Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[Wild Turkey]

I, personally, don't care one way or another if the rule passes. But it's this kind of whining that gets on my nerves. The rule "might" impact HUNH offenses to a degree, in some situations, and this is the "DEATH" of the HUNH. Let's address a few rule changes that affect the offense positively:

Roughing the quarterback - didn't always exist. The quarterback was fair game, just like anyone in the backfield. As long as he ran the ball, he could protect himself. If he wants to pass, however, he is now somehow special... Why? Player safety? Bull crap. It's so he has a better chance to complete his pass without getting hit. If he doesn't want to get hit, hand the damn thing off. The rule isn't for player safety, it's to keep the game flowing and to protect the offense so more points can be scored.

Defenseless receivers - didn't always exist. They are no more defenseless than anyone else. It's when they are putting themselves in dangerous positions TO ADVANCE THE BALL that they are in danger. If they don't want to get hit, keep your feet on the ground and protect yourself. The rule is not for player safety, it's for the advancement of the offense.

Defensive encroachment - used to mean a defensive player was in the "neutral zone" AT THE SNAP of the ball. Now, if that same player crosses the line and the pansy ass offensive lineman moves, he is penalized, even though he reversed course and is no longer in the neutral zone. Player safety? Give me a break! Just another play to slow down the pass rush on a quarterback that is already protected by special rules...

In case you're lost, most of this is tongue in cheek, but it IS what a lot of you sound like. Rules change, and if they do, you adapt. If they don't, then you learn to live with them and go about your business.

Roughing the QB - Good Rule

Defenseless Receivers - Should only apply if they don't have the ball you can't just tee off on a guy that doesn't even have the ball IMO.

Defensive encroachment - At least they can get back in highschool you break the plain its 5 yards no do over period. I actually think these rules are in favor of the defense to some degree.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Let's look at some more rules:

Intentional grounding: The quarterback used to have to have a target to throw at, or it was intentional grounding, no matter where he was. No longer, just get outside the tackle box and throw it past the line of scrimmage. No player safety here, just another way to protect an already specially protected player.

Spearing - if a defensive player lead with his head, it is a fifteen yard penalty and ejection. If an offensive player does it, it is just "part of the game"....

Face mask penalties - if a defensive player puts his hand on the ball carrier's face mask and exerts any force, it is a personal foul. If the ball carrier does so, it is a 'stiff arm' and another "part of the game"...

Hypocrisy much?

Intentional grounding - I agree there should at least be a receiver near where he is throwing.

Spearing - Agree should be applied both sides of the ball.

Face Mask - Agree should be applied both sides of the ball.

 

[charlie42s]

I like how you chose to ignore how the defense should substitute before a player is winded. It's a simple solution and doesn't require a rule change.
... and there was a lot of SportsHoopla when those other unnamed rule changes were implemented.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I like how you chose to ignore how the defense should substitute before a player is winded. It's a simple solution and doesn't require a rule change.
... and there was a lot of SportsHoopla when those other unnamed rule changes were implemented.

N/A they just fake an injury.

 

[LawDawg]

If defenses find that they can't substitute on a moment's notice, they need to decide to substitute a play or two before they are completely winded. That way they can run to the sideline and not walk like an old man.

Since you apparently like low scoring games, let's just ban the forward pass.

This wasn't directed to me, but as to your first point the HUNH O is designed to never let you substitute so there won't be the likelihood that they could sub out a few plays earlier if the O doesn't want them to.

You also minimize the issue when you blame the player for walking like an old man. You know that isn't what is happening.

As to the low scoring games, I haven't seen anyone say they want low scoring games. Who said that? What I have said is that I don't like 55-45ish games. I prefer 28-21ish games where the D actually gets a stop every now and again.

All the pissing back and forth has taken up 95% of this thread. The issues here really aren't all that difficult to understand and each side's positions are pretty well set and thought out.

 

[BamaTee1]

N/A they just fake an injury.

Didn't Auburn do that in a game this year against Arkansas after informing the refs to keep an eye on Arkansas before the game? Thinking there is good video of it?

 

[LawDawg]

I like how you chose to ignore how the defense should substitute before a player is winded. It's a simple solution and doesn't require a rule change.
... and there was a lot of SportsHoopla when those other unnamed rule changes were implemented.

You miss the point ... if all a team had to do was substitute 2 plays earlier, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that you can't substitute 2 plays earlier because the O runs up the LOS right after the play and will snap the ball if the player is trying to get off. Penalty.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Roughing the QB - Good Rule

Defenseless Receivers - Should only apply if they don't have the ball you can't just tee off on a guy that doesn't even have the ball IMO.

Defensive encroachment - At least they can get back in highschool you break the plain its 5 yards no do over period. I actually think these rules are in favor of the defense to some degree.

Why is roughing the passer a good rule? Because it helps the offense. No defensive help here. Player safety? I agree, but not in the conventional since. Helmets are a safety rule for everyone. The 'don't hit me, I'm a quarterback' rule is to protect the guy on your team that means the most to the offense. If the running back next to him gets plastered, it's not a foul. It is a rule that allows offense to be played more safely, not a general safety rule.

Defenseless receivers - Can't hit anyone without the ball? Then tell your linemen to quit pancaking the defensive lineman, they damn sure don't have it! How the heck does this help the defense? Safety? see above. It allows offense to operate more safely, not a general safety rule.

Defensive encroachment is really a good thing for a defense? Yeah, it gives him a rest while the referee marches off the penalty! Good one!

Am I against any of the rules? Not really. I like offense and defense. But the rules are 'generally' changed to facilitate offense safety, not defensive safety. The one exception I can think of is the 'chop block' rule. It is specifically a defensive safety rule.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Didn't Auburn do that in a game this year against Arkansas after informing the refs to keep an eye on Arkansas before the game? Thinking there is good video of it?

No the defensive substitutions were already in when he went down, the player didn't return and there was no advantage to Auburn for that injury. Nice try though.

 

[BamaTee1]

This wasn't directed to me, but as to your first point the HUNH O is designed to never let you substitute so there won't be the likelihood that they could sub out a few plays earlier if the O doesn't want them to.

You also minimize the issue when you blame the player for walking like an old man. You know that isn't what is happening.

As to the low scoring games, I haven't seen anyone say they want low scoring games. Who said that? What I have said is that I don't like 55-45ish games. I prefer 28-21ish games where the D actually gets a stop every now and again.

All the pissing back and forth has taken up 95% of this thread. The issues here really aren't all that difficult to understand and each side's positions are pretty well set and thought out.

This^^^^The majority of the opposition to the rules posts are smart ass and sarcastic. Most the people on the other side are accepting it for what it is, being looked at, not implemented. This is the side that would like to see the game remain balanced. I've stood behind my comments, player safety and defense. I don't like the way they're going about it but I like the intent! I think an extra timeout or two would solve the issues and keep most fans happy.

If we mention that all rule changes to date have been pro offense-smart ass response. If we mention player safety-smart ass response. If we say defense should be able to substitute anytime without fear of offense snapping ball-smart ass response. If we mention high scoring games-smart ass remark. Get the theme? But the advocates to look into this are the whiners? :rollseyes:

 

[BamaTee1]

No the defensive substitutions were already in when he went down, the player didn't return and there was no advantage to Auburn for that injury. Nice try though.

Would you like to see video? Pretty sad acting if you ask me. Not our fault if he doesn't know when to perform. I loved the announcers pointing out how sad it was. No trying here-facts.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Would you like to see video? Pretty sad acting if you ask me. Not our fault if he doesn't know when to perform. I loved the announcers pointing out how sad it was. No trying here-facts.

I've seen the video but explain to me how Auburn benefitted?

1. The defense had already subbed.
2. They didn't change the defensive call.
3. Arkansas scored.

The video looks suspect but the coaches say it was an injury so either take them for their word or call them liars but don't pussyfoot around it. Man up and say that the Auburn coaches are liars and that we cheated or shut up.

Considering how Malzahn has been out spoken on the topic it would the height of hypocrisy if Auburn had actually done it.

 

[BamaTee1]

I've seen the video but explain to me how Auburn benefitted?

1. The defense had already subbed.
2. They didn't change the defensive call.
3. Arkansas scored.

The video looks suspect but the coaches say it was an injury so either take them for their word or call them liars but don't pussyfoot around it. Man up and say that the Auburn coaches are liars and that we cheated or shut up.

Considering how Malzahn has been out spoken on the topic it would the height of hypocrisy if Auburn had actually done it.

I'll go with option A! Malzahn even said it looked bad but he was not aware of it and never would back it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're the one who brought up with a sarcastic post: N/A they will just fake an injury, not me! I just pointed out an example.

 

[Codaxx]

I, personally, don't care one way or another if the rule passes. But it's this kind of whining that gets on my nerves. The rule "might" impact HUNH offenses to a degree, in some situations, and this is the "DEATH" of the HUNH. Let's address a few rule changes that affect the offense positively:

Roughing the quarterback - didn't always exist. The quarterback was fair game, just like anyone in the backfield. As long as he ran the ball, he could protect himself. If he wants to pass, however, he is now somehow special... Why? Player safety? Bull crap. It's so he has a better chance to complete his pass without getting hit. If he doesn't want to get hit, hand the damn thing off. The rule isn't for player safety, it's to keep the game flowing and to protect the offense so more points can be scored.

Defenseless receivers - didn't always exist. They are no more defenseless than anyone else. It's when they are putting themselves in dangerous positions TO ADVANCE THE BALL that they are in danger. If they don't want to get hit, keep your feet on the ground and protect yourself. The rule is not for player safety, it's for the advancement of the offense.

Defensive encroachment - used to mean a defensive player was in the "neutral zone" AT THE SNAP of the ball. Now, if that same player crosses the line and the pansy ass offensive lineman moves, he is penalized, even though he reversed course and is no longer in the neutral zone. Player safety? Give me a break! Just another play to slow down the pass rush on a quarterback that is already protected by special rules...

In case you're lost, most of this is tongue in cheek, but it IS what a lot of you sound like. Rules change, and if they do, you adapt. If they don't, then you learn to live with them and go about your business.

Whining is putting in a rule in order to stop the effectiveness of your opponent. This is not bring done for safety. I really see no point to this rule. 10 pages of bullshit and the only honest thing for the rule is that Law Dog wants scoring lower. Hardly a reason to change, but at least it is honest

 

[Wild Turkey]

I'll go with option A! Malzahn even said it looked bad but he was not aware of it and never would back it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're the one who brought up with a sarcastic post: N/A they will just fake an injury, not me! I just pointed out an example.

How is he supposed to back it up release medical records of the player? He didn't return and no advantage was gained if the kid was hurt and can't perform he should go down that is how all players are coached.

This is just BS and as always you are looking through crimson colored glasses to the point you can't even see the truth. I'll give credit to 4down20 in that he doesn't do this crap and even posted the kid was hurt in a thread after it happened.

You could learn a thing or two from him.

 

[TexasExes98]

I didn't feel like looking through this entire thread, but has anybody mentioned there should be a rule against defenseless defensive players? How many times have we seen a defensive player get blind sided on a block by a WR and nothing is called. We lost our LB for the season b/c of a block like that; I believe Edmonds (our MLB) lacerated his spleen from getting blind sided from a block from an offensive player. If you're going to throw flags on the defense for hitting defenseless offensive players, then there needs to be a flag thrown on the other side as well.

 

[Codaxx]

I like how you chose to ignore how the defense should substitute before a player is winded. It's a simple solution and doesn't require a rule change.
... and there was a lot of SportsHoopla when those other unnamed rule changes were implemented.

It's really not about that and that is what bothers me. This is not about subbing for winded guys. This is about getting caught in a Nickle vs a run package offense or vice versa. Coaches don't like getting caught in their mistakes and having them amplified. HUNH is simply taking advantage of the fact that offenses are more diverse and defenders are more specialized.

 

[Wild Turkey]

It's really not about that and that is what bothers me. This is not about subbing for winded guys. This is about getting caught in a Nickle vs a run package offense or vice versa. Coaches don't like getting caught in their mistakes and having them amplified. HUNH is simply taking advantage of the fact that offenses are more diverse and defenders are more specialized.

Its why Oregon throws away plays they will run for 2 yards see what scheme the defense is in and play for the next play for which they try to exploit that scheme. It's brilliant, effective and makes the defensive coaches earn their paychecks.

 

[potzer25]

Has anyone posted the average and max number of play in a sequence that the offense did not substitute?

 

[Codaxx]

Its why Oregon throws away plays they will run for 2 yards see what scheme the defense is in and play for the next play for which they try to exploit that scheme. It's brilliant, effective and makes the defensive coaches earn their paychecks.

It's one of the reasons you see smaller LBs and Safeties in the Big 12. Same thing in the NFL. Days of the 250 LB are done. You have to have guys that can play in space. There will always be a few freaks around, but in general you are seeing an explosion in the need for 200-220 LB athletes. It will change defenses. Look what Peterson's 4-2-5 has accomplished. I saw Strong decimate one of the greatest spread teams in the NC game with the 3-3-5. Chavis went to a faster 3 man front vs Aggies in the first game and completely changed the dynamic