Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[BamaFanAlways]

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.

A blind-side block doesn't bother me as long as it was legal. (In front, not late, etc). Defensive linemen get hit from all directions, no way to know when the full back, pulling guard, etc., will get you when you're engaged with the lineman. Those are part of the game.

We all hate to see anyone injured. But the game IS violent, and injuries happen. You can't regulate out all injuries, just try to minimize where you can.

 

[TexasExes98]

A blind-side block doesn't bother me as long as it was legal. (In front, not late, etc). Defensive linemen get hit from all directions, no way to know when the full back, pulling guard, etc., will get you when you're engaged with the lineman. Those are part of the game.

We all hate to see anyone injured. But the game IS violent, and injuries happen. You can't regulate out all injuries, just try to minimize where you can.

I agree, but don't you think it is pretty hypocritical that defensive players are getting flagged for these hits, but offensive players can get away with it? Anyway you sum it up, defensive players are defenseless in the majority of those blind side blocks. Personally, and I'm sure the entire board agrees, the game is fucking soft and I would hate for any more rules to be implemented, but this issue should be addressed.

 

[BamaTee1]

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.

I don't believe he was hurt. The game was out of hand and almost over and he didn't come back because it looked so obvious but that's not even the point. The point is you made a smart ass comment and dig toward teams like Alabama and I tossed it back at you and you couldn't take it and reverted to personal insults. We all should be like you and be so objective with our teams! However, I'll be sure to write 4down and learn his secrets.

 

[uncfan103]

Larry Fedora and Mike Leach make good points about rule changes. Leach's points have been mentioned. Fedora's are just as good.

1. You shouldn't be allowed to recruit more than 2 5 star athletes because that's dangerous when a team has too many more than their opponent.

2. The rule should extend the entire game, the last two minutes are just as important for player safety as the first two minutes.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I don't believe he was hurt. The game was out of hand and almost over and he didn't come back because it looked so obvious but that's not even the point. The point is you made a smart ass comment and dig toward teams like Alabama and I tossed it back at you and you couldn't take it and reverted to personal insults. We all should be like you and be so objective with our teams! However, I'll be sure to write 4down and learn his secrets.

Of course not you are incapable of an unbiased opinion.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

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

Whining - To complain or protest in a childish fashion. (Such as, 'might as well outlaw the forward pass")
No, technically, what you're doing is whining about a rule change that, no matter how much you object, you can't do much for or against. Saban isn't whining, he is supporting a rule change and doing so actively.

Now, Saban's reason for wanting that rule change may or not be suspect (depending on your point of view), but he is not whining.

Once again, I really don't care about the rule. I neither support it nor advocate against it. You are an outspoken opponent of the rule, calling all other arguments bullshit. Just wondering if you see the difference?

 

[LawDawg]

Larry Fedora and Mike Leach make good points about rule changes. Leach's points have been mentioned. Fedora's are just as good.

1. You shouldn't be allowed to recruit more than 2 5 star athletes because that's dangerous when a team has too many more than their opponent.

2. The rule should extend the entire game, the last two minutes are just as important for player safety as the first two minutes.

I'm a fan of Fedora, but no. 1 is silly. We can probably come up with about 10 more of those.

No. 2 doesn't make sense. Assuming safety is an issue, and I am not sure it is, they aren't saying they can make it where there are no injuries ... but they are saying they can reduce the likelihood of injuries by having this rule for 56 of the 60 minute game. It's a balance between safety and giving the O the last 2 minutes to run as they wish.

Again, I am shocked that those teams that run the HUNH offenses are apoplectic about this. :rollseyes: Aside from the safety angle, which is questionable, this is simply a case where the coaches/teams are trying to protect/advance their best interests.

 

[LawDawg]

Whining - To complain or protest in a childish fashion. (Such as, 'might as well outlaw the forward pass")
No, technically, what you're doing is whining about a rule change that, no matter how much you object, you can't do much for or against. Saban isn't whining, he is supporting a rule change and doing so actively.

Now, Saban's reason for wanting that rule change may or not be suspect (depending on your point of view), but he is not whining.

Once again, I really don't care about the rule. I neither support it nor advocate against it. You are an outspoken opponent of the rule, calling all other arguments bullshit. Just wondering if you see the difference?

Yeah, I am not buying the "whining" argument. Saban is just advocating for what is best for his team, just like the HUNH coaches are advocating for what is best from them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

What's funny is that no one is arguing about the other change for the flagrant foul. That's because it benefits all teams equally, and because pretty much everyone agrees it is dumb to overrule the ejection, but not the penalty, no one is calling the other whiners. So, it isn't that everyone is against changing rules, right?

Do you really think that Saban (or other schools that would prefer this rule) can't adjust if they have to? For them to be "whining" you would have to conclude that, and I don't see it.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

I'm a fan of Fedora, but no. 1 is silly. We can probably come up with about 10 more of those.

No. 2 doesn't make sense. Assuming safety is an issue, and I am not sure it is, they aren't saying they can make it where there are no injuries ... but they are saying they can reduce the likelihood of injuries by having this rule for 56 of the 60 minute game. It's a balance between safety and giving the O the last 2 minutes to run as they wish.

Again, I am shocked that those teams that run the HUNH offenses are apoplectic about this. :rollseyes: Aside from the safety angle, which is questionable, this is simply a case where the coaches/teams are trying to protect/advance their best interests.

Couldn't agree more, LawDawg. This rule (if passed) will not KILL the uptempo offense(title of the thread). It could hamper it, and will allow fresher defenses on the field.

Those who prefer offense (whether it be purely for entertainment or because their teams utilize it) will not like this rule. Those who prefer more defense (or their teams don't utilize it), will support it. Either way, the uptempo game will continue, as will college football.

 

[charlie42s]

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.

Show me proof that this happens on a regular basis.

I watched a lot of football last season and I can't recall a single instance(NCAA or NFL) where the defense got called for 12 men and a player was running off the field. I can only recall a few instances(NFL) where a defensive player was walking or loping off the field, because he was too tired to run the entire time and none where it happens multiple times in a game.

I checked all the Texas games there was only 2 12 Men on the Field penalties the entire season. UT had one against BYU for a PAT attempt. The other was against Oregon when they had the ball.

Neither was a case of the example you described. It can only be problem if the situation actually occurs, not if it just might happen.

 

[BamaTee1]

Show me proof that this happens on a regular basis.

I watched a lot of football last season and I can't recall a single instance(NCAA or NFL) where the defense got called for 12 men and a player was running off the field. I can only recall a few instances(NFL) where a defensive player was walking or loping off the field, because he was too tired to run the entire time and none where it happens multiple times in a game.

I checked all the Texas games there was only 2 12 Men on the Field penalties the entire season. UT had one against BYU for a PAT attempt. The other was against Oregon when they had the ball.

Neither was a case of the example you described. It can only be problem if the situation actually occurs, not if it just might happen.

Team A HUNH is playing Team B. Team B rarely substitutes unless offense substitutes because of fear of penalty. Wonder why not many penalties?

 

[charlie42s]

So, it's a hypothetical problem?

 

[WhiteMamba]

where is the data for the reason behind rule change?

it is nothing short of cowardly to use player safety to get an edge in a game of football.

I bet the teams that line up a 280 lb fb with a massive o line bouncing off the front 7 all game with the cut blocks and physicality result in more injuries than hunh.

 

[Codaxx]

where is the data for the reason behind rule change?

it is nothing short of cowardly to use player safety to get an edge in a game of football.

I bet the teams that line up a 280 lb fb with a massive o line bouncing off the front 7 all game with the cut blocks and physicality result in more injuries than hunh.

I brought that up in the face of criticism that more plays had to equal more injuries. You want to limit injuries, you should outlaw cut blocks and ISO, not HUNH

 

[potzer25]

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.

++

This is the only reason for the change. Offenses don't go more than 2-3 plays without a substitution and if they do it is rare. Removing this isn't about defenses being more strategic - it's about covering up for mistakes by defensive coordinators, pure and simple. It's removing a tool that offenses can occasionally use to exploit weaknesses in the defense for a couple plays. Those defending this change don't understand how often it really matters during the game.

 

[LawDawg]

Show me proof that this happens on a regular basis.

I watched a lot of football last season and I can't recall a single instance(NCAA or NFL) where the defense got called for 12 men and a player was running off the field. I can only recall a few instances(NFL) where a defensive player was walking or loping off the field, because he was too tired to run the entire time and none where it happens multiple times in a game.

I checked all the Texas games there was only 2 12 Men on the Field penalties the entire season. UT had one against BYU for a PAT attempt. The other was against Oregon when they had the ball.

Neither was a case of the example you described. It can only be problem if the situation actually occurs, not if it just might happen.

So, you are denying that one strategy of the HUNH offense it to keep the D players on the field? So we've wasted 750 posts over an issue that is a non-issue? Players are faking injury for no reason, and teams are telling their players to not come off the field when injured for no reason?

 

[LawDawg]

I brought that up in the face of criticism that more plays had to equal more injuries. You want to limit injuries, you should outlaw cut blocks and ISO, not HUNH

You do realize that there have been rule changes in the past for that very reason? For example, you can't cut block when a lineman is engaged with another player, yet that used to be legal. In the NFL you can't line up over the center who is long snapping. UGa had a crazy penalty last year where we got flagged because our rusher tried to jump over the wedge/blockers to block a punt ... evidently they passed a rule that you can't do that due to injury concerns.

As I've said consistently, I am not sure that the injury argument here is valid (I'd say it's not with what I know right now) but these types of rules are passed all the time, and we will see more now that they lawyers are lining up to get theirs. If it is determined that running more plays results is significantly more injuries, you will probably see the exact rule being debated.

 

[LawDawg]

++

This is the only reason for the change. Offenses don't go more than 2-3 plays without a substitution and if they do it is rare. Removing this isn't about defenses being more strategic - it's about covering up for mistakes by defensive coordinators, pure and simple. It's removing a tool that offenses can occasionally use to exploit weaknesses in the defense for a couple plays. Those defending this change don't understand how often it really matters during the game.

Whitemamba ... how often do you see the Oregon O go an entire drive without subbing? My guess is it is often. He should know.

 

[Codaxx]

You do realize that there have been rule changes in the past for that very reason? For example, you can't cut block when a lineman is engaged with another player, yet that used to be legal. In the NFL you can't line up over the center who is long snapping. UGa had a crazy penalty last year where we got flagged because our rusher tried to jump over the wedge/blockers to block a punt ... evidently they passed a rule that you can't do that due to injury concerns.

As I've said consistently, I am not sure that the injury argument here is valid (I'd say it's not with what I know right now) but these types of rules are passed all the time, and we will see more now that they lawyers are lining up to get theirs. If it is determined that running more plays results is significantly more injuries, you will probably see the exact rule being debated.

They are passed, but it is quite obvious a cut block is hazardous to a players' ACL. Those rules are quite different. Some are over-reactions to injuries, but all come from some evidence. I do not see what this is protecting. There is 0 evidence showing any correlation between HUNH and injuries, if anything early results are showing an inverse relationship. Worse those other safety measures were pertinent to every game of football from high school to the NFL. This effects a small minority of games and programs. This rule is meant to stifle innovation, widen the competitive gap of teams, and deemphasize coaching

 

[charlie42s]

So, you are denying that one strategy of the HUNH offense it to keep the D players on the field? So we've wasted 750 posts over an issue that is a non-issue?

Big 12 teams don't have an issue with it.

The number of games affected by fake injuries is very small. I'm familiar with only about 3, there may be more.

... teams are telling their players to not come off the field when injured for no reason?

This makes no sense to me. Why don't you try rephrasing your statement, because as written you're stating that some coaches are telling injured players to continue playing in a game.