I hate the HUNH offence any how so I like to see the fake injuries.I honestly don't have that big of an issue with players faking injuries. It doesn't feel like a major issue to me.
I hate the HUNH offence any how so I like to see the fake injuries.I honestly don't have that big of an issue with players faking injuries. It doesn't feel like a major issue to me.
He's talking about you Auburn...I know we'll never see it but I'd love to see an official throw a flag on the defense for delay of game. It would be obvious in a few cases where a player looks to the sideline and then suddenly drops.
Yeah, it honestly seems like one of the few things the defenses can do since the rules continually favor the offenses. It would be nice, though, if they would balance the rules and folks would just play each other straight up.I hate the HUNH offence any how so I like to see the fake injuries.
How might this relate to someone like OSU QB Fields putting on a bigger knee brace and then throwing an epic 30 yard touchdown pass immediately afterward?Which comes, of all places, from Mike Gundy in the Coaches' Film Room broadcast of last night's game...
The idea is a rule change that if a player leaves the field due to an injury during an injury time-out, that player can't return to the field until after the next change of possession.
Thoughts?
How might this relate to someone like OSU QB Fields putting on a bigger knee brace and then throwing an epic 30 yard touchdown pass immediately afterward?
You could argue that making a player sit out 4 plays (a full set of downs) would help assure medical prognosis and care can be calmly and accurately administered.Have the breath knocked out of you and having to sit out an entire series is unfair.
I certainly wouldn’t have an issue with 4 plays.You could argue that making a player sit out 4 plays (a full set of downs) would help assure medical prognosis and care can be calmly and accurately administered.
As long as the rule allowed for the return of the injured player sooner if the injury occurred as the result of something that the opponent did. Like the helmet rule - if the opponent rips off the helmet, no need to come out for a play. If the player is injured because of an illegal hit, the rule would not apply.Rules are rules. If that became a rule every team in the NCAA should be held to the same standard. (Might be a good idea to spend time working with your back up QB.)
That seems reasonable to me too.I certainly wouldn’t have an issue with 4 plays.
I think what we don't want is to have kids start feeling public shame to come off the field when they really do need to come off the field. The rule needs to be structured and implemented with the spirit of "all players who say they're injured are injured." Not "we're trying to punish fake injuries." The last thing we want is a player who to the over zealous fan in the stands appears to be "faking an injury". When in all reality the kid really is hurt. But the kid, in fear of being publicly shamed stays on the field and gets seriously hurt on the next play.That seems reasonable to me too.
There's usually a down side to any solution, it strikes me that teams with better depth would be in a better position to fake these things. Which would just be another advantage a good recruiter brings to the table.
I wish there was a way to shift public opinion so that players would be ashamed to pull this.
Or we could go back to the old rule regarding the 00:25 play clock. I'll simply come clean and say outright that I despise these quick-snap gimmick "offenses"..... They're not offenses....they're quick-snap gimmicks...Which comes, of all places, from Mike Gundy in the Coaches' Film Room broadcast of last night's game...
The idea is a rule change that if a player leaves the field due to an injury during an injury time-out, that player can't return to the field until after the next change of possession.
Thoughts?
It's a tough rule to come up with, to be honest. If a player says he's hurt but not hurt enough to not comeback into the game. What's a reasonable number of plays to require them to sit out? I'm leaning more toward two consecutive plays. A mandated full set of downs is a bit excessive, IMO, and a full series is REALLY excessive.Buzzard, like always you make good sense.
I will say if I was a player, I would ashamed to fake an injury in front of all those people, it's kind of an insult to those that do really get hurt.
I agree with you. This would be really hard to codify. One challenge with a play count is keeping track. If it's 4 plays does that include plays where a foul occurred and the down is replayed? What if a false start is called just prior to the snap? What if it happens late in the 2nd quarter and there are only 2 plays run before halftime. Are they OK to return after halftime or do they have to sit out the first two plays? Does the kickoff or try count as one of the plays? If it's an offensive player and the defense takes over in those 4 plays does it apply to the next series or can they come back on the first play of the next series? 1 play is easy to track but multiple plays could get very tricky. It's definitely a good thought though.It's a tough rule to come up with, to be honest. If a player says he's hurt but not hurt enough to not comeback into the game. What's a reasonable number of plays to require them to sit out? I'm leaning more toward two consecutive plays. A mandated full set of downs is a bit excessive, IMO, and a full series is REALLY excessive.
I like the idea forcing the player to sit on the sideline until the next possession if it was determine through video replay that they were faking an injury. Some of the fake injuries were so blatant and obvious and negatively impacted the flow of the opposing team.Which comes, of all places, from Mike Gundy in the Coaches' Film Room broadcast of last night's game...
The idea is a rule change that if a player leaves the field due to an injury during an injury time-out, that player can't return to the field until after the next change of possession.
Thoughts?
Yeah, OSUs backup QB was an absolute dud and it created detrimental reliance on the team forcing the use of their star QB, even injured. The situation seems to me as a tough nut overall to crack because it’s hard to for an elite team to recruit an awesome quarterback as a non-starting player.Rules are rules. If that became a rule every team in the NCAA should be held to the same standard. (Might be a good idea to spend time working with your back up QB.)