Started By
Message
re: NCAA Rules Committee Proposes to Eliminate HUNH
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:26 am to undecided
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:26 am to undecided
I don't have a problem with the hurry up offense but if the offense is allowed to hurry up then so should the defense aka as soon as the offense is set, the defense should be a able to rush regardless of the snap of the ball. This of course eliminates any off sides after the offense is set and there can be no false starts. The offense could still have illegal procedures for not lining up correctly but even that could probably be minimized by allowing more flexibility in alignment. Basically I would look to eliminate routine penalties that slow down the game wherever possible.
0
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:27 am to TTsTowel
Seeing Alabama fans have a persecution complex is adorable
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to DMagic
It truly is. Like I said, they wouldn't care if they didn't feel threatened and/or want to back up the talk from their Lord Nick Saban. They simply would not care.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:28 am to DMagic
Whether Saban is behind this or not, I love the fact that everyone thinks he is powerful enough to change NCAA rules.
You are all our bitches.
You are all our bitches.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:29 am to TreyAnastasio
I don't think Saban is behind this particular attempt at all. He just hid behind player safety like they did which is laughably stupid.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:29 am to polydorr
quote:
LOL. Your best inside linebacker in a decade was completely stymied by our offense and it certainly wasn't because the ball was snapped quickly. It'll be fun to watch Gus win even with the rule cards stacked against us.
Yeah CJ Mosley's error was unfortunate. It was also unfortunate that your receivers/ tight end were allowed to block illegally downfield on a pass play. Cyrus Jones actually read the blocks and played the run when he should have played the pass even if the pass was illegal. We didn't need a HUNH rule to win that game. We needed the refs to call rules already in the book. Oh well, we had plenty of other opportunities to put it away and we couldn't get it done.
Back to the HUNH.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:31 am to Tiger Live2
quote:Hell, I agree and feel the same way about Alabama. Besides, do these fools on this forum actually believe that both Alabama and LSU couldn't go HUNH if they thought that they needed to? Coach Bryant went Wishbone over the summer in '70 and reached the Nat'l Championship game the same year!
I'm not a fan of the HUNH, but I hope they don't change the rules to take it away. It's fun watching watching a game between a 2011 LSU type team, and a 2011 Oregon type team.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:33 am to chattabama
Did you forget to log into your antibarner account?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:34 am to chattabama
Someone doesn't know the rules already.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:35 am to DMagic
No. Don't have an alter. Sorry that you disagree with me and have to resort to name calling instead of refuting my points.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:36 am to chattabama
Where did I call you a name?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:36 am to chattabama
quote:Now we have lowered our standards to blaming the refs for the Iron Bowl loss. Casty.
It was also unfortunate that your receivers/ tight end were allowed to block illegally downfield on a pass play. Cyrus Jones actually read the blocks and played the run when he should have played the pass even if the pass was illegal. We didn't need a HUNH rule to win that game. We needed the refs to call rules already in the book.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:37 am to DMagic
Calling me antibarner. 
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:39 am to polydorr
quote:
It'll be fun to watch Gus win even with the rule cards stacked against us.
Have you ever noticed how Gus goes into a frenzy between plays because he wants auburn to snap the ball quicker? That's because he depends on catching defenses in a bad formation and running the same play over and over by not allowing the defense enough time to adjust. Slowing the game down and allowing the defense to substitute would change everything Malzahn's offensive philosophy is about.
That said, I hope they don't change a thing. I don't care for the HUNH personally. It changes the fundamentals of game I grew up with but there's nothing stopping other teams from doing it so I don't see it as an advantage really.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:40 am to chattabama
To be fair that sounded just like him after the IB
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:41 am to TTsTowel
I ended it with a "we had plenty of opportunities to put it away", but without that play you don't tie up the game. Bama shoulders 95% of the blame for the loss, but you have to admit that call was significant. In much the same way that LSU fans will tell you the out of bounds on Patrick Peterson's interception from 2009 was one of the factors that led to their loss. shite happens. Officials miss calls.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:41 am to DaBama
quote:I've got no problem with this statement!
That said, I hope they don't change a thing. I don't care for the HUNH personally. It changes the fundamentals of game I grew up with but there's nothing stopping other teams from doing it so I don't see it as an advantage really.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:42 am to coachcrisp
quote:
Hell, I agree and feel the same way about Alabama. Besides, do these fools on this forum actually believe that both Alabama and LSU couldn't go HUNH if they thought that they needed to? Coach Bryant went Wishbone over the summer in '70 and reached the Nat'l Championship game the same year!
Yea, LSU, Bama, Arky, will all run what they feel is best for them in order to win a championship. Whether it's the wishbone, HUNH, or a tradtional pro-style attack, they will run what the feel is best.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:43 am to coachcrisp
The question is whether or not defenses should be able to dictate the timing of their own substitutions or should offenses be allowed to continue to dictate it for them
I don't think it's ever really been debated before because with traditional huddle offenses, both O and D were free to sub at will.
With the advent of no huddle offenses, offensive minds recognized that by immediately lining up they could dictate when the D is able to sub. I applaud them for recognizing this and for bringing a new tactic to the game.
But the question remains, should the D have the same capability pertaining to subs as the O? If a RB is winded, the O doesn't have to wait for the D to sub before they can sub out that RB. So should the O be allowed to dictate when the D is allowed to sub out its winded players? I'm on the fence because I don't like seeing innovation punished either.
I don't think it's ever really been debated before because with traditional huddle offenses, both O and D were free to sub at will.
With the advent of no huddle offenses, offensive minds recognized that by immediately lining up they could dictate when the D is able to sub. I applaud them for recognizing this and for bringing a new tactic to the game.
But the question remains, should the D have the same capability pertaining to subs as the O? If a RB is winded, the O doesn't have to wait for the D to sub before they can sub out that RB. So should the O be allowed to dictate when the D is allowed to sub out its winded players? I'm on the fence because I don't like seeing innovation punished either.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 9:43 am to coachcrisp
Page 28 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News