ESPN and others call BS on Saban's proposed 10 second

[Sack N City]

ESPN Radio had good takes this morning regarding the NCAA proposed rule change to require the offense to let 10 seconds run off the play clock before snapping the ball. ESPN said:

(1) The most common sense point was that if you want fewer plays in a game,don't slow the offense down. Do what the NFL does and let the clock run on first downs.
(2) When offense has the ball, it's their ball. Don't dictate by rule what the offense can do with under the guise of safety.
(3) Saban was behind the rule change and it is dangerous for one person to be dictating NCAA policy.

And Kevin Scarbinsky of The Birmingham News wrote an article saying that it was sad day to see the NCAA help Saban out and that hiding behind safety as the reason for the rule is a joke.

 

[57stratdawg]

I didn't think it was official, it's just a proposed rule change..?

Or, why not say the offense can't snap the ball in the first 10 seconds, but the D can't substitute. Game slows down, HUNH teams don't have a *****.

 

[coach66]

Saban is looking silly. He just needs to adjust

And move on.

 

[thatsbaseball]

It`s funny the two biggest whiners in the west are Saban & Miles....the ones coaching the two biggest, baddest programs. Couple of real macho guys....not.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

If ESPN is agin it, I'm now for it

Heck the only way this would possibly be approved is if a majority of the NCAA members approved it...Period, Amen.


Screw Saban...but really Screw ESPN.

ESPN tries to run Every Thing in Sports.

 

[patdog]

It's a stupid rule. But if it passes, I think in the real world it will barely be noticed. Even hurry-up offenses almost never get the ball snapped in 10 seconds. And defenses won't be able to substitute in 10 seconds either.

 

[DerHntr]

They should be giving him hell. It is a very dumb rule

 

[ckDOG]

I think it has significant impact.

It's a stupid rule. But if it passes, I think in the real world it will barely be noticed. Even hurry-up offenses almost never get the ball snapped in 10 seconds. And defenses won't be able to substitute in 10 seconds either.

You are right, it's rare that the ball is snapped within 10 seconds, but it's not rare that the offense has hurried up the officiating crew enough to the point where the snap could happen within 10 seconds. It's the threat of the quick snap that eliminates the possibility of a quick sub on D. Quick subbing to address a matchup issue is a big deal against the hurry up. That's the bread and butter of it. Find the matchup and exploit it without giving the D a chance to adapt. It's smart.

However, my line of thinking is that since nobody technically controls the ball between tackle and the point the ref spots the ball for play, neither team should be able to influence the pace in which the refs do their jobs. Hurry up offenses have done a good job at getting the ball in a position to be set quickly by shoving the ball in the refs chest and rushing to the line. That's fine, they are doing what they are allowed to get away with, but the D doesn't have an equal opportunity to slow down the ref without doing something that could penalize them (sit on ball or sit on tackled players).

I'd prefer it simply be a point of emphasis for the refs to do a better job at setting the ball consistently without influence from either team, but this rule will take the possibility of them 17ing it up and catering to one team out of the equation. I'm okay with it if it passes, but if it doesn't I hope referee pace between snaps is a matter the NCAA focuses on.

 

[57stratdawg]

Interesting slant about the refs, CK. Haven't heard that angle in the past.

To me, it's the evolution of football. If the offense can play 6 straight plays with the same personnel package - the D needs to be able to as well.

 

[121Josey]

And Kevin Scarbinsky of The Birmingham News wrote an article saying that it was sad day to see the NCAA help Saban out and that hiding behind safety as the reason for the rule is a joke.

Coaches are saying that this rule proposal caught them off-guard. It never came up at the winter coaches conference.

I have a hard time believing the validity of the proposal much less that it came from Satan. I believe that the proposal was intended to fail to get people talking again. Maybe I give Satan too much credit, but he would be innovative enough to propose that everyone play with a 15 second play-clock and see how they like them apples - if, of course, it's not about players safety.

 

[patdog]

Agree with you about the refs. I've got no problem with the hurry-up offense. But the refs don't need to be running that offense with them. And they need to call illegal motion penalties whether the offense is in hurry-up mode or slow mode.

 

[DancingRabbit]

To me, officiating problems with the HUNH are a bigger deal than player safety

Coaches are saying that this rule proposal caught them off-guard. It never came up at the winter coaches conference.

Not true, according to this

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2014-02-14/bret-bielema-nick-saban-among-coaches-support-rule-proposal

"Redding said rules changes that would affect the pace of the game were discussed by the committee last year and during the AFCA convention in January at meeting he attended of about 35 coaches, including Bielema. The proposal passed by the NCAA committee was an idea that came out of the AFCA meeting, Redding said."


As I've said before, I'm tired of the officials seeming like they're on their heels most of the time in a HUNH offensive series. Replays not being reviewed, chain gangs not set, missed formation and motion penalties. I'm not sure if this proposed rule is the most elegant solution to the problem but I would like to see something done.

 

[ckDOG]

The player safety angle was dumb.

It's like they got lazy and instead of arguing the officiating side and ideas of what should and shouldn't happen between tackle and setting they ball, they just assumed people would buy off on it if were in the name of player safety. That's going to hurt them if they really want it passed.

 

[patdog]

If it's about player safety, why doesn't the rule apply to the last 2 minutes of a half? Do they only care about player safety for 56 minutes, but not the 4 minutes when they should be the most tired and therefore the most in danger? Also, not sure how making 300-lb linemen run wind sprints to get on and off the field all game is supposed to make them less tired.

 

[DancingRabbit]

Yep, like world peace and programs "for the children"

how do you argue against PLAYER SAFETY?

I guess it wasn't PC to point out that refs officiating a HUNH offense was frequently akin to herding cats on horseback.

 

[Sack N City]

Saban got caught.

I don’t know whether the proposed rule is a good one or bad one. Or whether it would impact the game much.
But I am glad that Saban got his hand caught in the cookie jar trying to sneak a rule through a committee without much debate and witha specious argument. The NCAA/SEC claims that they do not treat other teams differently. What do you think the chances of Mullen/State sneaking a rule through a committee would be?

 

[121Josey]

True According to This...

Not true, according to this

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/a...ick-saban-among-coaches-support-rule-proposal

"Redding said rules changes that would affect the pace of the game were discussed by the committee last year and during the AFCA convention in January at meeting he attended of about 35 coaches, including Bielema. The proposal passed by the NCAA committee was an idea that came out of the AFCA meeting, Redding said."

Maybe Cut is a loner.** But seriously, thanks for the link. Sounds like this was a meeting for the Cut-Abovers.**



Laura KeeleyVerified account ‏<s>@</s>laurakeeley

<s>#</s>Duke's David Cutcliffe says he & every coach he knows was "blindsided" by this rule proposal to slow down offenses. Didn't come up at AFCA

 

[121Josey]

The article says... "Redding added he studied film of two games involving up-tempo offenses and only once in each game did a team snap the ball within 10 seconds of the 40-second clock starting."

I know this is small sample size, but if this hold true, isn't this part of the advantage (good or bad) for the offense? They can force the defense to lineup immediately - without substitution - and then spend the rest of the play-clock to make adjustments based on the personnel and alignment.

If the offense was forced to snap the ball within 10 seconds, then it would limit the advantage. Not that I'm proposing this, just trying to look at all the variables.

 

[Rebels7]

The article says... "Redding added he studied film of two games involving up-tempo offenses and only once in each game did a team snap the ball within 10 seconds of the 40-second clock starting."

If this is true, then what is the point of the rule change?

 

[ckDOG]

The advantage is in the possibility of snapping.

If this is true, then what is the point of the rule change?

If you get to the line quickly and the refs hurry up and spot the ball, the defense wouldn't dream of subbing. It's too risky. HUNH will get to the line quickly and then look to the sideline for further instruction. It's pretty rare to see a snap in less than 10 seconds. The point of the rule is to give the defense a window where they could sub quickly without the possibility of getting burned on it. There's a known period of time to work with opposed to the possibility the ref sets the ball in 5 seconds and the offense quick snaps to get it to a uncovered player or catch the D with too many folks on the field. It's a consistent standard instead of leaving it up to the officiating crew.

 

[Rebels7]

Fair enough, I'll buy that.

 

[patdog]

Good luck to the defense that tries to get one player up off the field, tell him he's coming out, and then sprint to the sideline and get another player on and in position in 10 seconds.

 

[ckDOG]

I doubt it changes things up for the offense as drastically as some think.

The pace can still be swift, but the offense would lose the substitution advantage. Maybe that turns out to have been a massive advantage in hindsight, but I doubt it's a big as scheme. The second LB option is as likely to get picked on if the coaches aren't fixing his position on the field.

 

[ckDOG]

It can be done if you are prepared and know you have 10 to work with.

Nm