NCAA rule change to outlaw hurry up offenses
...The committee also recommended a rules change that will allow defensive units to substitute within the first 10 seconds of the 40-second play clock, with the exception of the final two minutes of each half, starting with the 2014 season.
“This rules change is being made to enhance student-athlete safety by guaranteeing a small window for both teams to substitute,” said Calhoun. “As the average number of plays per game has increased, this issue has been discussed with greater frequency by the committee in recent years and we felt like it was time to act in the interests of protecting our student-athletes.”
Under this rule proposal, the offense will not be allowed to snap the ball until the play clock reaches 29 seconds or less. If the offense snaps the ball before the play clock reaches 29 seconds, a 5-yard, delay-of-game penalty will be assessed. Under current rules, defensive players are not guaranteed an opportunity to substitute unless the offense substitutes first. This part of the rule will remain in place in scenarios where the play clock starts at 25 seconds...
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-co…
February 12th, 2014 at 6:05 PM ^
I actually like the rule change, but I'm amused by the "delay of game" call. It's exactly the opposite of what a hurry up team is doing.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^
NCAA NCAAing again.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:48 PM ^
Agreed, the call should be illegal snap or illegal shift.
February 12th, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 9:52 PM ^
Just to play devils advocate; a hurry up offense generally creates a longer game and therfore the "delay of game" is actually true.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:06 PM ^
It doesn't say anything about if I'm trying to run hurry up under 2 minutes, can you not spike the ball or run a 2-minute offense?
February 12th, 2014 at 6:09 PM ^
The actual proposed rule does give an exception for under 2 minutes in either half.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:44 PM ^
Let's do away with spiking the ball while we're at it. If you can run up to the line and snap the ball, you can run a play.
February 12th, 2014 at 9:12 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 9:51 PM ^
I could never figure out why spiking the ball wasn't the very definition of intentional grounding.
February 12th, 2014 at 9:58 PM ^
Because a special rule allows spiking the ball to stop the clock.
February 12th, 2014 at 10:54 PM ^
I don't believe there is a special rule, but rather that the intentional grounding rule requires that there be pressure from the defense being applied on the QB which causes the QB to the throw the errant pass. When the QB spikes the ball there is no pressure from a defensive player, and therefore not intentional grounding. It's something along those lines.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
See p.79 of the NCAA rulebook, Rule 7, Section 3, Illegal Forward Pass, Article 2:
f. The passer to conserve time throws the ball directly to the ground (1) after the ball has already touched the ground; or (2) not immediately after controlling the ball.
So if the ball has not already touched the ground, and the passer throws the ball directly to the ground after controlling it, it's not illegal.
February 12th, 2014 at 11:55 PM ^
I stand corrected.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^
Stupid because as Coach Hand pointed out on twitter...
"Here's a thought, Team is down by 14 points with 5:30 minutes to go in the game...is this considered a two minute situation? #JustWondering
https://twitter.com/CoachHand/status/433726458645590016
February 12th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
Is Coach Hand aware that virtually no team spends less than 10 seconds between plays right now? The rule change is window dressing.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:58 PM ^
If it's window dressing and teams don't get a play off in that span, then why add yet another rule to the rulebook?
February 12th, 2014 at 7:30 PM ^
Profit.
February 12th, 2014 at 9:45 PM ^
Because it's the NCAA. It's not supposed to make sense.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:41 PM ^
Coach, 5:30 > 2:00, so no.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:45 PM ^
No, but there's no requirement that you huddle or that you wait more than ten seconds after the ball is set. You can still run your offense pretty quickly, you just can't go full turbo for the whole game.
Personally, I like the rule. By all means let defenses put in regular subs.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:11 PM ^
i can't wait for next year's tweaks to this year's tweaks.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
This is sort of a misleading title. This rule change should not have much of an effect on hurry up offenses. The fastest offenses still take 18 seconds between each play. This would have them snapping at around the 22 second mark on the play clock.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:16 PM ^
Eye catching title, I'd say.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
Yeah, those 18.3 seconds are from snap to snap, so that includes play time as well, not just the time from the point at which the play ends and the next snap occurs. Last I remember the average play length was something like 5 seconds, so it's more like 13 seconds between plays. So really your point stands and this is likely to effect very few teams, generally speaking.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:56 PM ^
But the 18 seconds is an average, no? So they may be much less than that at times.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
them snapping the ball while you are trying to change defenders is a possibility. This at least gives the D a 10 second window where they don't have to worry about that.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:36 PM ^
The rule change affects all hurry-up offenses, even the ones that essentially never snap the ball during the first 10s, because it removes their threat to do so. By lining up immediately, the offense holds the defense hostage in bad or exhausted packages. If the defense tried to substitute, the offense could quick snap with them out of position.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:45 PM ^
Exactly. A lot of hurry up offenses run to the line really fast, the do that fake snap count and look to the sideline for the play call. It doesn't matter if they don't snap the ball immediately when they get to the line; the threat is always there and the D has to respect it. With the new rule, the D players to rotate out can immediately run off and new players run in without having to worry about anything. Gives the D more time to get into their set as well without worry.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:47 PM ^
Defenses know they have 10secs to sub now no matter what.
How fast can UM get a FG unit on the field again? pretty fast.
UM should be able to have some kind of sub package now that is realistic vs. the super fast spreads teams.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^
I know Saban said that hurry up offenses decrease player safety, but is there any evidence of that?
February 12th, 2014 at 6:28 PM ^
About as much medical evidence as Saban uses to cut players.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:54 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 8:39 PM ^
You're missing the fact that the NCAA hasn't shown a statistically significant increase in player injuries since the start of the hurry up era.
February 12th, 2014 at 7:06 PM ^
but it seems logical that tired or dehydrated players are more likely to sustain injuries.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:13 PM ^
Not so much for Oregon and IU. Don't think it hurts Urban and OSU much.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^
The NCAA doesn't care about student-athletes.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^
I hope they don't. Fast-paced offenses are cool to watch, take practice time to implement, and allow teams to come back from deficits. I'd like to see those data on player injuries.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
Yeah, but UM isn't a fast paced offense, and seemingly will never be under Hoke, they give our D fits, and UM never uses the fast offense unless they're under two minutes anyway, no matter how much they're down. So why wouldn't you want this? Only seems to help UM. I support this. Until UM gets a coach that wants to run a fast paced offense.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:30 PM ^
It's good for UM. But it's bad for CFB.
February 12th, 2014 at 6:46 PM ^
Maybe we're just of a different mind. To me, what is good for UM, is good for CFB in general as well.
February 12th, 2014 at 8:15 PM ^
Really? So if the NCAA imposed a rule that Michigan won every game without having to even show up, that would be good for college football?
February 12th, 2014 at 9:07 PM ^
February 12th, 2014 at 8:15 PM ^
Really? So if the NCAA imposed a rule that Michigan won every game without having to even show up, that would be good for college football?