Rule change to allow for defensive substitutions....Plus Targeting rule change

[IndyBison]

I sure hope you're wrong. This is just a couple of curmudgeonly coaches trying to cram their agenda down on everyone else. There is no safety issue here and if some miserly group of officials take it upon themselves to "fix" this, that isn't going to do over well either.

There is a safety issue although not significant. I don't know if it will be enough to justify the rule change though. The normal pace under the 25 second clock was 12-15 seconds. The 40 second clock was done to help make the pace more consistent. We were still guided to have the ball ready in 10-12 seconds. This rule change was nothing more than trying to codify what had been the intent and philosophy of the existing rules that some coaches have started to exploit.

I doubt this was a factor in anyone's decision but there are several things the officials have to do between plays. Snapping it less than 10 seconds after the previous play consistently would result in issues. That's why I would expect I'll be advised to make sure all officials are are ready. This will still result in a snap every at 10 seconds or later but not necessarily allow the defense time to sub.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[56BISON73]

There is a safety issue although not significant. I don't know if it will be enough to justify the rule change though. The normal pace under the 25 second clock was 12-15 seconds. The 40 second clock was done to help make the pace more consistent. We were still guided to have the ball ready in 10-12 seconds. This rule change was nothing more than trying to codify what had been the intent and philosophy of the existing rules that some coaches have started to exploit.

I doubt this was a factor in anyone's decision but there are several things the officials have to do between plays. Snapping it less than 10 seconds after the previous play consistently would result in issues. That's why I would expect I'll be advised to make sure all officials are are ready. This will still result in a snap every at 10 seconds or later but not necessarily allow the defense time to sub.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

Then why put forth a rule that shouldnt have any material effect on the game?

[IndyBison]

Then why put forth a rule that shouldnt have any material effect on the game?

To codify the spirit of the rules and preventing teams from pushing the envelope too much. It happens all time in all sports.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[56BISON73]

To codify the spirit of the rules and preventing teams from pushing the envelope too much. It happens all time in all sports.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

Its because they can. Should have seen that one coming.

[IndyBison]

Its because they can. Should have seen that one coming.

Can't predict everything. All rules evolve. They used to be able to block below the waist a lot more. They used to not be able to use hands legally to block. High school rules allowed numbering exceptions on any down until some coach decided to do it on every down. If there isn't enough support for this it won't pas. Way too much is being made of it.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[Gully]

A lot of times these rules changes have unintended consequences. I think they've trade knee injuries for head injuries if you look at how the rules and game have evolved over 30-40 years.

Remember the Halo rule that was such a good idea?

[IndyBison]

A lot of times these rules changes have unintended consequences. I think they've trade knee injuries for head injuries if you look at how the rules and game have evolved over 30-40 years.

Remember the Halo rule that was such a good idea?

It's kind of back in NCAA. You can't be within 1 yard in front of the returner when he's trying to catch the kick. Rule writing is not always easy and they result in unintended consequences all the time. The horse collar rule was a good example. It took 2-3 years o updates before they had all the kinks worked out. Visit an officiating forum sometime after rules come out or early in the season when they are being used for the first time an you'll get a good laugh.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

[bisonaudit]

A lot of times these rules changes have unintended consequences. I think they've trade knee injuries for head injuries if you look at how the rules and game have evolved over 30-40 years.

Remember the Halo rule that was such a good idea?

I don't think there was anything unintended about trading head injuries for knee injuries. I think everyone went in with their eyes wide open on that one.

[Gully]

I don't think there was anything unintended about trading head injuries for knee injuries. I think everyone went in with their eyes wide open on that one.

Really. Hmmm. I'm not saying you're wrong, but why would anyone choose that course of action?

[NorthernBison]

I don't see the real need for this rule. On the other hand, I think the discussion is getting blown way out of proportion by people who aren't really aware of how things work now AND an almost universal hatred of Nick Saban. Mike and Mike were talking about this like it meant standing around for 10 seconds. They don't seem to understand that the play clock was increased from 25 seconds to 40 seconds to SPEED UP the game in conjunction with resetting it at the conclusion of the previous play making the spotting of the ball a non-factor in the play clock. Face it, we're talking 2-4 seconds here for the fastest teams. I have a nagging suspicion that this discussion was brought forth by Saban as a preemptive strike against those who might want to tweak things to speed things up even more.