Changes to college football rules proposed

[wizards8507]

I'm not looking for a rule change that necessarily helps or hurts my team's particular style of play. Just a chance for the D to have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. No more, no less. I'd be completely against a rule that said defenses had 20 seconds to sub all the players they want and offenses weren't allowed to sub at all. I just want a fair system that doesn't allow one side a marked advantage and hamstrings the other.

I'm probably allowing some personal taste to come into this on another level though. I absolutely hate the point-a-minute, no defense, 64-59, 1400 yards of total offense, basketball on grass type games we see from Baylor, Oregon, etc. I'm old school. I like smash-mouth, grown man football where defense is as important as offense.

*Smashes head through wall.*

I must have said this ten times. The defense DOES have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. The following scenarios are ALL legal and possible under the CURRENT rules.

1. The offense substitutes and the defense does not.
2. The defense substitutes and the offense does not.
3. Both the offense and the defense substitute.
4. Neither the offense nor the defense substitutes.

 

[GowerND11]

I'm not looking for a rule change that necessarily helps or hurts my team's particular style of play. Just a chance for the D to have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. No more, no less. I'd be completely against a rule that said defenses had 20 seconds to sub all the players they want and offenses weren't allowed to sub at all. I just want a fair system that doesn't allow one side a marked advantage and hamstrings the other.

I'm probably allowing some personal taste to come into this on another level though. I absolutely hate the point-a-minute, no defense, 64-59, 1400 yards of total offense, basketball on grass type games we see from Baylor, Oregon, etc. I'm old school. I like smash-mouth, grown man football where defense is as important as offense.

I love smash mouth football, but you are missing the point. The defense can substitute if they want. If they do it quickly enough and they do it properly. It isn't like the substitution rule is new. The offense has an advantage on subbing, so what? I agree with many that the game is too offensive oriented (contact on passing plays comes to mind) but the defense can prevent the hurry up from hurting them by getting stops.

 

[T Town Tommy]

*Smashes head through wall.*

I must have said this ten times. The defense DOES have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. The following scenarios are ALL legal and possible under the CURRENT rules.

1. The offense substitutes and the defense does not.
2. The defense substitutes and the offense does not.
3. Both the offense and the defense substitute.
4. Neither the offense nor the defense substitutes.

But # 2 is taken away by HUNH offenses. Look at my Auburn example. 92% of the time, Auburn doesn't snap the ball until 20-30 seconds are off the clock. What they do is take away option 2 for the defense by standing over the ball. The whole intent is to snap the ball IF the defense tries to substitute.

 

[wizards8507]

And I don't believe there is a rule that says flopping is a penalty. And how would one go about penalizing a team if a player flopped? what if they were truly hurt? Just throwing out the counter argument here.

Rule 3, Article 5, paragraph a.

To curtail a possible time-gaining advantage by feigning injuries, attention is directed to the strongly worded statement in The Football Code (Coaching Ethics, Section h).

The Football Code, Coaching Ethics, Section h.

Feigning an injury for any reason is unethical. An injured player must be given full protection under the rules, but feigning injury is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and contrary to the spirit of the rules. Such tactics cannot be tolerated among sportsmen of integrity.

 

[Bishop2b5]

*Smashes head through wall.*

I must have said this ten times. The defense DOES have the same opportunity to sub that the O has. The following scenarios are ALL legal and possible under the CURRENT rules.

1. The offense substitutes and the defense does not.
2. The defense substitutes and the offense does not.
3. Both the offense and the defense substitute.
4. Neither the offense nor the defense substitutes.

I saw where you mentioned that and I'm satisfied that the current rules cover all that and allow the D to sub if the O does. I was just replying to a specific comment by wooly that I was looking for a rule change that particularly benefited my team. As long as the current rules allow a D to sub if the O does, I'm fine with things as they are.

 

[IrishLax]

The thing is we're having a debate here over competitive balance. I don't think people would have nearly the objections to this rule if it went through proper channels and was approved.

But it was pushed through under the guise of safety. That's really what gets me all hot and bothered. Reading those quotes from Bielema makes me want to become a... uhhh... wait, who does Arkansas have a rivalry with? Bacon lovers?

 

[T Town Tommy]

Rule 3, Article 5, paragraph a.

To curtail a possible time-gaining advantage by feigning injuries, attention is directed to the strongly worded statement in The Football Code (Coaching Ethics, Section h).

The Football Code, Coaching Ethics, Section h.

Feigning an injury for any reason is unethical. An injured player must be given full protection under the rules, but feigning injury is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and contrary to the spirit of the rules. Such tactics cannot be tolerated among sportsmen of integrity.

How does one know a player is faking? Again, who inteprets that? The officiating crew? The opposing coach? It can't be enforced and therefore is free game to be employed. Does it give a team an unfair competitive advantage? Maybe... maybe not.

 

[wizards8507]

How does one know a player is faking? Again, who inteprets that? The officiating crew? The opposing coach? It can't be enforced and therefore is free game to be employed. Does it give a team an unfair competitive advantage? Maybe... maybe not.

Just because you can't prove something and throw a flag for 15 yards doesn't mean it should be tolerated. It's unethical and against the spirit of the game, regardless of whether it has a realistic chance of being penalized.

 

[woolybug25]

But # 2 is taken away by HUNH offenses. Look at my Auburn example. 92% of the time, Auburn doesn't snap the ball until 20-30 seconds are off the clock. What they do is take away option 2 for the defense by standing over the ball. The whole intent is to snap the ball IF the defense tries to substitute.

It's not "taken away", it's peformed within the rules. The same as any other situational football play. This would be a fundamental change of how the game is played. Since the inception of the game, the offense dictates when the play begins by snapping the ball. In this scenario, the advantage shifts to the defense, as they know they cant be surprised by an early snap.

Again... the original intent of the clock rule was to avoid "slowing down" the game. This rule uses the clock to give the defense an advantage and slow down the play of the game. It doesn't help safety or improve the quality of the game.

 

[NDohio]

But # 2 is taken away by HUNH offenses. Look at my Auburn example. 92% of the time, Auburn doesn't snap the ball until 20-30 seconds are off the clock. What they do is take away option 2 for the defense by standing over the ball. The whole intent is to snap the ball IF the defense tries to substitute.

So let's go the other direction. If a team wants to line up immediately they have XX seconds to snap the ball. Speed up the play clock once a team gets to the line(oh what I wouldn't have done for this to be a rule this past year with Tommy and his antics).

 

[Bishop2b5]

I love smash mouth football, but you are missing the point. The defense can substitute if they want. If they do it quickly enough and they do it properly. It isn't like the substitution rule is new. The offense has an advantage on subbing, so what? I agree with many that the game is too offensive oriented (contact on passing plays comes to mind) but the defense can prevent the hurry up from hurting them by getting stops.

I mostly agree with you, but as Tommy has been pointing out, if the O doesn't sub, but runs to the line and stands over the ball - even if it's for 20 or 30 seconds - there's no realistic way for the D to substitute. The moment they try, the O will just snap the ball and catch them with too few or too many men on the field. That's really the main point of the HUNH: to prevent defenses from making any substitutions.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It's not "taken away", it's peformed within the rules. The same as any other situational football play. This would be a fundamental change of how the game is played. Since the inception of the game, the offense dictates when the play begins by snapping the ball. In this scenario, the advantage shifts to the defense, as they know they cant be surprised by an early snap.

Again... the original intent of the clock rule was to avoid "slowing down" the game. This rule uses the clock to give the defense an advantage and slow down the play of the game. It doesn't help safety or improve the quality of the game.

I agree. It is within the rules. My argument for the rule change would be the competitive advantage and not safety side. Option 2 is taken away by virtue of the defense being penalized if they tried to substitute and the center snapped the ball. That's exactly why a team like Auburn gets the team lined up quickly but stands there for 20 additional seconds before snapping the ball. It eliminates the option # 2 for defense. Is it smart? Yes. Do I blame Gus and others for doing it? Not at all.

 

[wizards8507]

I mostly agree with you, but as Tommy has been pointing out, if the O doesn't sub, but runs to the line and stands over the ball - even if it's for 20 or 30 seconds - there's no realistic way for the D to substitute. The moment they try, the O will just snap the ball and catch them with too few or too many men on the field. That's really the main point of the HUNH: to prevent defenses from making any substitutions.

Why can't the defense get one guy off the field and another guy on the field in the time it takes the offense to get to the line of scrimmage? They're both playing with 300 pound men and the offense has much stricter (more strict?) rules about formation and false starts, i.e. the offensive line has to be set and there must be seven men on the line.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree. It is within the rules. My argument for the rule change would be the competitive advantage and not safety side. Option 2 is taken away by virtue of the defense being penalized if they tried to substitute and the center snapped the ball. That's exactly why a team like Auburn gets the team lined up quickly but stands there for 20 additional seconds before snapping the ball. It eliminates the option # 2 for defense. Is it smart? Yes. Do I blame Gus and others for doing it? Not at all.

Where do you draw the line? In the proposed rule change, teams could change their defense and do multiple player changes in the time between setting of the ball and the 10 second draw down of the clock, giving them a huge advantage against the offense. You are trading one evil for another. The only difference is that this rule fundamentally changes how the game is suppose to be played and the other doesn't.

Who would benefit from something like that? Hmmm.... it would have to be a team that runs a rushing-heavy pro set offense with a deep defense that likes to substitute. I wonder who that could be...

If I am a small school, i'm screaming from the rooftops on this. It's a move that gives the recruiting powerhouses (ND included) a huge advantage, as they can't compare depth wise to the teams with better recruiting.

 

[Irishbounty28]

I didn't read everything in this thread, but am firmly against the rule change. If an offensive team runs a No Huddle type of offense, and is relying on speed to keep the defense off balance they usually are not substituting themselves. To say that the defense is at a disadvantage because they can't substitute would be wrong because the offense is not substituting either. As long as the offense isn't substituting then why should it matter? Players on both offense and defense would be on the field and equal amount of time, and expelling energy while doing it.

Currently if the offense substitutes I am pretty sure the officiating crew stands over the ball and gives the defense an opportunity to substitute. Allowing the offense to substitute without letting the defense would be a competitive advantage as some on here are stating. Having all players from both the offense and the defense on the field for an entire hurry up series is not. Those are my thoughts.

 

[Praytorian]

so how does this affect the 2 minute drive and spiking the ball to kill the clock?

Sorry if I missed it from before didn't catch all the way up.

 

[NDWorld247]

That's really the main point of the HUNH: to prevent defenses from making any substitutions.

Is it though? I've always thought it was mainly about schematic advantage than trying to wear the defense out. I believe Saban's comments from this past season support that. (On my phone at the moment so my cut/paste/quoting abilities are limited).

As a coach who runs the HUNH situationally, I've favored it because I knew what I wanted to run and wanted to put the opposing DC under pressure, which sometimes causes panic amongst coaches/players (HS level). Trying to wear out the other team has never been the focus for me.

This really comes back to the core of the issue and Lax's post that started this discussion. Saban, and other coaches who do not employ this offense, are ill-equipped to prepare for this in practice, so they are hiding behind that by saying it's a safety issue when it's clearly not.

 

[Bishop2b5]

so how does this affect the 2 minute drive and spiking the ball to kill the clock?

Sorry if I missed it from before didn't catch all the way up.

I don't think it affects this at all. The proposed rule doesn't apply during the final two minutes of each half.

 

[Praytorian]

ty

 

[Irishbounty28]

On the issue of player safety I think there was a study done. I will have to see if I can find it and paste it here later. If I remember correctly the injuries were more significant and at a higher rate in "smashmouth" style football than they were in "hurry up" formats where more plays were ran.

I'll see if I can find the article and link it later.

 

[BGIF]

You can't make rules because certain teams ran certain types of offenses in certain seasons. Rules should be outside the realm of trends and coaching strategies. Coaches and players coach and play based on the rules of football. You don't modify the rules of football to fit the way coaches coach and players play.

...

Many of the rules came about because a certain coach ran a certain type of offense, or had his players use a certain technique. Others can copy it but if anybody is more successful than others the rules changed.

The Notre Dame Box or Rockne Shift was a variation of Stag's Single Wing. It wasn't the first shift, Stag had one. The Minnesota coach before Rockne was a player would sometimes shift all 11 players like a "Chinese fire drill". Rockne's shift was much more effective in providing a supremacy of numbers at the point of attack and provided versatility putting all four backs into play. All four backs moved at the same time in unison overloading defenders ability to read and react.

Nobody in college football did it better than Notre Dame. The Green Bay Packers won several NFL titles running the Notre Dame Box. Other coaches complained lead by Fielding Yost of Michigan, a school that hadn't played ND in more than a decade.

It was banned by a rule requiring players to come to a full set before the snap. Then allowed one player to be in motion at the snap.

Somewhere back in those days there was an ND player who was very fast in any era of hook and laterals and similar razzed dazzle plays that resulted in frequent fumbles. One day in a game as other players dove for a loose ball on the ground, he kicked it ahead, outraced everyone to the ball and scored a TD. The coaches taught that "technique" to the other players. It was subsequently banned.

In the late 50's or early 60's one SEC defensive coach taught his players to tackle WRs, QBs, and slender RBs, upright. Stand them up impeding forward progress while other defenders would fly into the ball carrier with their heads lowered "spearing" the ball carriers body with their helmets. It caused lots of fumbles and spread throughout the SEC. It was eventually banned.

Around the same period one team came up to "tear away" jerseys. The strength of the fabric was purposefully weak so when a defender grabbed the ball carrier by the jersey it would tear away leaving the defender with a handful of material while the ball carrier broke away for a big gain. Some backs went through several jerseys a game. It was big in the SEC and SWC. Eventually the NCAA banned it.

Charlie Weis and Nick Saban spent an incredible amount of time on the road recruiting and were very successful with it. Other less successful head coaches who did not want to make the same time commitment, like Willingham, lobbied to get the rule changed to restrict head coaches time on the road recruiting.

Wasn't it just a few seasons ago that Bielemna used an unsportsmanlike like stalling tactic on defense? The rule was changed to stop his "innovative" technique.

Most of the rules were made because somebody had what others thought was an unfair advantage. So the others lobbied for a new rule.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Is it though? I've always thought it was mainly about schematic advantage than trying to wear the defense out. I believe Saban's comments from this past season support that. (On my phone at the moment so my cut/paste/quoting abilities are limited).

As a coach who runs the HUNH situationally, I've favored it because I knew what I wanted to run and wanted to put the opposing DC under pressure, which sometimes causes panic amongst coaches/players (HS level). Trying to wear out the other team has never been the focus for me.

This really comes back to the core of the issue and Lax's post that started this discussion. Saban, and other coaches who do not employ this offense, are ill-equipped to prepare for this in practice, so they are hiding behind that by saying it's a safety issue when it's clearly not.

When I said the point was to prevent defenses from substituting, I meant it was primarily to keep them from substituting to fit the situation, such as putting in a nickel or dime package in obvious passing situations, not to prevent them from rotating players to avoid exhaustion. That's part of it surely, but not the primary goal of the HUNH.

 

[Bishop2b5]

BGIF nailed it to a tee.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Is it though? I've always thought it was mainly about schematic advantage than trying to wear the defense out. I believe Saban's comments from this past season support that. (On my phone at the moment so my cut/paste/quoting abilities are limited).

As a coach who runs the HUNH situationally, I've favored it because I knew what I wanted to run and wanted to put the opposing DC under pressure, which sometimes causes panic amongst coaches/players (HS level). Trying to wear out the other team has never been the focus for me.

This really comes back to the core of the issue and Lax's post that started this discussion. Saban, and other coaches who do not employ this offense, are ill-equipped to prepare for this in practice, so they are hiding behind that by saying it's a safety issue when it's clearly not.

Our high school has ran a version of the HUNH for over 12 years. Amazingly similar to what a lot of colleges do... although at a much lower techincal level. And I can tell you first and foremost, the reason it is ran is to wear the defense out. Other reasons like what you mentioned as well but our primary purpose was to not allow the defense to substitute, primarily their defensive linemen. Our offense could go extremely fast or at a slightly slower pace if we wanted. Most times we were really in the middle. But we trained our offense to get over the ball as fast as possible and to get set. Then we had whatever option we wanted... fast or slow.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Around the same period one team came up to "tear away" jerseys. The strength of the fabric was purposefully weak so when a defender grabbed the ball carrier by the jersey it would tear away leaving the defender with a handful of material while the ball carrier broke away for a big gain. Some backs went through several jerseys a game. It was big in the SEC and SWC. Eventually the NCAA banned it.

Oh man do I remember those days well! Johnny Musso would go through 10 or more jerseys per game, and I can still see him running off the field with a few shreds of jersey hanging off his shoulders and an equipment manager waiting for him on the sidelines with a new one he'd pulled from a whole box full of them. They were made from the same cotton-laced paper that disposable hospital gowns are made of, and the staff would pre-cut the neck band and other strategic spots on them so they'd tear even easier!

 

[NDWorld247]

When I said the point was to prevent defenses from substituting, I meant it was primarily to keep them from substituting to fit the situation, such as putting in a nickel or dime package in obvious passing situations, not to prevent them from rotating players to avoid exhaustion. That's part of it surely, but not the primary goal of the HUNH.

Got it. I misinterpreted your intent.

Our high school has ran a version of the HUNH for over 12 years. Amazingly similar to what a lot of colleges do... although at a much lower techincal level. And I can tell you first and foremost, the reason it is ran is to wear the defense out. Other reasons like what you mentioned as well but our primary purpose was to not allow the defense to substitute, primarily their defensive linemen. Our offense could go extremely fast or at a slightly slower pace if we wanted. Most times we were really in the middle. But we trained our offense to get over the ball as fast as possible and to get set. Then we had whatever option we wanted... fast or slow.

There are several reasons coaches want to employ the HUNH. I don't have a problem with any of them and don't think rules need to be changed.

 

[Bishop2b5]

As long as the D gets a fair shot at substituting and the game doesn't become all offense and no defense, I'm fine. I have to admit I genuinely despise the all offense, no defense style of play we see from schools like Baylor & Oregon and it seems the game is headed more and more in that direction. Maybe I'm just old, but I like smash-mouth football with more balance between O & D. To me, 3 yards & a cloud of dust or a good old-fashioned defensive game are a thing of beauty also.

 

[BGIF]

Oh man do I remember those days well! Johnny Musso would go through 10 or more jerseys per game, and I can still see him running off the field with a few shreds of jersey hanging off his shoulders and an equipment manager waiting for him on the sidelines with a new one he'd pulled from a whole box full of them. They were made from the same cotton-laced paper that disposable hospital gowns are made of, and the staff would pre-cut the neck band and other strategic spots on them so they'd tear even easier!

I remember the gossamer shreds of jersey blowing in the breeze. The material was like some Honeymoon Special out of Frederick's of Hollywood and about as brief.

The Italian Stallion, Bama's first 1,000 yard rusher.

Legend even has it that Musso wore acid dipped jerseys that would tear as soon as they stretched-evident by his 42 carry, 221 yard performance in the 1970 Iron Bowl when he went through 11 jerseys.

SI

 

[irishog77]

I mostly agree with you, but as Tommy has been pointing out, if the O doesn't sub, but runs to the line and stands over the ball - even if it's for 20 or 30 seconds - there's no realistic way for the D to substitute. The moment they try, the O will just snap the ball and catch them with too few or too many men on the field. That's really the main point of the HUNH: to prevent defenses from making any substitutions.

Right. And sometimes the offense will snap it on 2 instead of one. It's the nature of the game. At a certain point, teams use whatever advantage they can get. In the scenario you provide above, the offense can still snap the ball before the defense is set, even if substitutions take place. Offenses do that all the time, regardless of how much or little time is left on the clock. What you're advocating for (though not intentionally) is that ultimately the defense must be set and give the green light to the offense before the offense can proceed with their play. This is contrary to the entire nature of football and organized sports. Defense will always be at a disadvantage to offense because they have to react. The offense knows what's coming, and the defense does not.

I agree. It is within the rules. My argument for the rule change would be the competitive advantage and not safety side. Option 2 is taken away by virtue of the defense being penalized if they tried to substitute and the center snapped the ball. That's exactly why a team like Auburn gets the team lined up quickly but stands there for 20 additional seconds before snapping the ball. It eliminates the option # 2 for defense. Is it smart? Yes. Do I blame Gus and others for doing it? Not at all.

That's fine, Tommy...but the rule change is based upon player safety. That's why we're all saying it's bull shit. Saban and Bielema have based the entire merit of the rule change on player safety...yet everybody know's it is based on competitive advantage. If those 2 (and others) want to even the competitive advantage, then they need to advocate for that and not player safety. It's completely disingenuous on their part.

 

[wizards8507]

Many of the rules came about because a certain coach ran a certain type of offense, or had his players use a certain technique. Others can copy it but if anybody is more successful than others the rules changed.

Most of the rules were made because somebody had what others thought was an unfair advantage. So the others lobbied for a new rule.

Thanks for the history lesson (not sarcastic, I didn't know a lot of that). I still hold the same opinion, however. Just because history has shown that rules have been changed based on certain strategies doesn't mean I think they ought be changed based on certain strategies. The exception here would be if a certain strategy is significantly unbalanced that it violates the very nature of the game itself. In your examples about players booting the ball 50 yards downfield and then recovering the "fumble" for a touchdown or wearing shitty jerseys that tore away on purpose, those clearly violate the spirit of football as it is designed to be played and probably would have been banned in the original rules if anyone had thought of it in the first place. Again, this "balance of play" argument is academic anyways since the proposal is being made on the grounds of player safety.