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

[bisonaudit]

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

Because we've very good at repairing knees but we're very bad at repairing brains. Also, liability.

[IndyBison]

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.

The 40-second clock wasn't done to speed up the game. It was to make the pace more consistent. Crews weren't always consistent in getting the ball ready for play. Some would start the play clock immediately after the ball was spotted and some would wait 3-5 seconds. There are times when it may take a few seconds longer to get the ball ready (i.e. long incomplete passes when the ball boys weren't always on the ball getting a new ball in, post-play scuffles that take attention of the officials). By having a 40-second play clock the pace is by definition consistent. HS still uses the old 25-second clock and I wish we could use the 40-second clock. If the ball does not get spotted before 20 seconds remaining on the play clock, we stop the clock, reset the play clock to 25 seconds and then let it roll.

Mike and Mike pointed out what I think is the key issue from Saban's comments:

Our game's getting to where it's not about blocking and tackling," Saban said. "It's about how fast can we go so they can't get lined up. Is that what we want the game to be?

There is a potential injury issue due to a few more plays. Part of that is because the players who are playing defense are gassed and don't have the opportunity to control their rest period between plays. If you remember from your playing days how you felt after running ladders or gassers and then trying to execute something, you are less likely to be able to react to players around you (i.e. block) and protect yourself. It's probably not enough to justify the rule change, but it's also nothing.

For the most part we get the ball spotted and back away between 28 and 32 seconds. We'll pick up the pace a little if one of the teams runs a hurry up but even then it is still 30-34 most of the time. I doubt we'll be advised to work any faster than that. We have too much to do between plays, get back into position, get our counts and keys. I have heard nothing indicating this has anything to do with officiating though.

[NorthernBison]

Bottom line is we're not talking about 10 seconds. It's a few seconds in most cases with or without a rule change. I'd say few teams snap the ball with more than 30 seconds on the clock right now.

[Gully]

Because we've very good at repairing knees but we're very bad at repairing brains. Also, liability.

That's what I'm saying. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is that 20-30 years ago, a lot more effective blocking techniques were used but they outlawed some of them to cut down on knee injuries. The result was more and more passing and now we have QBs and WRs getting hit high repeatedly (traded knee injuries for head injuries). Not a good tradeoff in my opinion. It makes it worse when the rules have changed over time to favor receivers and hurt DBs. I think this contributed to the "well they may catch it, but we're going to make them pay" strategies where people "blow up" receivers.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but having watched hundreds if not thousands of fb games over decades, that's what I see.

[Gully]

I think we'd be better off in total with the way the game used to be played but maybe I'm just getting old and longing for days past.

[bisonaudit]

The 40-second clock wasn't done to speed up the game. It was to make the pace more consistent. Crews weren't always consistent in getting the ball ready for play. Some would start the play clock immediately after the ball was spotted and some would wait 3-5 seconds. There are times when it may take a few seconds longer to get the ball ready (i.e. long incomplete passes when the ball boys weren't always on the ball getting a new ball in, post-play scuffles that take attention of the officials). By having a 40-second play clock the pace is by definition consistent. HS still uses the old 25-second clock and I wish we could use the 40-second clock. If the ball does not get spotted before 20 seconds remaining on the play clock, we stop the clock, reset the play clock to 25 seconds and then let it roll.

Mike and Mike pointed out what I think is the key issue from Saban's comments:



There is a potential injury issue due to a few more plays. Part of that is because the players who are playing defense are gassed and don't have the opportunity to control their rest period between plays. If you remember from your playing days how you felt after running ladders or gassers and then trying to execute something, you are less likely to be able to react to players around you (i.e. block) and protect yourself. It's probably not enough to justify the rule change, but it's also nothing.

For the most part we get the ball spotted and back away between 28 and 32 seconds. We'll pick up the pace a little if one of the teams runs a hurry up but even then it is still 30-34 most of the time. I doubt we'll be advised to work any faster than that. We have too much to do between plays, get back into position, get our counts and keys. I have heard nothing indicating this has anything to do with officiating though.

My short answer to Saban's question is 'yes.'

My long answer is that's really a deceiving way to frame the issue. It's not about going so fast that the defense can't get lined up. It's about going fast enough that they can't substitute, and Saban doesn't like that because he's got a lot of depth and specialization on defense. He wants to change guys out after every play for down and distance.

I understand his motivation, but possession counts. One of the advantages of having the ball is you get to dictate pace. If the offense wants to put 11 guys out there, not substitute and run tempo, that is not unfair.

The offensive guys are in the same boat as far as number of plays and whether or not they're tired. If your defense is gassed, that's on you. There's no evidence that the rate of injury is higher as a result of these up tempo offenses.

[runtheoption]

My short answer to Saban's question is 'yes.'

My long answer is that's really a deceiving way to frame the issue. It's not about going so fast that the defense can't get lined up. It's about going fast enough that they can't substitute, and Saban doesn't like that because he's got a lot of depth and specialization on defense. He wants to change guys out after every play for down and distance.

I understand his motivation, but possession counts. One of the advantages of having the ball is you get to dictate pace. If the offense wants to put 11 guys out there, not substitute and run tempo, that is not unfair.

The offensive guys are in the same boat as far as number of plays and whether or not they're tired. If your defense is gassed, that's on you. There's no evidence that the rate of injury is higher as a result of these up tempo offenses.

Yep. Hey Nick, if you don't like the way the other team runs their damn offense, force a 3 and out. What a whiner. It is simply another style of the game. Defenses will adjust over time...they always, ALWAYS do.

[CAS4127]

Haven't seen this issue addressed: What about hurry-up/2-minute offenses that need to score to tie or take lead at the end of the game or even a team with the ball on their own 20 with 1:30 to go in the half and they would like to score before halftime? Seems this rule would all but nix that concept, unless there is an exception I missed?!

[IndyBison]

Haven't seen this issue addressed: What about hurry-up/2-minute offenses that need to score to tie or take lead at the end of the game or even a team with the ball on their own 20 with 1:30 to go in the half and they would like to score before halftime? Seems this rule would all but nix that concept, unless there is an exception I missed?!

Yes...this would not have applied in the last 2 minutes of a half.

[CAS4127]

Yes...this would not have applied in the last 2 minutes of a half.

Even that is hot good enough IMO. What about when a team who has no TO's left and wants to get the clock stopped on an important drive that has started outside the last two minutes. I call BS on this rule, as it would completely change the game and there are way too many scenarios where it would not be fair to apply it.