Started By
Message
2
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:40 am to graves1
quote:Well the argument that was put forth is that more plays equals more opportunities for injuries.
I just pointed out that this rule has nothing to do with number of plays.
Substitutioons are not outlawed, defenses just have to be quicker or wait for the right time to do it.
However, to my point, we all know this is about control and defensive minded coaches wanting more time to be able to control their defenses. It has nothing to do with player safety.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:40 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
How is that incorrect? The rule is to let the d sub players. If the offense can run a 100 plays and let the d sub no problem.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:41 am to graves1
quote:
The rule is to let the d sub players
They can already sub players
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:41 am to graves1
quote:
Could not get any worse? I just pointed out that this rule has nothing to do with number of plays. But you are here just to flame. So go ahead...
If it has nothing to do with number of plays, then why do they use numbers of plays in there data sets as why hunh are causing injuries? It's the primary data being used. So to say its not about numbers of plays makes a lot of us chuckle.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:42 am to graves1
quote:
How is that incorrect? The rule is to let the d sub players. If the offense can run a 100 plays and let the d sub no problem.
the current rules allow defensive players to sub.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:42 am to graves1
quote:So you like things the way they are. Me too.
If the offense can run a 100 plays and let the d sub no problem.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:43 am to WDE24
quote:
If you think the game should be changed based on fundamental strategic issues then propose the rule change on that front.
I agree with the sentiment but honestly, there's a better chance of getting things done if you try to appeal to the bleeding heart crowd.
Thing of the kids for Gods' sake!
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:43 am to WDE24
quote:
The analogy to rounds is equivalent to quarters. We should just shorten the game to two quarters then.
You can spin it any way you like, but more dangerous sports put limits on their athletes to protect them. And yes, when a boxer is dazed, the ref steps in and does a count to make sure he is ready to fight on. Football is no different and there is no perfect analogy because every sport it different. Maybe instead of trying to dissect every analogy, you could just take the point from the analogy and discuss it, since you know, that's what analogies are for and all.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:44 am to diddydirtyAubie
quote:
the current rules allow defensive players to sub.
Only when the offense subs. That's a crap argument.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:44 am to NYCAuburn
It is about getting an injured or hurt player time to be aware he is hurt and time to get a sub in for him.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:45 am to graves1
quote:
It is about getting an injured or hurt player time to be aware he is hurt and time to get a sub in for him.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:45 am to graves1
The rule is titled player substitution, but it is based on player safety. Which means the number of plays is in that discussion and therefore part of the reason for the rule.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:46 am to NYCAuburn
Great response. But that's right, you are here just to flame......
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:46 am to graves1
quote:
If the offense can run a 100 plays and let the d sub no problem
That is todays game.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:46 am to tider04
quote:
Only when the offense subs. That's a crap argument
So they can sub the same amount as the offense? So it's equal? What's the problem?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:46 am to tider04
quote:Bad analogies get dissected. If the analogy breaks down too easily, it is no analogy at all and fails to make the point.
Maybe instead of trying to dissect every analogy, you could just take the point from the analogy and discuss it, since you know, that's what analogies are for and all.
Anyway, like I said, making rules changes based on player safety that argues that less football is safer football is a dangerous path on which to travel and has huge potential to back fire on the sport or proponents of such thought.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 11:48 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:46 am to graves1
quote:
It is about getting an injured or hurt player time to be aware he is hurt and time to get a sub in for him.
Come on man, now you're trying to be a jokester...
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:48 am to graves1
quote:
Great response. But that's right, you are here just to flame......
Sorry, you keep touting the company line, rather than seeing it for what it actually is. My only response is a chuckle.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:48 am to graves1
Here's the bottom line, defensive minded coaches and their fans will side with this rule. Offensive minded coaches and their fans will be against it. The reality is if Saban was AU's coach and Gus was Bama's coach we would all be arguing the opposite side. That's why we're fans. I was simply pointing out that even though safety is a straw man in this debate, there is a legitimate argument from that angle.
Page 33 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News