Started By
Message
re: Concerning my Bert thread on the rant (SEC Media Days related)
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:12 pm to mizzoukills
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:12 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Bert has a system and that system is all he knows.
It's called 'Real American Football' in Hoganese.
1
Posted on 7/16/14 at 7:15 pm to WonderWartHawg
Posted on 7/16/14 at 9:45 pm to Pigfeet
Just sat down and actually watched media days that i recorded. Greg McElroy predicted us to go 4-8 but upset LSU. Jesse Palmer said around the same. Another guy on there said 5 wins.
They all said to look out for Korliss Marshall though
They all said to look out for Korliss Marshall though
Posted on 7/16/14 at 9:54 pm to gohogs141
quote:
look out for Korliss Marshall though
Word starting to spread.
I'm sure Gus remembers that KO return last year...
Posted on 7/16/14 at 10:12 pm to DaleDenton
I will say this, I have a better understanding of Bert's position through this thread. He may need to hire you as part of his PR team because his message doesn't really come across as clearly. Not sure I still agree with him, but I understand it better.
What I am curious about is if Bert were to be fired tomorrow and Arkansas threw huge bucks at Gus (yes, crazy hypothetical), how many posters would continue to support Bert's position?
Under the current rules, if a player cannot continue, there are mechanisms in place for him to get off the field. He can "cramp up" as you say. So if there is a mechanism in place to get a "fatigued" player off the field so as to avoid injury, what other reason could there be to slow teams up from approaching the line?
That is why I question how much of it is for player safety and how much of it is so the defense can get the package they want on the field.
What I am curious about is if Bert were to be fired tomorrow and Arkansas threw huge bucks at Gus (yes, crazy hypothetical), how many posters would continue to support Bert's position?
Under the current rules, if a player cannot continue, there are mechanisms in place for him to get off the field. He can "cramp up" as you say. So if there is a mechanism in place to get a "fatigued" player off the field so as to avoid injury, what other reason could there be to slow teams up from approaching the line?
That is why I question how much of it is for player safety and how much of it is so the defense can get the package they want on the field.
Posted on 7/16/14 at 10:29 pm to reedus23
quote:
I will say this, I have a better understanding of Bert's position through this thread. He may need to hire you as part of his PR team because his message doesn't really come across as clearly. Not sure I still agree with him, but I understand it better.
Its hard for a person to get their message clearly across during a presser where the comment is condensed down into a sound byte form.
I tried to give an analogy/example to explain what he has basically said in various interviews/pressers since the issue came up.
quote:
What I am curious about is if Bert were to be fired tomorrow and Arkansas threw huge bucks at Gus (yes, crazy hypothetical), how many posters would continue to support Bert's position?
I'm not giving an opinion or taking a side, I can see both sides of the issue, which is needed to understand the issue, a player safety concern is a valid reason for the issue coming about.
The simplest solution is go back to the 25 second clock, the ref starting the play clock when the ball is set, that allows enough time for the substitution and if you go back and watch games from even the 70s the pace seemed faster in the games with this play clock while allowing subs and both teams huddling.
The HUNH did not become popular in college until after the play clock was changed to the current 40 second format, teams started speeding up to the line to exploit the rule change for a competitive advantage.
quote:
Under the current rules, if a player cannot continue, there are mechanisms in place for him to get off the field. He can "cramp up" as you say. So if there is a mechanism in place to get a "fatigued" player off the field so as to avoid injury, what other reason could there be to slow teams up from approaching the line?
You know as well as I know, if the cramping up approach is taken a call for a penalty for "faking injuries" or making a player set out for a number of plays will be proposed by proponents of the HUNH.
quote:
That is why I question how much of it is for player safety and how much of it is so the defense can get the package they want on the field.
Bert has only talked about the need to replace the d-linemen, for the most part, which makes sense from a player safety stand point as they are normally trying to move up to 3 different guys weighing 300lbs or so each play while taking hits from TEs and RBs if they beat these big guys, while being big guys themselves. I do not think Bert is as concerned about this issue in terms of DBs becoming as fatigued in a short amount of plays because the exert less energy on some plays and more on other while d-linemen exert the same amount of injury every play while taking hits every play.
Bert was a d-linemen in college, so I'm sure he has an idea of what it takes to play the position on this level.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:10 am to DaleDenton
quote:
You know as well as I know, if the cramping up approach is taken a call for a penalty for "faking injuries" or making a player set out for a number of plays will be proposed by proponents of the HUNH.
May be right and I'd be against that as well. Guess in the bigger picture, it just ain't a big deal either way. Call me old school or whatever, I just hate what I see as the pussification of football. For example, I'm against the targeting rule in any form as well. Does that rule reduce the risk of injury as well? I suppose it does. But the game was meant to be violent and injuries occur in a violent sport. If one doesn't want to take on that risk, don't play.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:19 am to reedus23
quote:
May be right and I'd be against that as well. Guess in the bigger picture, it just ain't a big deal either way. Call me old school or whatever, I just hate what I see as the pussification of football. For example, I'm against the targeting rule in any form as well. Does that rule reduce the risk of injury as well? I suppose it does. But the game was meant to be violent and injuries occur in a violent sport. If one doesn't want to take on that risk, don't play.
I don't see it as a "pussification" of football, I see it as a realization that players are bigger, faster, stronger, than they have ever been in the past on average and those with a decent understanding of physics get why changes like targeting are needed to help protect both players.
Targeting is an interesting example as Bert mentioned the spend time educating their players on the rule, show them examples in film of targeting and teach how to not do that resulting in no targeting penalties for the team last year.
You can still lay the wood to someone on the field while having rules to help keep everyone safer and teach players how to hit and tackle properly to protect themselves in the process. No one wants to see a kid using his helmet as a weapon breaking his neck and lie motionless on the field, no one wants to see a player take a blind side cheap shot from a defender running at full speed with a 10 yard head start blindsiding the player leading to him laying motionless on the field concussed or seriously injured. People do want to see guys laid out, huge hits by defenders, etc and bounce up and get ready for another play in the game.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:34 am to DaleDenton
I understand the physics of it. I've gotten up after seeing stars and everything going black more than once. You're right, don't want to see anyone lying motionless on the ground. It's just a slippery slope you can go down though Dale, because no matter what you do, there is still going to be a risk of injury until you get to the point where there is no contact allowed. I know, it will never get that far (I hope), but I also don't know where the line is that you say we have enacted all of the rules we can for the sake of player safety while still maintaining the integrity of the game.
Serious question...should RB's NOT be allowed to line up 7 yards deep? Seems to me if they are forced to line up within 3-5 yards of the line of scrimmage, they wouldn't be able to build up as much of a head of steam before crashing into defenders. I'm not suggesting that this actually be considered, but wouldn't that make sense as well in terms of physics and team safety?
Serious question...should RB's NOT be allowed to line up 7 yards deep? Seems to me if they are forced to line up within 3-5 yards of the line of scrimmage, they wouldn't be able to build up as much of a head of steam before crashing into defenders. I'm not suggesting that this actually be considered, but wouldn't that make sense as well in terms of physics and team safety?
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:40 am to reedus23
quote:
Serious question...should RB's NOT be allowed to line up 7 yards deep? Seems to me if they are forced to line up within 3-5 yards of the line of scrimmage, they wouldn't be able to build up as much of a head of steam before crashing into defenders. I'm not suggesting that this actually be considered, but wouldn't that make sense as well in terms of physics and team safety?
Yes/No. Yes, a RB is hitting the hole with full velocity in this scenario, the difference between this and targeting is he has the ability to avoid the guys with his back turned (Olinemen) and the defenders can see him.
The Targeting rule is mainly there to protect guys who's attention is away from the charging defenders who's only intention is to deliver punishment and not make a play on the ball.
The horsecollar tackle was only recently outlawed, should it be put back into place? McFadden was hobbled up in 07 from defenders horsecollar tackling him several times that season.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:44 am to DaleDenton
quote:
The horsecollar tackle was only recently outlawed, should it be put back into place? McFadden was hobbled up in 07 from defenders horsecollar tackling him several times that season.
I hear ya. That's how we lost Josey as well. Don't get me wrong, I see the logic behind the changes and I certainly don't want to come off as a cold hearted prick, but I just don't know if it's possible to legislate injuries out of the game.
I know one change I'd make that would help somewhat in reducing injuries. Get rid of that god awful turf at Mizzou.
Unfortunately, they're stuck with it unless they were to build a whole new stadium, which isn't happening.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:51 am to DaleDenton
Posted on 7/17/14 at 8:57 am to reedus23
quote:
I hear ya. That's how we lost Josey as well. Don't get me wrong, I see the logic behind the changes and I certainly don't want to come off as a cold hearted prick, but I just don't know if it's possible to legislate injuries out of the game.
You won't be able too, the human body is capable of only so much, factors such as fatigue come into play as well which is the main reason for the sub rule.
The rules will not prevent all injuries, but they might prevent a number of injuries.
It would never happen because of the parity it could possibly create (meaning recruiting advantages/disadvantages would be neutralized somewhat between directional U and traditional power U), but if you go back and watch games from the 60s and 70s when O-linemen were the size of today's WR and RBs (Basically) and Dlinemen the size of LBs and Ss, it wasn't a bad game to watch, the fighting in the trenches looks basically the same (outside of blocking rule changes), it wasn't a bad game to watch, guys were not getting dinged up or destroy physically every couple of plays and their equipment was no where as good as it is today.
Point?
I'm not saying weight limits, but I am, a lot of the problems of today (and in the future for the players) would be solved if linemen were 50 pounds lighter across the board, lbs 30lbs, rbs, 20 pounds, etc.
Not sprint football, but maybe limits a little higher than sprint football. The only way this would come to be would be if college and the NFL worked together to set the limits, they won't, but you would have to think the technology of today in protective equipment given to the players in the 60s and 70s would have a result of a game that is much safer and still as enjoyable to watch.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 9:24 am to DaleDenton
As I was reading that, the first thing that came to my mind was playing peewee football, where they had lights and heavies. I was always borderline, so my mom always wanted me to lose a few pounds for weigh in and be the biggest kid on the lights instead of the smallest kid on the heavies.
Like I said, have a new appreciation for Bert's position. Not 100% on board, but can appreciate it. Quick question on a 10 second run off. Let's say Arky is losing by 5 to LSU in the 4th quarter but are driving. They have the ball on LSU's 3 yard line but there's 8 seconds left on the clock. Is the game over? Arky wouldn't be allowed to snap the ball because of the 10 second run off rule?
I was always borderline, so my mom always wanted me to lose a few pounds for weigh in and be the biggest kid on the lights instead of the smallest kid on the heavies. Like I said, have a new appreciation for Bert's position. Not 100% on board, but can appreciate it. Quick question on a 10 second run off. Let's say Arky is losing by 5 to LSU in the 4th quarter but are driving. They have the ball on LSU's 3 yard line but there's 8 seconds left on the clock. Is the game over? Arky wouldn't be allowed to snap the ball because of the 10 second run off rule?
Posted on 7/17/14 at 9:30 am to reedus23
quote:
Like I said, have a new appreciation for Bert's position. Not 100% on board, but can appreciate it. Quick question on a 10 second run off. Let's say Arky is losing by 5 to LSU in the 4th quarter but are driving. They have the ball on LSU's 3 yard line but there's 8 seconds left on the clock. Is the game over? Arky wouldn't be allowed to snap the ball because of the 10 second run off rule?
IIRC the 10 second delay was only for time outside the final 2 minutes of each half.
Also IIRC the proposal didn't mandate 10 seconds, if a defense subbed or chose not to sub the ref would move off the ball and it would be ready for play.
Honestly, its close to the what the NFL basically does, the ref would stand over the ball and have a role in the pace of the game, they wouldn't allow a cheap penalty from an offense trying to quick snap the ball when a defense is subbing.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 9:32 am to DaleDenton
quote:
Also IIRC the proposal didn't mandate 10 seconds, if a defense subbed or chose not to sub the ref would move off the ball and it would be ready for play.
That and it not applying to the last 2 minutes makes sense. (Quoted the wrong portion
)This post was edited on 7/17/14 at 9:33 am
Posted on 7/17/14 at 9:39 am to reedus23
quote:
That and it not applying to the last 2 minutes makes sense. (Quoted the wrong portion )
The 10 second deal came about because teams that rush to the line every play, do not normally snap the ball inside of 10 seconds (on average, I'm not doing the work to verify their claim, it appears to be close to accurate from the games I watched) unless they are down in the second half or running the 2 minute drill.
Using the NFL model of having the ref standing over the ball is a solution, going back to the 25 second play clock and rules with it is another solution, a 10 second delay with the 40 second clock is also a solution, other solutions are possible as well.
The main problems are the defenses inability to sub. This can be for either player fatigue or down/distance reasons and the rule change in 08 being exploited by the HUNH.
If you remember the Wisconsin game where Bert had his kicker kick for penalty because the clock started at the kick and the penalty was a re-kick, he exploited the rule change to run out the clock and beat Penn St. Everyone agreed this rule change did not mean to create an avenue of exploitation for competitive advantage like this so the rule was changed.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 10:05 am to DaleDenton
Also, with a little more thought on the subject, I believe too many are focusing on the game part of the real issues at hand.
The real issue tends to revolve around sickle cell or other health issues a player may have that increases his risk of serious injury or death from being over exerted or exhausted on the field of play.
Then I think of the center from Baylor who had his NBA hopes ended when it was found out he had a health issue that could result in his death on the court, he played what 4 years at Baylor without this being discovered?
Colleges are making bank off athletics, yes, this money goes back into the school for the most part and some make more than others. The talk about the Division "4" of power conferences seems to be centered around compensation of athletes, which is a whole different issue in itself. Since these colleges appear to have enough money to "pay" 100s of athletes in the revenue producing sports, why do they not have enough money to give them proper health evaluations to discover potential life threatening health issues?
Mandating this testing and discovering these issues would provide another solution to the issue at hand.
Say a guy has sickle cell, I'm not talking about outing him in public, he has the right to his privacy on the matter, but what if every college football team had a list of players with this issue and their jersey numbers are given to the refs on a sheet that they can use to keep an eye on the player?
Yes, the refs would have to be trained to be able to identify signs the player may be putting him self in more danger than he should be because of his health issue, but along with that you would give the player an avenue besides faking an injury to alert the refs he needs a sub so the refs can safely allow him to get to the sidelines for a rest.
It wouldn't be any different than in basketball when a player is injured, the play is stopped when the flow of the game stops (not on a fast break, but they will blow it dead if a team stops on the opposite end to set up). So, I'm not talking about blowing a play dead, but there is a dead ball period, or stoppage in play, after every play in football.
This would be better than faking injuries, but it would require a more proactive approach starting the day the athlete steps on campus. If the athlete's best interest is truly at hand, every school would be for testing for these health issues. However, I'm afraid school's wouldn't be for this as they could potentially lose a player who health wise shouldn't be playing, they would rather use their abilities and let the pro leagues tell them they have to stop if they want to live.
The real issue tends to revolve around sickle cell or other health issues a player may have that increases his risk of serious injury or death from being over exerted or exhausted on the field of play.
Then I think of the center from Baylor who had his NBA hopes ended when it was found out he had a health issue that could result in his death on the court, he played what 4 years at Baylor without this being discovered?
Colleges are making bank off athletics, yes, this money goes back into the school for the most part and some make more than others. The talk about the Division "4" of power conferences seems to be centered around compensation of athletes, which is a whole different issue in itself. Since these colleges appear to have enough money to "pay" 100s of athletes in the revenue producing sports, why do they not have enough money to give them proper health evaluations to discover potential life threatening health issues?
Mandating this testing and discovering these issues would provide another solution to the issue at hand.
Say a guy has sickle cell, I'm not talking about outing him in public, he has the right to his privacy on the matter, but what if every college football team had a list of players with this issue and their jersey numbers are given to the refs on a sheet that they can use to keep an eye on the player?
Yes, the refs would have to be trained to be able to identify signs the player may be putting him self in more danger than he should be because of his health issue, but along with that you would give the player an avenue besides faking an injury to alert the refs he needs a sub so the refs can safely allow him to get to the sidelines for a rest.
It wouldn't be any different than in basketball when a player is injured, the play is stopped when the flow of the game stops (not on a fast break, but they will blow it dead if a team stops on the opposite end to set up). So, I'm not talking about blowing a play dead, but there is a dead ball period, or stoppage in play, after every play in football.
This would be better than faking injuries, but it would require a more proactive approach starting the day the athlete steps on campus. If the athlete's best interest is truly at hand, every school would be for testing for these health issues. However, I'm afraid school's wouldn't be for this as they could potentially lose a player who health wise shouldn't be playing, they would rather use their abilities and let the pro leagues tell them they have to stop if they want to live.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 10:16 am to DaleDenton
I'm all for more testing for health issues. If it were mandated that all schools have to do it, I would imagine most doctors aren't going to fudge their reports. Their liability would be tremendous if something were to happen and it came out he missed a diagnosis or even worse, fudged the results. Some may do it, but like I've told others, can't stop people from breaking the law, can only do something about it when they do. I don't know enough about sickle cell, but if a kid is diagnosed with it and playing poses a real threat to his health or even life, I think there's only one answer...his playing days are over. I don't think giving refs their numbers and training them on signs is sufficient. Health and life just aren't worth it. Maybe the trade off is that if a kids is found to have such a disease as that Baylor player, he is still given his scholarship for 4 years but it's not used against the caps for that team. Telling a kid he can no longer play is tough enough. I'd hate to just throw the kid to the streets completely, especially with the background some of them come from. Allow them to get their education but don't count it against the team.
Posted on 7/17/14 at 10:26 am to reedus23
They already have that in place with the medical hardship, the player remains on scholarship academically with what he would have had for athletics and it does not count against the scholarship limits.
From my understanding of Sickle Cell, it has to do with the inability for sufficient oxygen to be carried in the blood stream compared to an individual without the trait. It is only life threatening if a player over-exerts and over fatigues himself.
This is the main health issue Bert talks about in this issue, it isn't a problem if a player can sit out a few plays/series to rehydrate and "catch his breath" if you will. The whole ability to sub for the defense is centered around players with this trait for Bert. If they are on offense it isn't a big deal because the staff can dictate when they are subbed, they have that control, the offense dictates the sub pattern today.
This is why if you listen to Bert you can tell he truly believes in what he is wanting changed for player safety, he does get pissed when it is inferred or questioned that he is only interested in a change for a competitive advantage. I truly believe he believes in what he's been saying in regards to the matter. I can see his point of view on the matter, just as I can see the point of view of his opponents.
I think it would be as simple as something like I proposed (a better solution is certainly possible), let the refs do their job of over seeing the play and players in the game and allow a player who is fatigued and needs out to sub out. The refs are allowed to do this in the other major sports, basketball and baseball during stoppages in play, a player simply goes to the ref/ump and says he needs out of the game.
From my understanding of Sickle Cell, it has to do with the inability for sufficient oxygen to be carried in the blood stream compared to an individual without the trait. It is only life threatening if a player over-exerts and over fatigues himself.
This is the main health issue Bert talks about in this issue, it isn't a problem if a player can sit out a few plays/series to rehydrate and "catch his breath" if you will. The whole ability to sub for the defense is centered around players with this trait for Bert. If they are on offense it isn't a big deal because the staff can dictate when they are subbed, they have that control, the offense dictates the sub pattern today.
This is why if you listen to Bert you can tell he truly believes in what he is wanting changed for player safety, he does get pissed when it is inferred or questioned that he is only interested in a change for a competitive advantage. I truly believe he believes in what he's been saying in regards to the matter. I can see his point of view on the matter, just as I can see the point of view of his opponents.
I think it would be as simple as something like I proposed (a better solution is certainly possible), let the refs do their job of over seeing the play and players in the game and allow a player who is fatigued and needs out to sub out. The refs are allowed to do this in the other major sports, basketball and baseball during stoppages in play, a player simply goes to the ref/ump and says he needs out of the game.
Page 2 of 3
Latest Arkansas News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News