The "Saban Rule"

[Plywood_King 518]

Curious about your thoughts on the the new proposed rule change regarding defensive substitutions in college football. The "10 Second Rule" or as the Ol' Head Ball Coach calls it, "The Saban Rule", would prevent offenses from being able to snap the ball within ten seconds of the playclock beginning to run (so it has to be at 29 seconds or lower). The logic behind this is that up-tempo offenses trap defensive players on the field and potentially puts their health at risk, however, no research at this point has proven that is the case.

My biggest concern is that if the proposed rule is adopted, how will it effect the two-minute drill? Will you have to wait ten seconds to snap the ball when time is a factor? Will there be an exception to the rule when the clock drops below two minutes in a half, similar to the "out-of-bounds-stops-the-clock" rule?

I'm an old fashioned kind of guy who likes the traditional football that we tend to see around here. I could take or leave the "spread era" schemes and I'm not really a big proponent of no-huddle, as I think that it slows the team-aspect of the game. Bearing that in mind, I am of the opinion that if an offense can be conditioned to run up-tempo, a defense can be conditioned to defend it. 

Thoughts?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140213/rule-change-no-huddle-ncaa/

[blueinbama 259]

Curious about your thoughts on the the new proposed rule change regarding defensive substitutions in college football. The "10 Second Rule" or as the Ol' Head Ball Coach calls it, "The Saban Rule", would prevent offenses from being able to snap the ball within ten seconds of the playclock beginning to run (so it has to be at 29 seconds or lower). The logic behind this is that up-tempo offenses trap defensive players on the field and potentially puts their health at risk, however, no research at this point has proven that is the case.

 

My biggest concern is that if the proposed rule is adopted, how will it effect the two-minute drill? Will you have to wait ten seconds to snap the ball when time is a factor? Will there be an exception to the rule when the clock drops below two minutes in a half, similar to the "out-of-bounds-stops-the-clock" rule?

 

I'm an old fashioned kind of guy who likes the traditional football that we tend to see around here. I could take or leave the "spread era" schemes and I'm not really a big proponent of no-huddle, as I think that it slows the team-aspect of the game. Bearing that in mind, I am of the opinion that if an offense can be conditioned to run up-tempo, a defense can be conditioned to defend it. 

 

Thoughts?

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140213/rule-change-no-huddle-ncaa/

I hate the proposed rule.  I don't think it presents a risk to a player's health to keep him on the field when he is gassed.  It presents a risk to the defense in being able to stop the offense.  Saban and his supporters need to suck it up and get the players in shape to play four quarters of football against the HUNH.

 

That said, to answer your question about the two-minute offense, I believe the rule proposition states that within the last two minutes of each half the rule does not apply. 

[redtiger 1,742]

I love football of any kind, from the T to 5 wide spread. Its all good to me.

 

The proposed rule is just a way for Saban and coaches like him to not have to change with the times. Just get smaller, faster more athletic defensive players. They can still slow things down when they have the ball.

 

Hiding behind "player safety" is pretty despicable

[GMan 3,569]

Was listening to an interview on sports radio the other day that involved the head of the NCAA rules committee.  He stated that in order for this rule to pass, there has to be evidence, "numbers", showing the danger/risk of injury to defensive players against the hurry up style offenses.  He said that if there is no evidence, they can't pass this rule just because of a "competitive advantage". 

 

Personally, I don't think this rule will pass, however, I do think this is an attempt to change something with how the rules are currently set in regards to a team running to the line of scrimmage, getting lined up, then everyone standing up and looking toward the sideline for the play call. 

 

Pretty sure this is a case of asking for $10,000,000 when Saban would settle for $1,000,000...a chance to substitute defensive personel in certain situations like when the offense runs to the line but doesn't immediately run the play.

[blueinbama 259]

Was listening to an interview on sports radio the other day that involved the head of the NCAA rules committee.  He stated that in order for this rule to pass, there has to be evidence, "numbers", showing the danger/risk of injury to defensive players against the hurry up style offenses.  He said that if there is no evidence, they can't pass this rule just because of a "competitive advantage". 

 

Personally, I don't think this rule will pass, however, I do think this is an attempt to change something with how the rules are currently set in regards to a team running to the line of scrimmage, getting lined up, then everyone standing up and looking toward the sideline for the play call. 

 

Pretty sure this is a case of asking for $10,000,000 when Saban would settle for $1,000,000...a chance to substitute defensive personel in certain situations like when the offense runs to the line but doesn't immediately run the play.

I made that same argument on another website.  The purpose of running the HUNH for most teams is to gain a competitive advantage.  The majority of the time the ball is not snapped before 10 seconds elapses anyway.  The offense runs to the LOS, tries to catch the defense substituting or out of position, and that is when they snap the ball and run a set play.  That is in their offensive game plan.  If the defense is set, most of the time the offense looks to the sideline to get a play. That prevents the defense from substituting, unless the defense wants to roll the dice and try and sub before the offense snaps the ball.  Oregon is the best in the country at playing fast, and they take full advantage of it.  I can see an argument for a rule allowing the defense to substitute on the basis of preventing an offensive competitive edge, but the health issue is bogus, IMHO.

[redtiger 1,742]

"hurry up" doesn't necessarily mean the ball is snapped fast, just that the offense hurry's up to the line of scrimmage.     

 

Saban's just pissed that teams that run Shotgun, Multiple WR, hurry up offenses can take smaller, non 5* players(like his) and complete with him. It negates the size advantage and puts more emphasis on conditioning(Which Saban's teams do not struggle with). Focus is on training and conditioning  Imo its one of the best things to ever happen to college football. If players were collapsing from exhaustion on the field and there were obvious signs that the hurry up was dangerous/harmful it would be different. 

 

As long as the defense is allowed to substitute when the offense does I don't see a problem