Started By
Message
re: NCAA Rules Committee Proposes to Eliminate HUNH
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:50 pm to WDE24
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:50 pm to WDE24
quote:
The point I made over and over is that making that argument is a dangerous path to go down, especially without supporting data.
How is it dangerous?
Maybe not liked, but using the term 'dangerous', is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think?
2
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:51 pm to Greg09Ag
I don't have to drop shyt TAMU boy, I know if more plays are run the their willbe more injuries.
Only a dummy doesn't realize if you add 15 to 20 more plays a game ( a 25-30 percent increase in plays ) you risk more injuries.
No ones buying your BS line, certainly not the NCAA.
The very reason(s) injuries have gone down is because of this rules committee implementing rules ( some of which I am not fond of ) like, targeting, horse collar, no blocking while engaged,no blocking below the waist down field, changing kick off rules etc. etc. You are FOS if you are suggesting that more plays don't lead to more injuries, that is just dumb.
Only a dummy doesn't realize if you add 15 to 20 more plays a game ( a 25-30 percent increase in plays ) you risk more injuries.
No ones buying your BS line, certainly not the NCAA.
The very reason(s) injuries have gone down is because of this rules committee implementing rules ( some of which I am not fond of ) like, targeting, horse collar, no blocking while engaged,no blocking below the waist down field, changing kick off rules etc. etc. You are FOS if you are suggesting that more plays don't lead to more injuries, that is just dumb.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:51 pm to RT1941
On gameday at the start of the year, they had a doctor talk about it. Backed up his claims.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:51 pm to graves1
quote:
Teams that use the HUNH are going to argue it doesn't.
Because there are numerous more proven situations that cause injuries than the HUNH. Again, like kickoffs, punts, and even blitzes. These are all more proven to cause injuries then the hunh.
Lawsuits about concussions, yet they don't wear the new protective helmet covering that's proven to reduce concussions. Just adding a piece of uniform aides more in reducing injuries, then limiting the hunh.
That's why the whole issue is a thinly veiled attempt to change the equality between the o and d.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:53 pm to tider04
quote:Finally? I have said that from the start.
Glad you finally do as well.
quote:you don't think making the argument that more football equals more danger with respect to justifying rules changes is a slippery slope? Do you just intentionally avoid logical thought.
I don't think it's a dangerous path to go down.
quote:What rules have they changed that you would analogize to this one?
Everyone knows Boxing and MMA are dangerous sports, are they eliminating the sports, or have they created rules and limits to make them as safe as possible?
quote:If they keep changing rules based solely on the concept that simply playing more football is too dangerous to accept, we might get pretty close.
Football isn't going away, if that's what you're concerned with.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:53 pm to NYCAuburn
If the defense is allowed to substitute whenever they want, then why even train players to have stamina at all? Bulk those frickers up. I'm sure that will increase player safety.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:55 pm to NYCAuburn
And they have been changing rules to fix those problems.
I understand fans of teams running a HUNH wanting things to stay the same, saying the data is not true.
I understand fans of teams running a HUNH wanting things to stay the same, saying the data is not true.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:55 pm to Yintros
quote:
If the defense is allowed to substitute whenever they want, then why even train players to have stamina at all? Bulk those frickers up. I'm sure that will increase player safety.
We have 85 man rosters, if coaches were concerned about number of plays, limit their on the field time.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:56 pm to Alahunter
quote:nHis argument is that it is a safety issue because more football plays equals unacceptable level of danger in football. Once you start down that path without supporting data, then where the line is drawn as to how many football plays are too many and who gets to draw it gets very arbitrary.
How is it dangerous?
Maybe not liked, but using the term 'dangerous', is a bit of hyperbole, don't you think?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:56 pm to graves1
quote:
And they have been changing rules to fix those problems.
Not really. If that was their real concern.
quote:
saying the data is not true.
What data? The data about more plays? Again failed logic is that the hunh isn't the main cause of more plays on the field, its actually stopped clocks
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:58 pm to WDE24
I admittedly, didn't read back. Thought the discussion was on something else. NM.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:59 pm to NYCAuburn
Several rules have changed. Kickoff, and where you can hit players are just two off the top. If helment comes off you have to leave the field. These are just the most used....
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:04 pm to WDE24
quote:
nHis argument is that it is a safety issue because more football plays equals unacceptable level of danger in football. Once you start down that path without supporting data, then where the line is drawn as to how many football plays are too many and who gets to draw it gets very arbitrary.
It's not really an argument, it's common sense. If I punch you in the face 20% more times today than I did yesterday, which day was safer for you?
And who gets to draw the line? Seriously? Ever heard of the NCAA? More specifically, the rules committee? You know the people whose job it is to draw such lines? Sheesh.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:08 pm to WDE24
quote:
What rules have they changed that you would analogize to this one?
Wow, speaking of a lack of logic. Let me ask you this...how many rounds did boxing have in the 70's? How many do they have now? Was reducing the number of rounds a "slippery slope", as you say? Of course not. Dumb argument any way you try to paint it.
And did you watch any MMA fights in the early days of the sport? They have added so many rules for safety it's not even funny. And they were all good rules, and as a result MMA is a relatively safe sport compared to what it once was with eye gouging, crotch punching and no weight divisions.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:10 pm to tider04
quote:You suck with analogies. Now playing football is the same as assault. You are making my case for me. We shouldn't allow you to punch me in the face at all. Why do we just limit it so 65 punches? It should be zero. Or at the most, 1 or 2.
If I punch you in the face 20% more times today than I did yesterday, which day was safer for you?
quote:I have. That is why this is dangerous.
Seriously? Ever heard of the NCAA?
quote:You mean the one made up of coaches that didn't even bring this idea up to the rest of the coaches they represent? Seems odd, huh? Wonder why?
More specifically, the rules committee?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:11 pm to Alahunter
quote:
How is it dangerous?
it's a serious precedent being set... fundamentally changing the way the game is played b/c of player "safety" with zero evidence to back it up.
if you're a fan of college football in its current form, this ruling should scare you... regardless of fan affiliation.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:14 pm to tider04
quote:I thought we covered this. Reduced rounds analogize closer to quarters or even number of games rather than number of plays.
Wow, speaking of a lack of logic.
quote:Yes, but none so silly as to say - "You hit too fast and too many times, we need a 10 second delay between punches to ensure the fighter is prepared to defend himself."
They have added so many rules for safety it's not even funny.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:14 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
lol@Teague
"lol" all you want, but that's the whole point of the HUNH - not allow the defense to adjust and catch them off guard. In MY opinion, football is meant to see which team can line up and beat the other team. The HUNH, changes the way the game is played. It's like adding a 10 second clock to a chess match - it becomes a different game.
This is what Saban meant a couple of years ago when he said we have to decide if this is what we want football to become. I understand a lot of people like it, especially those people whose teams are using it. I, personally, don't like it. I like the old way of football - the chess match within the game is interesting to me.
You're all welcome to disagree with me. Just because Saban and I are purists, and a little bit better than you, doesn't mean we can't all get along.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:14 pm to WDE24
So how has this thread been for 37 pages?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:15 pm to WDE24
quote:
You suck with analogies. Now playing football is the same as assault. You are making my case for me. We shouldn't allow you to punch me in the face at all. Why do we just limit it so 65 punches? It should be zero. Or at the most, 1 or 2.
You suck at reading comprehension, so I guess we're even. Based on your argument boxing would have been outlawed decades ago and MMA would be on that path as well. Your hypothesis that admitting something is dangerous will cause that thing to go away(or close to it) is just silliness.
quote:You do realize the rule committee is comprised of more than just a couple of coaches, right?
You mean the one made up of coaches that didn't even bring this idea up to the rest of the coaches they represent? Seems odd, huh? Wonder why?
Page 36 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News