who think it's 'more exciting', well, I'll never understand you. I don't get the interest in watching football games with basketball scores - why even have a defense? It's far more interesting to watch the 'chess match' games where each team focuses on executing to the highest standard.

Hurry up is based on discipline and execution. If it doesn't have that, it is a train wreck.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Hurry up is based on discipline and execution. If it doesn't have that, it is a train wreck.

It works because it doesn't allow the defense to set up - it's literally no different of an offense than what we run, it's simply a matter of not allowing the defense to get set. IOW, yes, the team has to make the plays, but by not allowing the defense any time to set up and read the formations, motions, etc, they're relying on catching them on their heals, so it doesn't require the same level of discipline and execution as the same plays do when run at 'normal tempo'. That's the whole point of the offense.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Hurry up is based on discipline and execution. If it doesn't have that, it is a train wreck.

Part of the problem is you've got the "undisciplined" part not being flagged. Go back and watch the Ole Mist/Vandy game. I kept seeing the ball being snapped and players not set. Heck, I can't tell you how many times I saw the ball snapped and not only were some of the players not set but the refs nor the chain gang were in place.

"Is this the type game we want?"-Nick Saban

 

[AgentAntiOrange]

This is not accurate. The play clock often starts before the ball is set and the ready to play whistle is blown.

I stand by the principle, even if my wording was incorrect. Once the ball is set, it's at the offenses' discretion as to what they do. If they are hovering over the ball within 3 seconds of the end of the last play then it's their prerogative. No rule exploitation. If the refs are hurrying beyond some normal expectation then that is on the refs, not the offense. I would think, however, that the refs are supposed to have the ball set for play as closely to the start of the play clock as possible.

 

[bamafaninOhiO]

As I asked above. Years ago when we began changing the rules on what a defense could do because we deemed it an "unfair advantage". Why didn't we just say to the offenses "then adjust". Yet years later after countless rule changes to benefit the offense we now have a situation that that the defenses are in now. We tell them "then adjust"?

because, like it or not, people like to see teams score points....we're from a defensive mindset, but people like high scores...

The HUNH does not work against teams that have the right personnel and schemes (See Stanford slow down Oregons offense)...

defenses will have to make the adjustments, and they will.

theyve adjusted before, see no reason they wont adjust again.