- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is this new 10 second rule really impacting HUNH offenses based on speed?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:29 am to Buckeye06
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:29 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I would think there has to be data to support this
You can think it all you want, but there are no studies or data to support it.
quote:
You don't think there are more injuries if there are 20% more snaps? I just think the nature of the beast is more plays = more hits = inevitably more injuries b/c of more plays. I'm not saying the % of plays resulting in injuries goes up, just that total injuries must
So eliminate overtime?
1
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:32 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
So eliminate overtime?
You just ignored my point. I'm 100% sure there are more injuries when there are 120 snaps vs. 100 snaps. Just a fact and not an opinion in any way
I'm against the overtime rule as is, but not against overtime overall
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:34 am to Buckeye06
quote:
Just a fact and not an opinion in any way
But it is opinion when you have no data to support your "fact"
Also why did college football got to a 12 game schedule and now a playoff system? More games = more injuries, correct?
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 9:41 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:11 am to EarthwormJim
in case yall are still wondering why this is being discussed under the guise of "safety"
LINK
quote:
In the NCAA’s non-rules change years, proposals can only be made for student-athlete safety reasons or modifications that enhance the intent of a previous rules change.
LINK
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:18 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
you should never be fine with going against the integrity of the game...
the game is ever changing. There is no way a fat Dline man is going to switch in and out in under 10 seconds. A better rule would be to allow something only during 1st downs.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:20 am to C
a better rule would be enforcing the officials to determine a set "pace of play" and not changing the pace they get in position and spot the ball from week to week, game to game, conference to conference.
As the NFL does. They do not cater to faster moving teams. Easy solution, IMO.
As the NFL does. They do not cater to faster moving teams. Easy solution, IMO.
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 10:22 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:20 am to C
I would totally be fine with this if they just would have suggested it in interest of the quality of the game and offense v defense.
When you think about it, why should the offense be able to dictate when substitutions are made?
When you think about it, why should the offense be able to dictate when substitutions are made?
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 10:21 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:27 am to barry
quote:
When you think about it, why should the offense be able to dictate when substitutions are made?
Do they? It's not there isn't a risk in running the HUNH.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:30 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
Do they? It's not there isn't a risk in running the HUNH.
That is the main advantage to the HUNH. They certainly dictate defensive personnel.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:32 am to Sofa King Crimson
quote:
That is the main advantage to the HUNH. They certainly dictate defensive personnel
Yeah, if they gain first downs and sustain long drives. Do teams that dominate time of possesion and keep defenses on the field longer pose an injury risk?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:37 am to Buckeye06
quote:
You don't think there are more injuries if there are 20% more snaps?
To play in such a system, you need to be more fit. Better fitness usually means fewer injuries.
But that point aside, if exposure to more injuries is truly a concern, then you should lobby to change overtime, eliminate stopping the clock for first downs, and getting rid of the 12th game and CCGs...
Posted on 2/14/14 at 10:57 am to Sophandros
quote:
But that point aside, if exposure to more injuries is truly a concern, then you should lobby to change overtime, eliminate stopping the clock for first downs, and getting rid of the 12th game and CCGs...
They won't get rid of anything that has to do with $$$ no matter what, so eliminating games ain't gonna happen (we are adding a game for 2 teams in fact in the playoff)
They can change things to limit the snaps per game, which they are seemingly trying to do (may be effective may be not)
quote:
To play in such a system, you need to be more fit. Better fitness usually means fewer injuries.
But that's only for the offenses. The other side of that is a D-linemen who is on the field for 13 straight plays may be more susceptible to injury from getting blown up from the side because his defenses are down and he is too tired to jump over this or run through that. Not saying I agree with that argument, but that has to be one of them being made
Posted on 2/14/14 at 1:20 pm to Buckeye06
I'll lay out my issue with this rule. Auburn, of course, is my go to example.
When Auburn gets a first down is when they increase the tempo, usually because they have found a mismatch and are seeking to exploit that mismatch for as many downs as possible. The issue with this rule change is that the play clock does not wind until the chains are set, meaning Auburn is often able to snap the ball in the first 5 seconds on the play clock. This rule change will give defenses considerably more time to react to and substitute out of mismatched personnel packages.
Reducing injuries is and has been a red herring.
When Auburn gets a first down is when they increase the tempo, usually because they have found a mismatch and are seeking to exploit that mismatch for as many downs as possible. The issue with this rule change is that the play clock does not wind until the chains are set, meaning Auburn is often able to snap the ball in the first 5 seconds on the play clock. This rule change will give defenses considerably more time to react to and substitute out of mismatched personnel packages.
Reducing injuries is and has been a red herring.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 1:24 pm to AUin02
Posted on 2/14/14 at 1:33 pm to AUin02
quote:
When Auburn gets a first down is when they increase the tempo, usually because they have found a mismatch and are seeking to exploit that mismatch for as many downs as possible. The issue with this rule change is that the play clock does not wind until the chains are set, meaning Auburn is often able to snap the ball in the first 5 seconds on the play clock. This rule change will give defenses considerably more time to react to and substitute out of mismatched personnel packages.
See this I absolutely agree with. Would you be fine if 10 seconds of real time elapsed? Because if you get a long 30-40 yard run, and the O-linemen are engaged 30 yards behind and the WRs are engaged 10 yards beyond, it takes at least 5 seconds to get everyone back to their spots anyway and you have to be set a second. So no matter what, there is 10 seconds of "real time" between plays I think no matter what
Posted on 2/14/14 at 1:57 pm to Buckeye06
Saban wants to sub at will on D. That's the end game with this rule. It's just slimy the way he and Burt are going about it.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 4:10 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
See this I agree with, and not something I had thought about much. Are they running plays faster than 10 seconds after the previous? If they are, yea that is what people should be arguing for/against
It doesn't matter if you never ever snap the ball within that 10 second window. The threat of snapping the ball is what is so precious to offenses as it limits defenses' personnel and scheme modifications.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 4:10 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
This is true, but isn't it only an issue if they weren't already using more than that between times anyway?
I did not know this is a "no rule change year" unless it was for safety. That changes my perspective a bit on it since it is an obvious maks
This rule is made under the impetus of being in regards to player safety, but that's simply a cover for its true intent.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 4:13 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
I would think there has to be data to support this, and I'm against the rule change.
You don't think there are more injuries if there are 20% more snaps? I just think the nature of the beast is more plays = more hits = inevitably more injuries b/c of more plays. I'm not saying the % of plays resulting in injuries goes up, just that total injuries must
HUNH coaches for years have argued it actually leads to a reduction of injuries. You have to take into account the nature of a play versus simply an analytical breakdown of percentages vs total occurences.
Do you think someone is more likely to get injured on a double tight HB wham with 8 guys in the box and bone-jarring collisions at every level or is it more likely someone will get injured on a quick screen to a WR where the OL and DL basically just stand there?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 4:17 pm to FootballNostradamus
College football has always been great because it's fueled by innovation.
All great new things in football - began in college.
There should never be any legislation that restricts the way you can achieve the purpose of getting the ball over the goal line anyway/anyhow.
This is like putting a time-lock/capsule on CFB...and saying...this is what it must be - Woody and Bo ball. Lets go back to the 60's and freeze the sport in time.
All great new things in football - began in college.
There should never be any legislation that restricts the way you can achieve the purpose of getting the ball over the goal line anyway/anyhow.
This is like putting a time-lock/capsule on CFB...and saying...this is what it must be - Woody and Bo ball. Lets go back to the 60's and freeze the sport in time.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News