Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[Wild Turkey]

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

I don't know but I have seen offensive players on Oregon's team including the QB in obvious pain and will themselves back into formation to run the next play or literally roll themselves off the field to do so. The backups are always ready at a second's notice very disciplined in that regard especially under Chip.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Day 3 and its still going.

Kinda reminds me of this:


Let it go, its not gonna happen and if it does by some chance, teams will adapt to it in some other form.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

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.


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.

I believe that is actually what he's saying. If you're a starter, a major injury sends you to the turf. You come out. A minor injury, but one severe enough to affect your play, you stay in until such time that the offense subs, or you have to burn a time out to do it. Or, you try to get off the field, hoping that you and your sub can 'beat the clock', so to speak.

OR... you lie down for every injury, no matter how minor. And we all know how popular that is.

 

[charlie42s]

I believe that is actually what he's saying. If you're a starter, a major injury sends you to the turf. You come out. A minor injury, but one severe enough to affect your play, you stay in until such time that the offense subs, or you have to burn a time out to do it. Or, you try to get off the field, hoping that you and your sub can 'beat the clock', so to speak.

OR... you lie down for every injury, no matter how minor. And we all know how popular that is.

Except the examples that have upset fans are when the players aren't injured and fall down, after the play is over, when they look over at the bench. Then the player leaves the game for one play and comes back in like they were never injured.

If minor injuries are causing this much trouble, maybe a rule should be proposed that requires players who leave the game due to an injury, stay out for at least 15 minutes. This would give the Doctors/Trainers time to evaluate the injury and give the player time to recover from minor injuries. After all, we are discussing "player safety" issues.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Except the examples that have upset fans are when the players aren't injured and fall down, after the play is over, when they look over at the bench. Then the player leaves the game for one play and comes back in like they were never injured.

If minor injuries are causing this much trouble, maybe a rule should be proposed that requires players who leave the game due to an injury, stay out for at least 15 minutes. This would give the Doctors/Trainers time to evaluate the injury and give the player time to recover from minor injuries. After all, we are discussing "player safety" issues.

Now, you're reaching. You and I both know that there have been players with SEVERE injuries that have been 'booed' by the spectators because they believe them to be fake. An injured defense player is at a disadvantage, whether you like to admit it or not. The offense will wait to sub for it's own, so an offense player can immediately be taken off the field if his 'turf toe' is acting up. Not so for a defensive player. He is required to either play through it, or hope to be substituted when the offense subs, or he must cause an injury time out.

Is this just part of the game? It is now. Some don't like it. IF the rule passes, they get their way. IF it doesn't, things will continue as is.

Once again, I am neither a proponent or opponent of the rule. You asked if that's what he meant, and I told you what I thought he meant.

 

[LawDawg]

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

I assumed that safety was an issue in my response. If there isn't a safety issue, that is different. My point was simply that a lot of people here are acting as if the NCAA doesn't make rules changes for safety issues. That's nonsense. I wouldn't say there is zero evidence. More accurately, there hasn't been sufficient study done.

 

[LawDawg]

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.

What teams started doing ... and this is very wide spread ... is to say we don't want you hobbling off the field any more. No heroics. If you are injured, such that you have to come out, just stay down. We'll come and get you. That gives the D a rest, and is totally within the rules. This is different than someone faking an injury, of course.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Serious question?

Is faking an injury 'illegal'? Is there actually a written rule about it?

 

[Codaxx]

I assumed that safety was an issue in my response. If there isn't a safety issue, that is different. My point was simply that a lot of people here are acting as if the NCAA doesn't make rules changes for safety issues. That's nonsense. I wouldn't say there is zero evidence. More accurately, there hasn't been sufficient study done.

Only studies have shown that tempo is not the driving factor. Couple are in this thread. I don't think anyone is pretending the NCAA does not make rules to protect player safety. I think everyone is calling BS to people pretending this is a player safety issue

 

[Codaxx]

Serious question?

Is faking an injury 'illegal'? Is there actually a written rule about it?

I am not sure, but I am sure that it would fall under delay of game penalty. Defense rarely gets it for not getting off a ball carrier, ref would never call faking an injury. Impossible to prove a player is faking an injury in the moment. It is an act of cowardice and poor sportsmanship. Any coach teaching it should be removed from coaching young men.

 

[charlie42s]

Serious question?

Is faking an injury 'illegal'? Is there actually a written rule about it?

Nope.

 

[outofyourmind]

I can see why a defensive player stays down with even a minor injury like a cramp or slight ankle sprain. It's virtually impossible to get off the field in time playing a HUNH offense. A lot of those you can shake off in 1 play and get back out there. Sometimes you can shake them off before you even leave the field.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Only studies have shown that tempo is not the driving factor. Couple are in this thread. I don't think anyone is pretending the NCAA does not make rules to protect player safety. I think everyone is calling BS to people pretending this is a player safety issue

I think that 'studies' is a misnomer. There have been some statistics offered, but there has actually been no 'Study' presented. For EITHER side of the argument.

I would love to see some real data compiled by neutral parties, not sports writers trying to make a point, or people vested in the argument.

 

[Codaxx]

I think that 'studies' is a misnomer. There have been some statistics offered, but there has actually been no 'Study' presented. For EITHER side of the argument.

I would love to see some real data compiled by neutral parties, not sports writers trying to make a point, or people vested in the argument.

Data is data. Who and why it is collected is irrelevant. The important part is figuring out what it is saying. I believe it to be an indication that style of play is better indicator of injury than tempo of play. At least that is my hypothesis. Anyway you look at it the stats indicate that there needs to be much more done on the subject before indicting a style of play.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Data is data. Who and why it is collected is irrelevant. The important part is figuring out what it is saying. I believe it to be an indication that style of play is better indicator of injury than tempo of play. At least that is my hypothesis. Anyway you look at it the stats indicate that there needs to be much more done on the subject before indicting a style of play.

No, that is not correct. Is the data of a substantial enough nature to truly address the problem? Is the data accurate? Is the data even relevant to the discussion?

Example:
Team A plays only on Saturdays, Team B plays on both Saturdays and Thursdays. Team A has less injuries, so therefore playing on Saturday is safer, so Thursdays should be illegal.

If the data collected is not collected to address other major factors, it is not a 'study', it is merely data. It has no true correlation.

I'm not even saying the data is incorrect. I only said that I would love for someone who knows how to collect data and interpret without bias to have a look at it. Why is that wrong?

 

[Codaxx]

No, that is not correct. Is the data of a substantial enough nature to truly address the problem? Is the data accurate? Is the data even relevant to the discussion?

Example:
Team A plays only on Saturdays, Team B plays on both Saturdays and Thursdays. Team A has less injuries, so therefore playing on Saturday is safer, so Thursdays should be illegal.

If the data collected is not collected to address other major factors, it is not a 'study', it is merely data. It has no true correlation.

I'm not even saying the data is incorrect. I only said that I would love for someone who knows how to collect data and interpret without bias to have a look at it. Why is that wrong?

Data is data. That is always correct. The question is if the data is sufficient, meaningful, and/or being interpreted correctly. No need to start with the silly examples.

 

[BamaFanAlways]

Data is data. That is always correct. The question is if the data is sufficient, meaningful, and/or being interpreted correctly. No need to start with the silly examples.

No, Data is not always correct. Did anyone verify the results? People make mistakes, get feed bad information, etc. Statistics are fabricated constantly. As I said, I'm not even saying that what has been presented so far is wrong. But that seems to upset you. I tried to give an example, and that seems to have upset you.
Why?
Why NOT let someone who knows how to do it actually do an actual STUDY? I am not pushing for the rule to be passed, nor pushing against it. Just how about actually knowing, one way or another?

 

[HuskerOC]

This potential rule change is getting wildly blown out of proportion first and foremost.


It likely won't get passed due to the outcry of coaches and fans alike.


However, why should it not get passed?


Think about the rules changes over the past 5, 10, 15, to even 20 years or more. What side of the football have those rules favored? When have we seen anything remotely close to being a rule change in favor of defenses?


Hard to understand what the public wants. They don't want physical football to go away, but they haven't argued about any rules changes FOR offensive football. And now we get a suggestion to help bring about a more physical brand of football, and 95% are in the opinion to make it less physical.


Interesting.

 

[Codaxx]

No, Data is not always correct. Did anyone verify the results? People make mistakes, get feed bad information, etc. Statistics are fabricated constantly. As I said, I'm not even saying that what has been presented so far is wrong. But that seems to upset you. I tried to give an example, and that seems to have upset you.
Why?
Why NOT let someone who knows how to do it actually do an actual STUDY? I am not pushing for the rule to be passed, nor pushing against it. Just how about actually knowing, one way or another?

I said data is data, not data is always correct. Not sure what gave you the idea that I was upset I actually said the studies require more work on the subject. Basically you are arguing with someone of the same opinion for the sake of arguing. I hope you are a girl, because you are on your way to becoming an excellent wife.

 

[Codaxx]

This potential rule change is getting wildly blown out of proportion first and foremost.


It likely won't get passed due to the outcry of coaches and fans alike.


However, why should it not get passed?


Think about the rules changes over the past 5, 10, 15, to even 20 years or more. What side of the football have those rules favored? When have we seen anything remotely close to being a rule change in favor of defenses?


Hard to understand what the public wants. They don't want physical football to go away, but they haven't argued about any rules changes FOR offensive football. And now we get a suggestion to help bring about a more physical brand of football, and 95% are in the opinion to make it less physical.


Interesting.

Billion dollar law suite happened and people that have been seriously harmed by the sports of football. Pretty easy to understand why the interest in player safety. Not to mention 100mm+ revenue programs like Texas in college. Whether or not the sport is safe, they are going to do their best to make sure that they look like they are doing their best to make it look safe to protect the money of the sport