Started By
Message
What does science say about injuries due to HUNH???
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:14 pm
quote:
Count University of Arizona head athletic trainer Randy Cohen among the skeptics about the NCAA Football Rules Committee's proposal to slow down hurry-up offenses in the name of safety.
"If you want to do it for a competitive advantage, then come out and say you're doing it for a competitive advantage," said Cohen, who chairs the college committee of the National Athletic Trainers' Association. "Don't say it's a safety issue because right now we don't have any data about this. None."
quote:
Yes, some medical officials and researchers say, fatigue can lead to poor technique and put players at greater risk for injuries, including concussions. But some point out players can leave a game now simply by falling down on the field
quote:
Rogers Redding, the national coordinator of officiating, told CBSSports.com there wasn't much "hard data" to consider for the substitution rule, which must still be approved on March 6 by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel.
But... here's why Bielema will probably prevail:
quote:
Even if it's true that the rules committee's intention for the 10-second runoff is due to competitive purposes, "you have to prioritize player safety," Huma said. "These coaches are paid enough to adapt and fully capable to comply with a rule like that and still be effective coaches."
LINK
Data or no data, NCAA will probably err on side of safety.
Fewer snaps equals fewer opportunities for injury.
You don't need any data to draw that conclusion.
quote:
"If they slowed down the game a bit, there would be less snaps overall, which we know would reduce contact and reduce the risk of traumatic brain injury," said Huma, a former UCLA football player. "I would also say the committee would be negligent in its responsibilities if it doesn't consider reducing contact in practices, which is cited as the most effective way to reduce traumatic brain injury."
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:15 pm to BrerTiger
quote:
These coaches are paid enough to adapt
the irony burns
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:15 pm to BrerTiger
This has to be about the 20th time I've seen that gif in a thread today
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:15 pm to BrerTiger
quote:Which leads me to two questions:
Fewer snaps equals fewer opportunities for injury.
1) why are there unlimited overtimes?
2) why add another game with the playoff scenarios?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:16 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
This has to be about the 20th time I've seen that gif in a thread today
Makes a great visual aid.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:19 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
This has to be about the 20th time I've seen that gif
Lets make it 21
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:19 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
1) why are there unlimited overtimes?
Excellent question.
quote:
2) why add another game with the playoff scenarios?
Also another great question.
Exactly the rebuttal I would use were I Malzahn, Freeze, etc.
Personally, I'm not in favor of changing the rules. But this is basically politics and every talking point under the sun is going to be used. Bert knows his best argument is player safety and in the absence of good metrics to make his case he can just argue fewer plays equals fewer opportunities for injury and seize on the fear of concussions.
But your counter is perfect for that line of argument. I don't have a dog in the fight either way.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:20 pm to BrerTiger
This will likely not even make it to a vote. The backlash from this is at an all time high, coaches across the country are burning up the phones about this issue and far more are against it than in favor of it. If it makes it to a vote its not likely to pass and it is very likely it won't even make it to a vote.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:21 pm to BrerTiger
Yea, I just brought them up for the sake of argument... I don't think it affects the offense much either way even if it does pass.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:23 pm to Agforlife
quote:
Data data data
I seent that.
quote:
The ‘slowest’ conference for play in 2012 was the SEC. The highest rate of injury per play, the SEC.
The SEC doesn't seem "slow" to me. In terms of plays per game, sure. But don't we also have the fastest and largest players in all of college football? More speed, more mass = more injuries?
But it would be easy to argue that if the SEC had 5 fewer plays per game you'd have fewer injuries and if the SEC had 5 more plays per game you'd have more injuries (over the long term).
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:26 pm to TTsTowel
quote:
Yea, I just brought them up for the sake of argument... I don't think it affects the offense much either way even if it does pass.
I agree.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:29 pm to rangers911
quote:
This will likely not even make it to a vote
There is definitely going to be a vote, and I would be shocked if it didn't pass.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:35 pm to TreyAnastasio
Are you trying to argue that fatigue doesn't lead to an increased risk of injury? Because it definitely does, its a pretty basic concept that anyone who has ever exercised is aware of. Coaches arguing that there is no "data" to support it just come off as ignorant.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 7:42 pm to BrerTiger
Cheat however possible... Gawd you Allbarns suck the arse out of fun..
Posted on 2/13/14 at 8:37 pm to rangers911
quote:I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Rules Comm. must now vote on the recommendation. It's in the NCAA protocol....sorry.
This will likely not even make it to a vote
Posted on 2/13/14 at 8:40 pm to TTsTowel
quote:You're probably right. A bunch of fuss over nothing...I personally don't care.
Yea, I just brought them up for the sake of argument... I don't think it affects the offense much either way even if it does pass.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 8:41 pm to coachcrisp
The oversight committee will not approve this recommendation.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 8:55 pm to BrerTiger
science is laughing at this guise. Science also thinks saban is a pussy.
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News