players are walking around and can't even get lined up. That's when guys have a much greater chance of getting hurt when they're not ready to play. What does this statement mean to you? I see it as no huddle causing more injuries.
I am befuddled at the folks who want to be against this rule just because Nick is for it. It would be good for a power team like LSU that has a good defense. It would help us, not hurt us.
Red as you often say don't assume to know what I think and why I don't like the rule. I don't like the proposed rule for several reasons. 1) It stifles an innovation. Innovation is one of the lifeblood's of college football. Like the wishbone, veer, run & shoot and other innovative offenses the ability of undermanned teams to even the playing field with an innovative approach make the game exciting. As with the above a good coach will figure out a solution and use it successfully. Chief has done pretty well against HUNH offense. Saban wants to stick to his formula of big slow D line & LBs and not change. He would rather change the rules a real short cut. 2) As a solution it reeks. As Terry pointed out earlier the very great majority of plays last year would NOT be affected by the rule. If there is a safety issue prove it with statistics. Nick COULD NOT do so in his testimony. Until it is shown there is no reason to change. If it is shown to be an issue then study it don't just follow the knee jerk suggestion of a megalomaniac. 3) A better and I believe fairer solution is to insure that any substitution by the O can be met by the D before the ball is ready for play. I thought that was the rule but if it isn't it should be and if it is it should be enforced. 4) Making a potentially significant change for short term advantage is NOT in the best interest of the game and how it affects LSU or any school should be secondary if you love the game. The back door path that seems to be how this is going reeks as well. 5) My feelings about saban are separate from my opinion of the rule, but the way he has gone about this demonstrates what a little control freak and sh*t he is.
Who said anything about you? Why would you assume that if you're not anti-Saban? it's not the innovative offense that quickens the game that the rule would address, it's the parallel attempt to stifle a perhaps innovative defense by keeping them from substituting. I hate the "meercat" offense where the offense lines up quickly but then they wait and all pop up and look to the sidelines for a play while we wait. That's not quickening the game, it's just trying to get a pre-snap advantage. That's all I'd like to see the rule address. Not to keep a team from hurrying up, but from hurrying up and waiting. Getting a chance to assess the defense at your leisure while preventing them from making changes seems an unfair advantage. Then it's a rule that will not have much impact. However it would work well in the instances where an offense is just taking advantage of a hurry-up to freeze the defense. Interesting, I'm discussing a proposed change based on substitutions and you are concerned about the "meglomanic" Nick Saban's safety issue. Look, I haven't made any safety issue. Did you forget who you were talking to? I don't think the safety issue is valid, my issue is unfair advantage in substitutions. That is exactly what this rule will allow. What was your objection again? As pointed out, it would not apply to most plays, and to none in the 2-minute periods. But it would allow the defense an opportunity to substitute. What in the world are you talking about? What is "short-term" about a proposed new rule change? What is "back-door" about an open proposed rule change that is getting the public discussion that is needed before being implemented? Well, my post was not directed at you, but it is clear from your comments that you are caught up with Saban's support of this rule rather than what the rule actually does for the game.
[QUOTE Winston1 said: ↑ “ A better and I believe fairer solution is to insure that any substitution by the O can be met by the D before the ball is ready for play. I thought that was the rule but if it isn't it should be and if it is it should be enforced. Red55 said That is exactly what this rule will allow. What was your objection again? As pointed out, it would not apply to most plays, and to none in the 2-minute periods. But it would allow the defense an opportunity to substitute. ][/QUOTE] There is a difference. The rule would be to allow any substitutions before the ball is put in play. For example a play is run and the O changes from a heavy package to a spread all before the ball is put back in play. Then the referee should hold up putting the ball in play till the D can make corresponding substitutions. If the O tries to change personnel after the ball is back in play that is on the D to respond quickly. That is different from holding the O back while the ball is in play. IMO personnel changes after the ball is in play would slow the O enough. Red as I said before there are two parts to this thread. One is the rule the other is saban's involvement in getting it implemented. I tried to address both and keep them as separate as possible in the discussion. Safety was the basis of saban's testimony not giving the O an unfair advantage. If you read from the article Terry quoted it was indicated this was a done deal and there was little room for discussion or opposition response. That fits my definition of a back door deal. Also from all indications saban is the font of the action and fits my view (and many others) that he is a control freak....close to the definition of a megalomaniac. I think holding the O from acting while the ball is supposed to be in play is wrong in spirit. The substitution and unfair advantage issue can be addressed other ways. BTW I remember seeing LSU & the Chief make substitutions in HUNH games successfully. If we can do it why can't other teams? I don't particularly like the meercat O either but there are better way to defeat it besides that wasn't even a point of those proposing the change.
That is putting a burden upon the ref that will be impossible to do properly. Offenses and defenses are complex and deceptive. Referees need rules that are more objective and less subjective. We'd all like it that way. I don't follow you here. The ball is not in play until the referee steps back. The rule should allow the referee to hold play until both the officials and defense are ready, except for the 2-minute period. It requires the ref to be judicious about neither allowing the offense to rush the snap before the officials and defense are ready, nor allowing a defense to dawdle. I think refs can be good judges of time, but not good judges of the intentions of an offense or a defense. Well, now is the time to lobby for it. The ball is "supposed to be in play" whenever the ref says it is. The rule probably has flaws, many rules do. But they must be proposed and argued over and sometime implemented to see how it works. Sometimes they pull a new rule quickly. A balance must be found between an offense wanting to snap quickly and a defense being allow proper time to line up. It must address substitution parity and efforts by either team to gain unfair advantage. We've also been caught unable to substitute. Again, I think the rule change helps the LSU defense and really doesn't affect the offense at all.
Didn't have time to read the thread but for Saban to champion this and hide behind "player safety" as the cause is an utter and complete joke. Got his ass handed to him by 2 up tempo squads and now the rules have to change. FU Nick, get your defense in better shape if you want some change
