NCAA Football, 2014-2015

[MadImmortalMan]

I can't comment on your personal feelings, but Dave Bartoo with cbfmatrix.com did a statistical study that makes the claim that Hurry-Up No-Huddle (HUNH) offenses produce more injuries pretty sketchy.

I agree with Otto's post, but only because I don't prefer the style of game Saban's points criticize. They have screwed over the defense with rule changes over the years. I guess it started with the forward pass. 

I guess it's an attempt to make the game more exciting and make fans happy (money). I'd personally love it if it were a general thing for defensive players to win Heismans.

[alfred russel]

Well, I dunno - I am conflicted about that as an official. But I think there is a perfectly valid argument to be made about WHAT the rules should state. What annoys the fuck out of me is seeing people, and especially journalists, bitch about the officiating, as if the calls themselves are the problem, rather than the rules.

Lastly, it is bullshit crybaby whining when ANYONE complains about a missed call that is a unsporting penalty on the other team - those are necessary rules, but that is just crying about you not getting an advantage you didn't earn anyway. I hate it when people complain about stuff like that - "Waaaahhhhh! We couldn't stop them on fourth down, and he took off his helmet and you didn't give it to us anyway!".

Now, if you are complaining about about a blown call that actually effects the play, like a hold of OPI or something, that is different, IMO. Bitching about not getting a gimme call is sour grapes of the first order.

Ernie Sims made a 3rd down tackle at the goal line with a huge hit, and while celebrating took off his helmet. The score was 10-7. Had the penalty been thrown, the probability shifts--Miami is a very heavy favorite to win the game at that point.

If the official throws the flag, and Miami wins, I'm sure you would respond to a whining FSU fan that the rules are the rules and they should follow them or face the consequences. But apparently if the official doesn't throw the flag, Miami fans shouldn't bitch (see the post above).

I don't think taking off your helmet in celebration should be a penalty--but if it is, a part of the game becomes not doing stupid shit to get celebration penalties. If FSU can't put a team on the field that can avoid such penalties, doesn't an official overlooking that give them a competitive edge?

[Berkut]

Well, I dunno - I am conflicted about that as an official. But I think there is a perfectly valid argument to be made about WHAT the rules should state. What annoys the fuck out of me is seeing people, and especially journalists, bitch about the officiating, as if the calls themselves are the problem, rather than the rules.

Lastly, it is bullshit crybaby whining when ANYONE complains about a missed call that is a unsporting penalty on the other team - those are necessary rules, but that is just crying about you not getting an advantage you didn't earn anyway. I hate it when people complain about stuff like that - "Waaaahhhhh! We couldn't stop them on fourth down, and he took off his helmet and you didn't give it to us anyway!".

Now, if you are complaining about about a blown call that actually effects the play, like a hold of OPI or something, that is different, IMO. Bitching about not getting a gimme call is sour grapes of the first order.

Ernie Sims made a 3rd down tackle at the goal line with a huge hit, and while celebrating took off his helmet. The score was 10-7. Had the penalty been thrown, the probability shifts--Miami is a very heavy favorite to win the game at that point.

Granted, and it should have been thrown - but that is a classic example of an unearned advantage. Miami might win the game, but not because they were the better team, but because Sims is an idiot *outside* the actual play.

If the official throws the flag, and Miami wins, I'm sure you would respond to a whining FSU fan that the rules are the rules and they should follow them or face the consequences.

Yep - without question. In both cases, neither sets of fans have much cause for crying. In the first, they are crying because they didn't get a gift, and in the second they are crying because their own player is an idiot. Neither rates as particularly valid bitches.

But apparently if the official doesn't throw the flag, Miami fans shouldn't bitch (see the post above).

Yes, it is entirely possible that there is no reason for either side to bitch much, regardless. His removing his helmet was not the reason he made the stop, nor was it the reason they Miami player could not successfully execute the play.

Of course, I do realize that this level of discretion requires caring about the game itself beyond the level of "Just win no matter what", which is probably not a realistic expectation for many "fans".

I don't think taking off your helmet in celebration should be a penalty--

What should it be?

If you remove your helmet, the officials have to stop the clock, as you cannot allow a play to go off with a helmet not on the player - that is why if a helmet comes off unintentionally, we stop the clock, and if it is under a minute in either half, the other team has the option of a ten second clock runoff (depending on circumstances).

Should we just let players stop the clock whenever they like by removing their helmet "in celebration"?

but if it is, a part of the game becomes not doing stupid shit to get celebration penalties. If FSU can't put a team on the field that can avoid such penalties, doesn't an official overlooking that give them a competitive edge?

It gives them a stupidity edge, but not a competitive one.

[alfred russel]

It gives them a stupidity edge, but not a competitive one.

A stupidity edge is a competitive edge. 

You truly have a noble sentiment that players doing really dumb things outside of the actual play should somehow be overlooked by the opposition, who should win during plays, etc.

That isn't how college football actually works. College players do dumb things all the time. A team that eliminates really dumb mistakes, even just between plays, is almost sure to win (unless it is outclassed). A referee declining to enforce the rules against a team that can not comply is giving that team a huge advantage.

[Berkut]

It gives them a stupidity edge, but not a competitive one.

A stupidity edge is a competitive edge. 

You truly have a noble sentiment that players doing really dumb things outside of the actual play should somehow be overlooked by the opposition, who should win during plays, etc.

Yeah, I know, sportsmanship and all that trumping "OMG WE MUST WIN NO MATTER WHAT" is a silly idea for most people.

That isn't how college football actually works.

I don't agree at all - thank god college football is not entirely driven by people who only care about winning no matter what.

College players do dumb things all the time.

Indeed. Some of those dumb things revolve around the actual play, and some around dead ball dumbassedness. There is a difference between the two.

A team that eliminates really dumb mistakes, even just between plays, is almost sure to win (unless it is outclassed).

It certainly does help, but it isn't a competitive advantage, that happens during the play.

Ideally, we would never have games decided by anything that happens before or after the whistle. That would be best.

A referee declining to enforce the rules against a team that can not comply is giving that team a huge advantage.

That would be a huge advantage, but that isn't what we are talking about.

[alfred russel]

What should it be?

If you remove your helmet, the officials have to stop the clock, as you cannot allow a play to go off with a helmet not on the player - that is why if a helmet comes off unintentionally, we stop the clock, and if it is under a minute in either half, the other team has the option of a ten second clock runoff (depending on circumstances).

Should we just let players stop the clock whenever they like by removing their helmet "in celebration"?

It has only been a penalty to take your helmet off in celebration for 10 years or so. Surely it is possible to live in a world where such a penalty is no longer mandatory?

My radical suggestion: don't stop the clock because a player doesn't have on a helmet. If you are really concerned about safety (not sure why as in the many years of watching football I never saw someone injured without a helmet, but whatever), call a deadball penalty on a team that has a player without a helmet when the offense is in position to snap the football.

[alfred russel]

It certainly does help, but it isn't a competitive advantage, that happens during the play.

Ideally, we would never have games decided by anything that happens before or after the whistle. That would be best.

Fascinating point of view; I'm not sure Rich Rodriguez would agree. Accelerated pace of play, putting pressure on the opposition to get in substitutions and calls quickly, presnap adjustments and motion to reveal coverages/disguise defenses, are where a lot of innovation in college football has been the past 10 years.

[Berkut]

What should it be?

If you remove your helmet, the officials have to stop the clock, as you cannot allow a play to go off with a helmet not on the player - that is why if a helmet comes off unintentionally, we stop the clock, and if it is under a minute in either half, the other team has the option of a ten second clock runoff (depending on circumstances).

Should we just let players stop the clock whenever they like by removing their helmet "in celebration"?

It has only been a penalty to take your helmet off in celebration for 10 years or so. Surely it is possible to live in a world where such a penalty is no longer mandatory?

Sure, but is it a better world? I dunno. Someone thought it was important enough to change the rule.

My radical suggestion: don't stop the clock because a player doesn't have on a helmet. If you are really concerned about safety (not sure why as in the many years of watching football I never saw someone injured without a helmet, but whatever), call a deadball penalty on a team that has a player without a helmet when the offense is in position to snap the football.

And then when that happens, or doesn't happen, and it changes the outcome of a game in the minds of the "fans", we will be right back here complaining about it.

And remember, there isn't a RFP anymore - the offense can be in position to snap the football seconds after the previous play. That change (eliminating the RFP signal and going to the 40/25 clock) has spawned a huge number of follow on changes, such as this helmet issue, that simply wasn't much of a problem before.

[Berkut]

It certainly does help, but it isn't a competitive advantage, that happens during the play.

Ideally, we would never have games decided by anything that happens before or after the whistle. That would be best.

Fascinating point of view; I'm not sure Rich Rodriguez would agree. Accelerated pace of play, putting pressure on the opposition to get in substitutions and calls quickly, presnap adjustments and motion to reveal coverages/disguise defenses, are where a lot of innovation in college football has been the past 10 years.

Meh, that isn't what I am talking about of course, obviously.

I am talking about stupid unsporting penalties that have no bearing on the play itself. But you knew that.

[alfred russel]

I don't agree at all - thank god college football is not entirely driven by people who only care about winning no matter what.

The first sentiment is rather clearly about generating more dollars. I'm not sure how many sentiments are between generating dollars and winning, but I don't think any of them are noble.

[Berkut]

I don't agree at all - thank god college football is not entirely driven by people who only care about winning no matter what.

The first sentiment is rather clearly about generating more dollars. I'm not sure how many sentiments are between generating dollars and winning, but I don't think any of them are noble.

I think I have a better understand of my sentiments than you do.

[Berkut]

Dorsey, what did he actually do? Did he take off his helmet and prance around?

Or was it just taking it off as he ran to the sideline?

I had a play a couple years ago where a coach was super pissed off because a player on the other team took of his helmet on the field and we didn't flag it. At the time, I had no idea what he was talking about, since I didn't see it and neither did any of the others on my crew.

On tape, which he sent to our assignor, the player in question was running to his sideline as the punt team came on, and took off his helmet before he was off the field - probably came off his head at about the numbers as he jogged off. Which is why we didn't see it, and frankly, even if we did see it, we would never flag it, since he wasn't celebrating or anything, just taking his helmet off as he left the field, which is no way going to draw a UNS.

[alfred russel]

And then when that happens, or doesn't happen, and it changes the outcome of a game in the minds of the "fans", we will be right back here complaining about it.

Yes, if the rules state that you can't start a play without a helmet, and a play starts without a helmet and that play determines the outcome of a game, you bet people will (justifiably) bitch about it.

And remember, there isn't a RFP anymore - the offense can be in position to snap the football seconds after the previous play. That change (eliminating the RFP signal and going to the 40/25 clock) has spawned a huge number of follow on changes, such as this helmet issue, that simply wasn't much of a problem before.

Whatever. The rules state the offense has to be set before the play can start. If they can get set in a few seconds before a player can get his helmet on, good for them.

In any event, I don't care if a player wants to play without a helmet. Brian Cox survived the experience back in the day. Someone dumb enough to try probably doesn't have much to lose from a concussion anyway.

[alfred russel]

Dorsey, what did he actually do? Did he take off his helmet and prance around?

Or was it just taking it off as he ran to the sideline?

In the Notre Dame - FSU game, I have no idea. I just heard Brian Kelly complain about no flag.

In the FSU - Miami game, he actually took his helmet off to celebrate. It was shortly after the rule was changed to prohibit taking off your helmet to celebrate, and it was the first game of the year.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Sorry D4H the early 2000s are calling and want you back, talk about Miami has no place in a college football thread. Let's keep it to marginally relevant teams like Wyoming.