Changes to college football rules proposed

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
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.


I wouldn't put Saban in Bielema's class on the safety argument. I think he just doesn't like the style of play. Bielema is ridiculous in his most recent comments.

Since there are no studies on the subject as far as safety, I don't really know if it or isn't an issue. Conventional wisdom says it should have an effect... to what degree I don't believe has been determined.

I say leave it like it is and let's go play. I still like my chances on any given day against any given opponent. And, beating them at their own game should give one even more satisfaction.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I wouldn't put Saban in Bielema's class on the safety argument. I think he just doesn't like the style of play. Bielema is ridiculous in his most recent comments.
Isn't "safety" the only way it could be approved for the current season, which is what they're pushing for?
 

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
Isn't "safety" the only way it could be approved for the current season, which is what they're pushing for?

Saban didn't "push" anything on this. The committee repeatedly asked him to speak before them on the subject and he declined. Only after first writing a letter, and turning them down two more times did Saban finally agree to meet the committee. Bielema is on his own with his as*clown comments from last night.

But to answer your question, I believe safety was the reason the rules committee wanted to review it and consider the change.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Since there are no studies on the subject as far as safety, I don't really know if it or isn't an issue. Conventional wisdom says it should have an effect... to what degree I don't believe has been determined.

I don't know if that effect is negative. I would argue that there are far more big hits in "smashmouth" football than in spreads. Furthermore, if the reasoning is "safety" and there isn't any data showing that there are increased injuries, why is that onus being put on the league to prove it? If there is data supporting it, then fine, bring up the rule for consideration. But this is just a knee-jerk reaction under a guise of player safety. Shouldn't they know whether its actually true before making rules to "fix" it?
 

T Town Tommy

Alabama Bag Man
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
2,768
I don't know if that effect is negative. I would argue that there are far more big hits in "smashmouth" football than in spreads. Furthermore, if the reasoning is "safety" and there isn't any data showing that there are increased injuries, why is that onus being put on the league to prove it? If there is data supporting it, then fine, bring up the rule for consideration. But this is just a knee-jerk reaction under a guise of player safety. Shouldn't they know whether its actually true before making rules to "fix" it?

I don't disagree with you wooly. I don't believe there is any studies that have been performed to suggest it is an issue one way or the other. They need to study it, gather all the necessary facts, and then decide if a rules change is necessary. I do know this as a former player however. If you are tired you become less focused and I do believe your risk for injury increases. I don't think that can be denied. To what affect that can be attributed to fast paced offenses are debateable and hard to quantify.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I don't know if that effect is negative. I would argue that there are far more big hits in "smashmouth" football than in spreads. Furthermore, if the reasoning is "safety" and there isn't any data showing that there are increased injuries, why is that onus being put on the league to prove it? If there is data supporting it, then fine, bring up the rule for consideration. But this is just a knee-jerk reaction under a guise of player safety. Shouldn't they know whether its actually true before making rules to "fix" it?
A knee-jerk reaction based on player-safety? You don't say...

stephon-tuitt-ejected-during-pitt-game.gif


robytarget.gif


gatargeting.gif


flatargeting.gif
 

dshans

They call me The Dribbler
Messages
9,624
Reaction score
1,181
What the hay. As a self identified old fart I say we go back to the days when freshmen weren't allowed to play (thus the JV team) and the game required that the footballers play both offense and defense.

That's how the game was played in school yards, empty lots and backyards. The "modern" game leaves me feeling like Charlie Chaplin in a scene in Modern Times. (This is one of the legitimate uses of italics.)

Stop with all the TV timeouts! Stop with all the plastic grass, blaring music and jumbo-dumbo-trons! Just play the fargging game!!!
 

PLACforever

I spit hot fire
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
222
I'm all for player safety, but at what point does this just become a shell of the original game?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,577
Reaction score
20,030
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.

I remember tear away jersey well. They were in style back in the late 70's or early 80's. It wasn't just an SEC or SWC thing. I think it originated with an SWC school, but most schools adopted them until they were banned. If memory serves me correctly, Earl Campbell and Texas wore them against the Irish in the Cotton Bowl when ND won the NC.
 

ThePiombino

The OG "TP"
Messages
16,476
Reaction score
6,245
That Georgia one, the Ref had the flag out and ready before the hit!

LMFAO! I thought you were being facetious at first, but I watched it again and you're right - the ref literally has the flag in his hand before contact is made. Unless he WAS going to call a hold...

What the hay. As a self identified old fart I say we go back to the days when freshmen weren't allowed to play (thus the JV team) and the game required that the footballers play both offense and defense.

That's how the game was played in school yards, empty lots and backyards. The "modern" game leaves me feeling like Charlie Chaplin in a scene in Modern Times. (This is one of the legitimate uses of italics.)

Stop with all the TV timeouts! Stop with all the plastic grass, blaring music and jumbo-dumbo-trons! Just play the fargging game!!!

Yeah! Let's do away with TVs too and we can all just huddle around the neighborhood radio or just wait for highlights at the nickelodeon!!!

I'm all for player safety, but at what point does this just become a shell of the original game?

The game in general? I'd say roughly around the "Tuck Rule".
 

ResLife Hero

Well-known member
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
190
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>In <a href="https://twitter.com/espn">@ESPN</a> poll of all 128 FBS coaches, only 25 favor 10-second rule proposal</p>— Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/statuses/438760843023745024">February 26, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>In <a href="https://twitter.com/espn">@ESPN</a> poll of 128 coaches about 10-second rule proposal, 73% opposed, 19.5% in favor, 7% undecided</p>— Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN/statuses/438762470350802945">February 26, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/nNPdi5hRLy8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/nNPdi5hRLy8?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 

IrishBlood81

New member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
88
LMFAO! I thought you were being facetious at first, but I watched it again and you're right - the ref literally has the flag in his hand before contact is made. Unless he WAS going to call a hold...

I don't think thats so ridiculous really. He sees this LB full speed, headed right for the quarterback, more often than not, it'll be a late hit, targeting or some other penalty. He's just prepared... or getting paid off by the opposing team, either one.

As for the 10second rule, outrageous imho. That video is hilarious. Nice editing job. It should finish, this video was funded and endorsed by Oregon, Auburn and Baylor.
One coach hates Auburn and Oregon and decides to push this rule cause his guys aren't conditioned to keep up to that tempo. And the NCAA listens. Pathetic.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Per the doc......."We know if you play another 20 to 25 snaps a game, you're going to have more exposure to all injuries,"

True and the more we drive, the greater the chance of getting hurt in a car accident.

More importantly the more you drink the better your odds are that you will get drunk.

BAN ALCOHOL
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
If only Nick Saban were around to forewarn Christopher Walken in "The Deer Hunter." One less Russian Roulette death we'd have on our hands.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Can someone clarify? I thought new rules could only take effect after a one-season delay.
 
Top