- 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
Is this new 10 second rule really impacting HUNH offenses based on speed?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:37 am
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:37 am
LINK
I'm sure there are more, but this makes a bunch of good points, the best being that only 2 of Kentucky's plays in their first half of their first game were within 15 seconds of the last play ending.
So I guess what I'm asking is are both sides kind of bitching over the wrong point? I think the point is so defenses can match schemes as a drive is going, NOT because they are having safety problems. Much like I think the HUNH offenses are bitching for the same reason, since they can't exploit that LBer over the middle if the D can put their nickleback in etc.
I'm sure there are good points on both sides of the argument, and I would rather not get into a Saban/Malzahn/Bret/Sumlin type argument (so I didn't put it anywhere near the SEC rant)
Can you recall offenses, even extremely fast ones, running plays every 10-12 seconds?
I'm sure there are more, but this makes a bunch of good points, the best being that only 2 of Kentucky's plays in their first half of their first game were within 15 seconds of the last play ending.
So I guess what I'm asking is are both sides kind of bitching over the wrong point? I think the point is so defenses can match schemes as a drive is going, NOT because they are having safety problems. Much like I think the HUNH offenses are bitching for the same reason, since they can't exploit that LBer over the middle if the D can put their nickleback in etc.
I'm sure there are good points on both sides of the argument, and I would rather not get into a Saban/Malzahn/Bret/Sumlin type argument (so I didn't put it anywhere near the SEC rant)
Can you recall offenses, even extremely fast ones, running plays every 10-12 seconds?
This post was edited on 2/14/14 at 8:46 am
4
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:45 am to Buckeye06
It's pretty obvious that those pushing for this new rule aren't worried about player safety. Which makes the whole thing bullshite, since this is a no rule change year unless it's for player safety purposes.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:45 am to Buckeye06
I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess that Oregon under Chip Kelly routinely ran plays before that 10 second mark. They were ridiculously fast to the ball after each play and ridiculously fast to snap it.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:51 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I don't know this for a fact, but I'd guess that Oregon under Chip Kelly routinely ran plays before that 10 second mark. They were ridiculously fast to the ball after each play and ridiculously fast to snap it.
This is exactly what I want to see, because the article linked was about Kentucky. Who is apparently, from the article, running a HUNH to an extent. If there are offenses doing this, then yea I get the problem. I'm just not sure how often they are. Even on a normal play, you have to be set for a second, and the receivers have to run back to the LOS. On big gains, 300 lb linemen have to run 40-50 yards and get lined up? Is that not often like 15 seconds anyway? even with fast offenses
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:54 am to Buckeye06
It doesn't just impact teams the run the HUNH as their standard O but also any team trailing big in the second half.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:56 am to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
It doesn't just impact teams the run the HUNH as their standard O but also any team trailing big in the second half.
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
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:57 am to Buckeye06
I don't see how people don't have a problem with certain coaches pushing for a rule change simply because they don't like the way other teams play within the current rules.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:57 am to Buckeye06
quote:
This is from early in the year, but the fastest offense in the country after 3 weeks was at about 18 seconds average per play....so if the play took 8 seconds to run, 10 seconds between plays? LINK
8 seconds is a long play
Posted on 2/14/14 at 8:58 am to jg8623
quote:
8 seconds is a long play
That was kind of my point, that's an extremely long play, and there are still 10 seconds left between plays.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:00 am to EarthwormJim
There's quite a few that are angry in the twittersphere
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:03 am to Buckeye06
Recall that some teams don't actually snap the ball within 10 seconds but they often line up to do so to prevent the defense from subbing players. That's the real issue. 10 seconds probably isn't long enough though. 12-15 is probably what is needed really if you want to give people time. Not really for this rule change. I was fine with the D faking injuries when needing a breather and I see them doing that even with this rule in place.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:04 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
I don't see how people don't have a problem with certain coaches pushing for a rule change simply because they don't like the way other teams play within the current rules.
I would say that's the general impetus behind most rule changes.
As it is, the game has become ridiculously skewed towards offense. Something needs to be done to even things out.
I'm not sure this is the answer though. Check my math, but if a team averages 70 plays a game, this will result in 11 mandatory minutes of down time per team per game.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:06 am to C
quote:
I was fine with the D faking injuries when needing a breather and I see them doing that even with this rule in place.
you should never be fine with going against the integrity of the game...
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:07 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
I'm not sure this is the answer though. Check my math, but if a team averages 70 plays a game, this will result in 11 mandatory minutes of down time per team per game.
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
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:10 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
I would say that's the general impetus behind most rule changes.
I disagree. Also this year is a non-rule change year, so proposals can only be made for safety reasons or for modifications that enhance the intent of a previous rule change, according to the NCAA statement. There's no evidence that HUNH offense put player safety at risk.
That's like coaches pushing rules to eliminate blitzing under the guise that blitzing causes more injuries.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:15 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
There's no evidence that HUNH offense put player safety at risk.
I'm sure there has to be some sort of link between total plays run in a game and injuries. The more plays, the more hits, meaning more opportunities for injuries.
But, as I've said throughout this thread, would this rule really change that?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:17 am to Buckeye06
quote:
think the point is so defenses can match schemes as a drive is going,
of course that's what this is about... anyone who can't admit that is either an idiot or a blind homer.
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:19 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I'm sure there has to be some sort of link between total plays run in a game and injuries. The more plays, the more hits, meaning more opportunities for injuries.
There's no data to support this. I'm sure there's a link to blitzes on 3rd and long causing more injuries to QBs. Should that mean we should limit a teams ability to blitz?
Posted on 2/14/14 at 9:25 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
There's no data to support this.
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
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News