Gip will be semi-pleased that a change in the targeting penalty is suggested. I'm sure he won't be happy until the rule is eliminated. http://college-football.si.com/2014...fensive-substitutions-targeting/?xid=si_ncaaf
Do away with Targeting and don't do anything about the Hurry up. If a team wants to play hurry up then they trade flexibility just as the defense does. Let the coaches make the adjustments.
How many times did we see targeting penalties get overruled last season? Plenty. And every time that happened, a wrongful 15 yd. penalty got assessed. At least this new rule corrects that problem.
I'm a proponent of the targeting rule, but like everyone else (except those who want it abolished), I believed that major adjustments needed to be made. I hope that the suggested changes get enacted and that the people in the review booth have more sense than the referees who fumbled the ball with their ejections this past season.
As Spencer rambled on about it yesterday, it really set in on me, that they are proposing you can be penalized for delay of game for going too fast.. Only the rules committee could come up with something that stupid.
Can Oregon get lined up and the ball snapped in less than 10 seconds? If they can't on a regular basis what's the point?
Between spot and snap, one article I read said the Ducks averaged 15 seconds per snap and Baylor was 15.9. Since this is an average, I would guess there were quite a few sub-10 snaps in there.
That was the point of Spencer's article yesterday (aside from the absurdity of it all). No one is faster than Baylor and Oregon, yet neither of them routinely run plays off that fast. So the point of the rule is, it has no practical application or point. We're creating a rule to stop something that doesn't exist.
Also lets consider how many championships (conference or national) Oregon or Baylor has. My point being, is it really that important. I submit that offensive and especially defensive fundamentals win championships. All flash, no substance!!! :roll:
kp, I would have to disagree a bit. The two regular season losses Bama has had the last two seasons were by teams that have hurry up offense. In answer to the sub 10 second snapping the ball, it actually doesn't happen that ofter. However the threat of it happening keeps defenses from substituting. Sorry but defenses need to find ways to adjust, as they always do, and not legislate under a phony safety issue.
Bill, you are correct, however we also beat the two teams that we lost to in those two years. A&M played Alabama tough both years but as much as it pains me to admit it, other teams beat A&M in the last two years as well. Those two losses were very close and could easily have gone the other way. Neither were dominating wins sooooo, having said all of that I agree that nothing should be done to slow down the game. I think the hurry up will go the way of the triple option. Some of it will be incorporated into a lot of game plans but in the end the offense will want to substitute as much as the defense wants to and the pendulum will swing back. 8)
I think that the biggest problem that the defense faces is that the opponent lines up immediately and could snap the ball at any point. There is often a delay between the line up and the snap. The new rule gives the D 10 seconds where they know that even if the opponent is lined up they can't snap the ball. The whole point of the hurry up is to prevent situational substitutions and wear out the defense. Sooooo.....if you can't beat them, have the rules committee screw 'em.
In the long run the Hurry Up will fade into the background of college football. Right now it is a way to neutralize the other team's size advantage. Recruiting and coaching will take care of this and the NCAA doesn't need to do anything. :?
MUST SEE! Arizona and RichRod poke fun at proposed 10 second rule. Very well done IMO. Under 3 minutes. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nNPdi5hRLy8" frameborder="0"></iframe>