HUNH, No Substitutions, Fatigue and Sports Injuries

[Bama Lee]

I hate it because it is a gimmicky offense that teams use who can't play head to head with good teams. They have to win by keeping teams from substituting.

The same used to be said, and to some extent still is, about the option and wishbone teams of old.

 

[B1GTide]

The same used to be said, and to some extent still is, about the option and wishbone teams of old.

In every arena, we look to create a competitive advantage. In football, the HUNH does so, just as Saban's defense does. I don't mind the HUNH - it is just another offense. But I am concerned about the injury potential.

But, as you said above, Alabama teams do the same thing in a different way by simply bludgeoning a team into submission. Yes, they get ample opportunity to substitute - but look at the defensive players in the 4th quarter when teams face Alabama. They can barely stay on their feet. Every defensive player on the field, substitutions or not, is exhausted.

Surely if the fatigue created by the HUNH is a concern, so should be the fatigue created by a team with a dominant running game, right. Yes, fewer plays are run under that fatigue because of the nature of each offense - but both try to wear the other team out. I think that the only big difference is that HUNH offenses achieve fatigue very early in the game where it takes quite a while for a standard run offense to achieve the same goal given the ability of the defenses to substitute during a drive.

 

[USCBAMA]

He won't be posting for a while. He's been suspended before, but he keeps coming back with the snarly, sarcastic posts. His shtick has grown a bit then. He needs to go back to the Baylor boards (I guess they have them) and stay there...

I guess I thanked his post prematurely...didn't realize his history.

 

[davefrat]

In every arena, we look to create a competitive advantage. In football, the HUNH does so, just as Saban's defense does. I don't mind the HUNH - it is just another offense. But I am concerned about the injury potential.

But, as you said above, Alabama teams do the same thing in a different way by simply bludgeoning a team into submission. Yes, they get ample opportunity to substitute - but look at the defensive players in the 4th quarter when teams face Alabama. They can barely stay on their feet. Every defensive player on the field, substitutions or not, is exhausted.

Surely if the fatigue created by the HUNH is a concern, so should be the fatigue created by a team with a dominant running game, right. Yes, fewer plays are run under that fatigue because of the nature of each offense - but both try to wear the other team out. I think that the only big difference is that HUNH offenses achieve fatigue very early in the game where it takes quite a while for a standard run offense to achieve the same goal given the ability of the defenses to substitute during a drive.

I've said the same in the past and been blasted for it.

personally, it wouldn't matter one bit to me whether my fatigue-induced injury occurred in the first or the fourth quarter.

I just don't see the great distinction between wearing out your opponent over 60 minutes as opposed to wearing them out in 6 minutes, but apparently there's an inherent fairness to a torn ACL based upon an hour of exhaustion as opposed to a torn ACL based upon 6 minutes of exhaustion.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I've said the same in the past and been blasted for it.

personally, it wouldn't matter one bit to me whether my fatigue-induced injury occurred in the first or the fourth quarter.

I just don't see the great distinction between wearing out your opponent over 60 minutes as opposed to wearing them out in 6 minutes, but apparently there's an inherent fairness to a torn ACL based upon an hour of exhaustion as opposed to a torn ACL based upon 6 minutes of exhaustion.

The difference is when you wear a team down 'the old-fashioned way', you're simply physically wearing them down. They can still substitute players, etc as needed - it tests their truing and their depth. The HUNH actively works to minimize a team's ability to rotate fresh players in. That's a big difference. One is simply out-playing the other team, the other is using the rules to cause the advantage.

 

[USCBAMA]

In every arena, we look to create a competitive advantage. In football, the HUNH does so, just as Saban's defense does. I don't mind the HUNH - it is just another offense. But I am concerned about the injury potential.

But, as you said above, Alabama teams do the same thing in a different way by simply bludgeoning a team into submission. Yes, they get ample opportunity to substitute - but look at the defensive players in the 4th quarter when teams face Alabama. They can barely stay on their feet. Every defensive player on the field, substitutions or not, is exhausted.

Surely if the fatigue created by the HUNH is a concern, so should be the fatigue created by a team with a dominant running game, right. Yes, fewer plays are run under that fatigue because of the nature of each offense - but both try to wear the other team out. I think that the only big difference is that HUNH offenses achieve fatigue very early in the game where it takes quite a while for a standard run offense to achieve the same goal given the ability of the defenses to substitute during a drive.

This is my take as well. A long, drawn-out 10 minute drive of punishing, physical smash-mouth football is pretty brutal in its own right. I do understand the substitution issue, but still feel there are ways to counter the HUNH without major rules changes. Slow the game down, especially on the offensive end. Milk the play clock down to a few seconds every play, run the ball, use controlled short passes, etc. On defense make them beat you throwing the ball over the middle (many of the HUNH qbs lag in their ability to do this consistently, plus that type play allows more time between plays).

I'm fine with keeping an eye on the injuries from HUNH and researching this further, but I'm not ready for knee-jerk rules changes absent any real data. It's a rough sport and at times is a very fast sport...soccer it ain't.

 

[davefrat]

The difference is when you wear a team down 'the old-fashioned way', you're simply physically wearing them down. They can still substitute players, etc as needed - it tests their truing and their depth. The HUNH actively works to minimize a team's ability to rotate fresh players in. That's a big difference. One is simply out-playing the other team, the other is using the rules to cause the advantage.

i understand that, but there were people 80 years ago who said the forward pass was an aberration and not the "old fashioned way" of playing football.

were we to doggedly adhere to the good old days we'd still be watching the single-wing and the swinging fence.

my dad's 87 and played in high school and some college. when he was in high school he said they threw the ball like 5 times a game and that when a local team implemented the "short punt" formation (which is basically the shotgun) and threw the ball something like a staggering 15 times a game other coaches complained that was no fair because it gave the offense an advantage over the defense and...guess what...that it was dangerous because it required players to run and expose themselves too much.

 

[GrayTide]

IMO it is kind of like SOS's comments when he was accused of running up the score. His reply was it was the other teams responsibility to keep his teams from scoring. It is our team's defensive responsibility to stop the HUNH offense. I still believe it is up to the officials to maintain a consistent pace of play for both teams.

 

[RollTide1224]

The only real argument against the HUNH that I really buy into is Coach Saban's point of "Is this what football was meant to be/Is this what we want football to be". To me football is a game that shouldn't be played at the breakneck pace that it is played today, it takes out much of the strategy that I find interesting, it creates a chaotic environment in which penalties are missed, and it generally simplifies the game to the point that it is nowhere near as interesting as I usually find it. It appears that we are losing this argument as a majority of people do like the 49-48 games.

As far as the player injury thing I agree with the general principle of more plays equals more injuries. A good way to fix that would be to change to NFL clock rules (this would help with the other problem of college football games taking 4-4.5 hours now). I agree with the others on here that there isn't much difference between long physical methodical drives and the approach of the HUNH teams, both lead to fatigue and therefore an increased risk of injury.

I'm kind of sick of hearing the argument that the HUNH is all smoke and mirrors and trickeration not real football. For starters I would point out that we have scored more touchdowns than I can remember over the last 4 years running the flea flicker. In my definition that is a trick play but I know I certainly didn't cry about it when Kenny Bell was hauling in 50+ yard touchdowns. The thing that makes football great is the variety of offensive and defensive approaches to the game. Some teams want to rely on strength and precise execution where sometimes want to rely on speed and forcing missed assignments on the defense through that speed, to me both systems are acceptable.

I don't know what people expect other programs to do though, it is really hard to effectively compete against Alabama running an offensive scheme similar to Alabama. The truth of the matter is we have an unstoppable recruiting machine, unlimited resources, a great defensive staff, and a multitiude of other advanatages that schools don't have. To respond to this they changed the game up and in my mind specifically devised a system to deal with the complex and massive defenses that were shutting down any pro set that they faced. I can't blame them. The Vietcong didn't fight us out in the open, the terrorists don't fight us out in the open, and there are tons of other examples of smaller/outresourced opponents resorting to "nontraditional" ideas in order to attempt to level the playing field with a foe they can't possibly defeat head on.

I don't think that the rules are going to change anytime soon, we need to adapt our strategy (like we all believe we are doing) to deal with these teams which are becoming increasingly prevalent or we will continue to struggle against these teams. I just think we are making too many excuses and complainign too much when in reality we aren't that far off from being able to stop these teams just like any other. We got caught in a transitionary period last year that was compounded with injuries. The defenses that we have had from 08-13 were very effective for their time as we won a ton of games and 3 national championships but a slightly different kind of defense is going to be required to repeat that success. I trust that Coach Saban and the rest of his staff WILL learn lessons and eventually return to the standard that we are used to on defense.

 

[BamaPokerplayer]

My main gripe is this. The powers that be have taken a lot of the physicality out of football in the name of safety. I remember a few years back there were several rule changes to limit the number of plays, in the name of safety, CUM fussed mighty about this. Our defensive players can not even put a solid lick on someone without it being reviewed by the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Securityecruity to see if he had an ulterior motive. Now HUNH are adding more and more plays to the game. Nothing puts a player more in danger than actually being on the field, and people want to act like it's not an issue.

I don't have a problem with no-huddle the way its done in the NFL.

 

[TRU]

I think that the real problem with the HUNH not that the plays are speeded up but the officials are allowing themselves to be bullied into also speeding up the time between plays, spotting the ball before they themselves are ready. The officials need to remember that they are the ones in charge and that they should not allow themselves to be harried by the coaches to start play before they are ready. And at this point they should be perfectly aware that the HUNH is encouraging the missing of offsides and illegal formation penalities and should be watching carefully for these. Coaches that bully the officials to speed things up should be hit with a technical penalty and if the harassment continues the coach should be thrown out of the game.

 

[CoachJeff]

I enjoy seeing Auburn's offense compared to the Vietcong.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The only real argument against the HUNH that I really buy into is Coach Saban's point of "Is this what football was meant to be/Is this what we want football to be". To me football is a game that shouldn't be played at the breakneck pace that it is played today, it takes out much of the strategy that I find interesting, it creates a chaotic environment in which penalties are missed, and it generally simplifies the game to the point that it is nowhere near as interesting as I usually find it. It appears that we are losing this argument as a majority of people do like the 49-48 games.

As far as the player injury thing I agree with the general principle of more plays equals more injuries. A good way to fix that would be to change to NFL clock rules (this would help with the other problem of college football games taking 4-4.5 hours now). I agree with the others on here that there isn't much difference between long physical methodical drives and the approach of the HUNH teams, both lead to fatigue and therefore an increased risk of injury.

I'm kind of sick of hearing the argument that the HUNH is all smoke and mirrors and trickeration not real football. For starters I would point out that we have scored more touchdowns than I can remember over the last 4 years running the flea flicker. In my definition that is a trick play but I know I certainly didn't cry about it when Kenny Bell was hauling in 50+ yard touchdowns. The thing that makes football great is the variety of offensive and defensive approaches to the game. Some teams want to rely on strength and precise execution where sometimes want to rely on speed and forcing missed assignments on the defense through that speed, to me both systems are acceptable.

I don't know what people expect other programs to do though, it is really hard to effectively compete against Alabama running an offensive scheme similar to Alabama. The truth of the matter is we have an unstoppable recruiting machine, unlimited resources, a great defensive staff, and a multitiude of other advanatages that schools don't have. To respond to this they changed the game up and in my mind specifically devised a system to deal with the complex and massive defenses that were shutting down any pro set that they faced. I can't blame them. The Vietcong didn't fight us out in the open, the terrorists don't fight us out in the open, and there are tons of other examples of smaller/outresourced opponents resorting to "nontraditional" ideas in order to attempt to level the playing field with a foe they can't possibly defeat head on.

I don't think that the rules are going to change anytime soon, we need to adapt our strategy (like we all believe we are doing) to deal with these teams which are becoming increasingly prevalent or we will continue to struggle against these teams. I just think we are making too many excuses and complainign too much when in reality we aren't that far off from being able to stop these teams just like any other. We got caught in a transitionary period last year that was compounded with injuries. The defenses that we have had from 08-13 were very effective for their time as we won a ton of games and 3 national championships but a slightly different kind of defense is going to be required to repeat that success. I trust that Coach Saban and the rest of his staff WILL learn lessons and eventually return to the standard that we are used to on defense.

So, from all that, I understand you are totally rejecting his argument that it's causing more injuries to the kids?

 

[IGetBuckets]

I think that the real problem with the HUNH not that the plays are speeded up but the officials are allowing themselves to be bullied into also speeding up the time between plays, spotting the ball before they themselves are ready. The officials need to remember that they are the ones in charge and that they should not allow themselves to be harried by the coaches to start play before they are ready. And at this point they should be perfectly aware that the HUNH is encouraging the missing of offsides and illegal formation penalities and should be watching carefully for these. Coaches that bully the officials to speed things up should be hit with a technical penalty and if the harassment continues the coach should be thrown out of the game.

Actually, a "Football Tech" for sideline harassment, after a warning, sounds like a pretty good idea.

I can see Teddy Valentine hitting Gustav with a Double T and telling him ...

 

[GrayTide]

I think that the real problem with the HUNH not that the plays are speeded up but the officials are allowing themselves to be bullied into also speeding up the time between plays, spotting the ball before they themselves are ready. The officials need to remember that they are the ones in charge and that they should not allow themselves to be harried by the coaches to start play before they are ready. And at this point they should be perfectly aware that the HUNH is encouraging the missing of offsides and illegal formation penalities and should be watching carefully for these. Coaches that bully the officials to speed things up should be hit with a technical penalty and if the harassment continues the coach should be thrown out of the game.

Too bad their is no technical foul in football, some of these coaches harassing the officials would be sitting in the locker room for the rest of the game.

 

[IH8Orange]

i understand that, but there were people 80 years ago who said the forward pass was an aberration and not the "old fashioned way" of playing football.

were we to doggedly adhere to the good old days we'd still be watching the single-wing and the swinging fence.

In fact, the forward pass was introduced to improve player safety. After 18 deaths and 159 serious injuries in the 1905 season, President Teddy Roosevelt (who'd-a-thunk that ol' "Ruff & Tumble" himself would have been appalled by so many injuries ) demanded rules changes to improve player safety. Representatives from 60 schools met to discuss changes (this is considered to be the birth of the NCAA rules committee) to the rules and the forward pass was implemented. From Wikipedia:

The New York Times reported in September 1906 on the rationale for the changes: "The main efforts of the football reformers have been to 'open up the game'—that is to provide for the natural elimination of the so-called mass plays and bring about a game in which speed and real skill shall supersede so far as possible mere brute strength and force of weight."

But, as you said above, it took a long time for the forward pass to become widely used. The ball that was being used in 1906 was essentially a rugby ball and in 1912 the shape was changed to a form very similar to what we have today. The change in shape made it possible to throw passes with more accuracy and longer.

 

[IH8Orange]

I don't think that the rules are going to change anytime soon...

The NCAA rules committee did "recommend" a 10 second defensive substitution period between each play. I have no idea if recommendations are just that or if they are actual rules changes. The article infers that there was actually a rules change, so I assume that it will be enforced starting next season.

It basically says that after the 40-second clock is set, the defense has 10 seconds to make substitutions and if the offense snaps the ball before the 29 second mark, they will be hit with a delay of game penalty.

I wasn't aware that this "recommendation" had been made. It's not in the 2014 NCAA Football Rules Manual. I suppose they'll get it in there before the season starts or they'll publish an addendum.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The NCAA rules committee did "recommend" a 10 second defensive substitution period between each play. I have no idea if recommendations are just that or if they are actual rules changes. The article infers that there was actually a rules change, so I assume that it will be enforced starting next season.

It basically says that after the 40-second clock is set, the defense has 10 seconds to make substitutions and if the offense snaps the ball before the 29 second mark, they will be hit with a delay of game penalty.

I wasn't aware that this "recommendation" had been made. It's not in the 2014 NCAA Football Rules Manual. I suppose they'll get it in there before the season starts or they'll publish an addendum.

It was recommended and discussed but did not pass to become a new rule. If the HUNH continues to gain in popularity (and it will, as it makes it easy for less-talented teams to compete with the better teams) we'll likely see it addressed. That rule makes the most sense, imo, as it not only allows the needed substitutions but also keeps the refs from rushing and missing things.

 

[IH8Orange]

It was recommended and discussed but did not pass to become a new rule. If the HUNH continues to gain in popularity (and it will, as it makes it easy for less-talented teams to compete with the better teams) we'll likely see it addressed. That rule makes the most sense, imo, as it not only allows the needed substitutions but also keeps the refs from rushing and missing things.

This was probably the scene outside the Rules Committee meeting:

 

[RollTide1224]

So, from all that, I understand you are totally rejecting his argument that it's causing more injuries to the kids?

No, I don't think I said that. The part of the injury argument I do buy is that more plays lead to more injuries. I haven't seen anything definitive to tell me one way or the other that the HUNH causes more injuries to players, I can't say with my own observations that I've noticed any increase of injuries as these offenses have become more prevalent. I hate to borrow from Beileima but I'm not a doctor or a statistcian so I'll resort to common sense. Common sense tells me that more plays leads to more opportunities to get injured. I think this is particularly true when you look at the PAC12 rule they implemented a few years ago attempting to limit contact at practices. They did it based off of some studies that the repetitive collisions the lineman go through lead to the long term brain issues. The way the game is being played now we are adding multiple games to the season with the length the games take now. I said that changing the clock rules to the NFL system would shorten the games which would be good for both a player safety issue and for a fan perspective IMO.

I believe this is the first time I've ever seen one of your posts not end in...