the defenses can already substitute, if the offense makes a change... that is the rule and should not be a part of the discussion... the reason why teams "fake" injuries is to substitute because of match-ups, not because the offense made a change but the defense can't... it is a competitive advantage but you don't need a rule to correct it... coaches should do their job and come up with a scheme to stop it... should they make a rule that teams can't have o-linemen over 325 lbs or slower wide receivers...
So, you're saying you should penalize the offense with some rule, because the defense is faking injuries? I think I don't like this 10 second rule, but I'm not sure. What I don't like is the arrogance of a high profile coach proposing a rule that would give him a competitive advantage and claiming it's to prevent player injuries so he can get it implemented this coming season. Is this what we want football to become? I don't think the proposal has a chance of passing this year because everyone with two brain cells can see right through it.
You've developed a proclivity to throw things out there, as fact, with nothing to back them up. So, let's say I suggest Chief instructs players to fake injuries. Is that a fair statement? If you'd like an example of what I've just mentioned, look within this very thread. You're asking me for a list when you're the one asserting facts that simply aren't true. And then...you'll devolve back into childish antics. You want to talk football? I'm game. Otherwise, click on an ad—that way you're bringing something to the forum.
I never said Saban's players aren't fit, I said alot of the LB's he recruits are more suited to physical, stop the run, and not built to play at the pace and for the amount of plays required when you play the HUNH.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the rules currently have the referee literally stand over the ball and prevent a quick snap if the offense makes substitutions but goes no huddle? Maybe its the NFL, but this makes perfect sense. If the offense subs, the defense has the right to match their subs. The history of football has always been that the offense has the incentive, and the defense has to take it away. The offense subs to react to the changes in the situation, and the defense subs in anticipation of what the offense might do. Now it sounds like you want to change that. But if (for example) the offense gives up a big loss on 2nd and short but chooses to attack 3rd and long with the same personnel, why should the defense get to make changes?
you are correct... what you state are the rules (both college and pro) that i explained above... i don't know what he's not getting about that... o catches d in a bad match-up situation, they go no huddle and run the same play over and over... this forces the d to call a timeout... also, if it's a safety issue, why allow no huddle at all, including 2 min... that just says, we care about your safety but not in the last 2 minutes of both halves...
