How should officials deal with fake injuries?
The first weekend of games brought at least two potential uses of the "fake injury" tactic, whereby a player gets directions from the sideline to intentionally slow down the opposing offense. The first was the UGA v. Clemson. The evidence is pretty clear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKCBKwgkNE&feature=youtu.be. The second was the Cal v. Northwestern game, which was obvious to anyone who watched it. Northwestern went down with at least 7-8 "injuries," almost all of which coincided with Cal first downs.
With the increasing use of uptempo spread concepts, fake injuries are becoming more common. The question is, how can officials stop this? Is there really any way to reliably sniff out this kind of impropriety? I'm curious to know what people think about this.
September 2nd, 2013 at 1:33 AM ^
Have you by chance taken a class from Bill Miller?
September 2nd, 2013 at 1:56 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 8:08 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:27 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
Huh, I can't figure out if I replied to the wrong post or read yours incorrectly.
I was mainly trying to point out that PI, targeting, holding, etc. are not as subjective as most people think- refs are looking for specific requirements to make the call - they are not acting on their interpretation of what holding is.
However, I do believe it would be extremely difficult to come up with objective traits that indicate a player is faking an injury. How do you do that? Referees don't want to have to judge whether a player really is hurt or not because there's no way to tell.
For your point on "obvious" instances: I don't think there are very many blatant, obvious ones. Sure there were in the past (NY Giants, right?), but now that this is an issue, coaches/players won't flop to the ground like fishes, they'll be much more discreet.
My solution, which I promote for soccer as well, is retroactive punishment. If you do it and someone watches the tape and concludes you dove or faked injury, penalties are applied. In this case, you need to make the penalties severe enough such that no player/team would dare do it, knowing they would be putting themselves at a serious disadvantage.
Of course, there's no silver bullet for this issue.
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
maybe you need to "announce" an injury immediately after the play. It is the players responsibility to at least make an attempt at going to the sidelines if possible. If a player stays in the game, and then hits the ground whether via real injury or coaches orders, than it is a delay of game call. If the Georgia player was really injured, than here, he would be expected to go the sideline immediately. He didn't in this case, and so his decision delayed the game.
The challenge is how does a player announce an injury...I would think putting your hand in air with a gesture would work for injuries that still allow for movement. Obviously, staying on the ground or severe limping would be obvioius announcements for injury timeout.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:08 AM ^
Players are taught to go to the ground when they realize they're injured. That's how they announce the injury, without risking the other team snapping the ball while they're trying to limp off the field. I'm not sure how introducing some other way of announcing an injury changes anything.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:22 AM ^
It worked well for Northwestern against a young Cal team just when it was hitting a good rhythm and gaining first downs.
The problem is that there is nothing in the NCAA football rule book to stop this, and even if there were, I'm not sure that leads us to a good place because football players are running full blast and hitting harder than ever. They also legitimately get winded and need to come out, but the hurry up offenses doesn't allow for that.
As for elevation and conditioning of the two teams:
Berkeley, CA (500 ft above sea level)
Evanston, IL (600 ft above sea level)
Fake injuries? So who decides what is fake? And what happens if they eff up the call (i.e. turns out the player had a cracked rib and lacerated lung)?
Seems dumb.
Maybe the middle ground is for officials to call an "official time out" of 10-15 seconds to get the winded player off the turf and the sub in the game. But then with Fitzgeralds, the game would be extended by 30 minutes or more with 11+ players getting "injured".
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:27 AM ^
That one really hurt Cal's chances in the game.
Kain Colter got slammed early in the game vs. Cal on an option play. Northwestern is not the same team without Colter in my opinion. I was not impressed with NW's offensive line in this game for either run or pass blocking. NW scored 44, but most of it gifted to them on a silver platter. The one player that impressed me was their walk-on fullback (typical Northwestern).
As for defense, NW's secondary did poorly on run support, and was attacked on the edge and deep with good success by Cal most of the game.
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:07 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:20 AM ^
I'm guess they will have to have a guy who watches replays for flops and dives. Problem is, if it's not painfully, indisputably obvious like it was in Clemson/Georgia then how do you prove it? With all the outrage in football right now about injuries and concussions, I don't see a ref getting away with saying, "That kid is faking. Resume the playclock and move him off the field." All it takes is one ref to screw up and a media shitstorm will follow.
Unless this gets to Soccer (or Futbol) levels of flopping, acting, and injury faking, I don't see anything being done about it, at least not in the foreseeable future. Unlike 99.9% of soccer, Football is actually ridiculously violent and it's the hotbutton issue.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 AM ^
Just before halftime of the Switzerland/Czech game in the '08 EC Switzerland's first-team striker went down from a challenge just outside the box and it wasn't obvious there'd been any contact at all. The announcers talked about it at length as a ridiculous dive and laughed when the stretcher was brought out, the halftime studio discussion was about diving and how the guy should be ashamed...and he didn't come back out for the second half. ACL, surgery, out of action for months.
I think any solution to this problem that risks players staying on the field when they're hurt and not getting immediately examined is, and should be, a non-starter. I don't really care much about the media shitstorm but I do care about the player that compounds an injury because his coach doesnt want to waste a timeout and let him get looked at.
September 2nd, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
A: It's soccer or football. It's only futbol if you're spanish.
B: Soccer is a plenty dangerous sport and there are plenty of times (as described in another post) when a so-called "dive" is an injury. When you're running full speed and someone kicks you in the ankle, you tend to fall down no matter how tough you are. If you actually watch games, especially in America or England, there's not nearly as much "flopping" or "faking" as people think. Basically the same about as the NBA.
/end ot rant.
September 2nd, 2013 at 7:09 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 7:17 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 7:27 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 7:44 AM ^
to see how Fitzgerald would react if Michigan did this to NW. Could be an effective strategy, and justifiable as NW opened the door.
September 2nd, 2013 at 8:51 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
There is an easy way to fix this, although some will consider it pretty radical:
If the game is stopped due to an injury, the team will be assessed one of their timeouts. If it's the first half and they are out of timeouts, take timeouts from their supply in the second half. If it's the second half and they are out of timeouts, they are assessed a 5-yard delay of game penalty for the first infraction, and a 15-yard unsportsmanlike penalty for every remaining infraction in the game. The way most coaches hoard timeouts, I think we would see an end to fake injury stoppages pretty quickly.
If you want to implement this, you probably need to go back to the rule from the '50s and '60s where each team had 4 timeouts per half,
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:03 AM ^
deliberate attempts to injure at a critical time in the game when one team is trying to use their timeouts to save the clock and get the ball back for a final drive. Games hinge on that so often, and having or not having that last time out can make so much difference that I can see a strong motivation to try to take an opposing player out to rob that team of a timeout.
I would favor instead making a player who is "injured" while the other team has the ball (which is overwhelmingly when faking occurs) sit out until his team gets the ball back, and if his team wants to put him back in sooner, they have to use a timeout to stop play and make the substitution.
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
Anything at all that can be done about this issue will unfortunately raise the possibility of "targeting" a player for injury.
Perhaps the rule should distinguish between players who are clearly injured during the course of play, compared to players who collapse onto the field after the play is over, and not as the result of physical contact. Of course, that would more likely just lead to players getting better at faking injuries.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
I agree with TakeTheField except I would apply it to players on offense too. If a team is behind near the end of a game there is a motivation to flop to stop the clock.
I like the idea that an injured player (faking it or not) has to sit out the remainder of the series or the team could spend a time out to get them in earlier.
This takes the judgment out of the refs' decision.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:29 AM ^
Since it is usually done in response to an offense in the hurryup, I say any injured player cannot return for the rest of the quarter or series.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:29 AM ^
You start requiring players to sit out drives or quarters for getting the wind knocked out of them...you are inviting way too much influence on the outcomes of games, especially when the original problem itself (faking injury) doesn't cause THAT much problem...all it does is slow down the game. It could suck for a team with momentum, but if they're a truly good team they shouldn't have to rely on tempo the whole time to win. They should be able to continue where they were at before.
And I know kids are coached to go down when they're injured. So while there are lots of fake injuries, there's also a reason why some will be standing but go down to the ground after a few seconds.
It's a problem that doesn't have a very good solution, honestly. Every solution I've seen here introduces too many complications. The only thing I can see is a post-game suspension/punishment when it's obvious. But that doesn't help in-game.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:36 AM ^
Coaches need to teach their players to not do this and if somebody is pulled for a while then I don't think they will tell them to go down so they can get a breather and sub. The only alternative I can think of would be a penalty but then you are relying on the officials to police for bad acting instead of getting set.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^
Use fake referees!
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:36 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:15 AM ^
It should be "illegal" (i.e., against the rules) because it is unethical. From the American Football Coaches Association (AFCA), the organization of college coaches, The Football Code states:
"Feigning an injury for any reason is unethical. An injured player must be given full protection under the rules, but feigning injury is dishonest, unsportsmanlike and contrary to the spirit of the rules. Such tactics cannot be tolerated among sportsmen of integrity."
NCAA Rule 3-3-5-b includes a reference to this: "To curtail a possible time-gaining advantage by feigning injuries, attention is directed to the strongly-worded statement in The Football Code."
Obviously many top-level college coaches are not swayed by appeals to ethics, or by "strongly-worded statements." The time has come where feigning injuries is clearly a problem--they lower the reputation of the sport, and make it less enjoyable for players and spectators. We might be only a few years away from a coach in a big game having his players feign an injury 20 or more times over the course of the game.
It's quite possible to enforce, too. Making all injury timeouts into team timeouts instead of official timeouts would be radical, and might cost a team with a legitimate injury a chance at a win, but would certainly take away any incentive to fake an injury.
September 2nd, 2013 at 10:49 AM ^
If you penalize teams for having injured players, by taking away timeouts or in any other way, players are going to start trying to play through injuries. And I really don't think that's something we want to encourage.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:00 AM ^
The Bengals under Sam Wyche and Bruce Coslet used the no-huddle extensively. During the 1988 playoffs, teams were faking injuries (see link for anecdote) against the Bengals. The Bills adopted the no-huddle after losing to the Bengals in the AFC championship game.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:22 AM ^
Is there anything wrong with faking injuries? There's an assumption off the top to this discussion that it is somehow unfair. I'm not sure it is. The "penalty" is that the player has to come out for the next play.
You could flip this discussion around and say "how should officials deal with offenses that are snapping the ball before a defense is ready?"
I don't necessarily agree with the following, but there's a basic tenet to most sports that the two sides are giving each other the opportunity to line up and do their jobs, and the best wins, not the one who takes advantage of the other not being ready. Most other sports, there's clearly a pause after stoppages of play for the two sides to line up again. In basketball or soccer for example, you have to wait until the official blows the whistle allowing play, and he doesn't do that until both sides are ready to play. Tennis, hockey, etc.
You can say an uptempo offense is just taking advantage of the rules as written because they don't require a lengthy stoppage, but then so are the guys going down with "fake" injuries.
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
That's pretty much my take on it. While it's fun to watch an offense go at jet tempo, it's not really sporting to prevent the defense from being ready. If it's just taking advantage of the rules, so is going down for "injury". The way good teams rotate their DL, I don't even know if forcing a player to sit out a drive would be that hard to adapt to for the Alabama's and LSU's when you just have a DE( with 2 backup/starters behind him )go down after 5 plays, then a DT, then maybe a LB. It won't hamper you too much and you can slow down play as much as you like.
With the focus on injuries these days, you can't create any rules that are subjective about fake injuries. The NCAA and NFL are really trying to cover their asses right now, and anything that counters that storyline will just not fly.
September 2nd, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^
Agree as well. Also, I feel like right now, offenses have the edge over defenses in general in CFB. The rise of spread formations, the shotgun/pistol, and athletic QBs already put a lot of pressure on defenses. Allowing offenses to snap the ball before the defense can substitute may be tipping the scales too much.
Maybe a solution would be to not allow offenses to snap the ball until the playclock is at say, 15 seconds (with maybe an exception made for end-game situations). That would give the defense 25 seconds to get ready.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:47 PM ^
TO ME is, hurry up takes advantage of catching a defense off guard and utilizing available clock. An offense can likewise milk the play clock to wind out a game, but if a defense or offense is out of time outs, they can fake an injury and essentially extend the rules and stop the game which isn't a 'strategy' of play as much as it is skirting the grey area of the rulebook.
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:06 PM ^
But it could be argued that hurry-up also exploits a gray area. When the rules were written, I imagine, it was assumed that both teams would have sufficient time to line up and make substitutions.
September 2nd, 2013 at 11:44 AM ^
It might be worth examining how up tempo offenses take advantages of the rules. I like them, but the ploy of setting up at the line to stop defensive substitutions and then the whole offense standing up to receive a play call from the sidelines that takes as long as huddling is an unfair advantage. It's not the same as the offense having X number of set plays to run, or even the QB calling plays from the line. In fact, it's really not very up tempo at all. It just keeps the defense from being able to substitute.
If you want to run up-tempo, no huddle offenses, then run them. Deal with the up and down sides, which include having your QB make important decisions on the fly. Huddling at the line of scrimmage so the offensive coach has extra time that the defensive coach doesn't is bullshit. It also makes the offense look better in that tempo than it may otherwise be.
As it stands, faking injuries are the only logical response a defensive coach/players have to the situation. Attempting to correct that won't fix the underlying issue, but it will create a handful of unintended consequences that will likely be bad for the game and could create serious injury hazards.
September 2nd, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
I agree with this, though I hate to admit it. I am definitely a fan of the spread offense because it allows you to line up, see how the defense aligns, and then call a play based on that. With that said, you can execute that strategy without being abusive. We did the same thing under Rodriguez, but we weren't really an "up-temo" team compared to most spread offenses.
It's hard to write the rules to allow offenses to execute that strategy, but without being abusive by not allowing defenses to dictating to the officials the pace of the game. I think the NFL has it right in how they handle tempo.
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:27 PM ^
Make the offense wait for the defense to get set. It is not good sportsman ship to not allow your opponent to be on equal standing. We use to run out 15 guys so the denfense wouldn't know who was in the play, they decided this was an unfair advantage and limited the number of people in the huddle. I don't see how the uptempo is any different.
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:48 PM ^
The problem with this is that there are times when we're probably all in agreement that a hurry-up is legitimate. The offense runs to the ball to get a snap off in the last ten seconds of the game, but the defense loafs to the line of scrimmage, runs a couple of subs out there to slow things down and the offense would be forced, by rule, to let them get set.
So far I haven't seen a solution that isn't far worse than the supposed problem.
September 2nd, 2013 at 12:41 PM ^
I have not doubt that there are fake injuries. However, how do you sort out those kids who sincerely feel injured and those who are faking it? Answer: you can't and you shouldn't try.
The alternatives suggested here make this point. They only punish kids who may be really hurt. We want kids to error on the side of going down to the turf. A kid should be able to get help whenever he wants it without having to worry about being out for the series, or the quarter or the game. A coach should tell his players to do this without having to worry about the NCAA punsishing him.
I am sorry that the spread coaches are all upset about this. It is the flip side of the defensive coaches complaining that the hurry up unfairly exploits the play clock. It is all just millionare coaches comlpaining about other millionare coaches at the expense of college kids. If they are such geniuses that they should make 2 million a year, then both sides should be able to game plan around this.
September 2nd, 2013 at 8:17 PM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^
I think they should respond with a fake stoppage of play.
September 2nd, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^
with regards to ANY loss of helmets for any reason is a good one...and as some have said if a player goes down with an injury, they could enforce a rule that forces him out of the huddle until the next first down or change of posession...to me that's fair, FOR ONE it actually protects a player in a legit injury situation to seek medical attention. I know adrenaline tends to run high and kids can overcome some pain, but if they are forced to sit out a series, they have little choice instead of trying to run back in because the coach is screeming for them. The other side as many mentioned, the time off the field negates a lot of coaches feigning injury. SURE there is a point where many teams have such depth it may not matter who they play but it's such a fine line of real vs. fake and the impact you really have to walk that fine line.
September 3rd, 2013 at 3:16 AM ^
September 2nd, 2013 at 3:38 PM ^
Allow each team an extra time out per half. If a player is "injured" the team must take a time out or a delay of game penalty. The officials could be given the latitude of waiving the delay of game penalty if the "injury" was the result of a personal foul. It's not totally equitable, but it is the only way to stop it.
September 2nd, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^
So if a guy is seriously injured on a play, but it happens to have not resulted in a personal foul (as is the case for most injuries), the team is penalized? What you're proposing would seem to discourage players from admitting they're injured. Football has already had a big enough problem with that.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:07 PM ^
Yes, but it's a five yard penalty. Enough to keep a team from faking it for strategic purposes, but not so onerous that a team can't absorb it for an occasional genuine injury.
September 2nd, 2013 at 9:06 PM ^
delete
September 3rd, 2013 at 12:20 AM ^
I said this last yr when Saban started howling about the dangers of the tempo offense. Its the reasoned response that I would use myself. If the officials are not specified a set amount of time to be taken before setting the next play then its up for grabs. The whole idea that one coach(Kelly etc.) can pressure officials into settin the ball faster and faster must have a counter for the defense. This is the counter and I personally like it. Its bush league to try and trick your way to victory thru tempo manipulation. It would be the equivolent of training a boxer very specifically to tear across the ring and try to punch the opponent before he was off his stool with his mouthpiece in. Bush league crap that only reflects an insect like specialization. Lets find 700lb goalies that we push onto the ice and take up the entire net.
September 3rd, 2013 at 5:42 AM ^
why not simply instruct officials that, except in the last two minutes of each half, they should stand over the ball and not signal it ready for play until the defense has had an opportunity to make any desired substitutions? It doesn't even require a rule change, just a reminder to officials that they're in charge of the flow of the game and they should make reasonable efforts to make sure neither side is put at a substitution disadvantage.