| FTBL With all this talk of the no-huddle offenses, I've decided who is to blame. It's the Mormon's. I'm

[TerryP]

I started thinking about all of this talk these past few days and to be honest none of the talk bothers me. Everyone has their own opinion. Mine happens to be I don't like football games that aren't decided on the line of scrimmage. But, I'm going to set whether it's good for football, or not, aside.

Two things of note—at least what I consider of note.

Some of you might be too young to remember this, other will remember it vividly.

Let's go back to January, 1990. We had just lost a game to Miami in the Sugar Bowl. About the only people who were fans of Miami were Hurricane fans and those who rooted against teams the Hurricanes happened to be facing on a particular weekend.

In the fall of that year, Miami opened their season against BYU and ended up losing that game. The attack BYU used in that game consisted of three things; horizontal, vertical, and man/object reads.

Today, we call that offense a spread attack. BYU used a very fast approach to the game and it resulted in one of the top teams in the nation being upset to start the season.

Now, here's where you have to think back. How many of you guys recall BYU winning the National Championship in 1984? There was a lot of controversy surrounding that season. One, their last game of the year sealing their title was to an unranked Michigan team. Secondly, most folks were pointing to the offensive approach the Cougars were using and were complaining it wasn't real football.

Why? It wasn't being decided on the line of scrimmage. It was all about what I mentioned earlier; vertical and horizontal routes along with man/object reads.

People have been talking about the WVU game this past week. Where did that offensive approach come from? We have to step back in history again. Dana and his crew learned it from Mike Leach and Hal Mumme when they designed and launched their "Air Raid" attack. All that Holgerson has done with WVU is taken the same attack and tweeked it the smallest bit. It's the same approach we saw from Mumme at Kentucky. It's the same thing we saw from Leach when he was with Mumme and when he was at Texas Tech.

NOW, here is the kicker.

Do you know where Mumme and Leach learned the basics for their "Air Raid" attack? Whose offense did they pattern it off of?

One Lavell Edwards and his offensive staff at BYU.

What we see today isn't anything new. The arguments for and against the approach aren't anything new either. It first showed up on the football scene 30 years ago and you know what? People who were fans of football won and lost on the line of scrimmage didn't like it then either.

Now, here's my only problem with what this brings to the playing field.

When a team is playing at a fast past with a no-huddle approach we see the referees hurrying up their approach as well. They are doing everything at twice the pace. Moving the chains, spotting the ball, starting the game clock...all of it done at a hurry up pace in its own right.

If the standard is set where each crew is supposed to be calling the games the same way, why isn't that standard required for how quickly they do what I've listed above? If they can do all three in a matter of ten seconds in one game, shouldn't they be required to do it in all games?

 

[Bo]

Now, here's my only problem with what this brings to the playing field.

When a team is playing at a fast past with a no-huddle approach we see the referees hurrying up their approach as well. They are doing everything at twice the pace. Moving the chains, spotting the ball, starting the game clock...all of it done at a hurry up pace in its own right.

If the standard is set where each crew is supposed to be calling the games the same way, why isn't that standard required for how quickly they do what I've listed above? If they can do all three in a matter of ten seconds in one game, shouldn't they be required to do it in all games?

Now that you mention it, I've noticed before that the refs hurry more when an offense that runs a hurry up offense is on the field. My question is do they do this intentionally because the coach of that team has asked them to or something? Or is it a subconscious thing since the teams are hurrying to the LOS they do to?

As for Lavell Edwards proteges, we had one for a QB coach/play caller for a while. Wasn't impressed by him. At all.

 

[Billie Bob]

Now that you mention it, I've noticed before that the refs hurry more when an offense that runs a hurry up offense is on the field. My question is do they do this intentionally because the coach of that team has asked them to or something? Or is it a subconscious thing since the teams are hurrying to the LOS they do to?

That is a great point. The refs should regulate the game at their own pace that is not dictated by either sideline or the crowd.

 

[TerryP]

Now that you mention it, I've noticed before that the refs hurry more when an offense that runs a hurry up offense is on the field. My question is do they do this intentionally because the coach of that team has asked them to or something? Or is it a subconscious thing since the teams are hurrying to the LOS they do to?

As for Lavell Edwards proteges, we had one for a QB coach/play caller for a while. Wasn't impressed by him. At all.

Now you are seeing the point I am making.

IF the refs are hurrying up to allow the offense to hurry up, is it a fair playing field?

 

[planomateo]

Depends on which side you're on

 

[Bo]

Now you are seeing the point I am making.

IF the refs are hurrying up to allow the offense to hurry up, is it a fair playing field?

Depends on which side you're on

What he said!

But seriously, I am curious if it is intentional or not. And if it is intentional, why?

I'm with you, it seems to me that the refs should work at some kind of standard pace. But to be honest with you, I've seen the same thing in high school games. Those refs work at a faster pace when a no huddle offense is on the field. I work the chain gang, I'll try to think to ask one of them one night about it.

 

[psychojoe]

Most of you know (and the rest of you have figured it out) that I favor old fashioned football, smash mouth. leather helmets, the whole bit. That being said, this approach is just an entirely legal way of a physically smaller team negating the advantage of a physically superior foe. As someone put it on another thread, if you don't like it, stop it on downs and the advantage goes away. A person even more old fashioned than I am might object to the unlimited substitution where you have a pass rush package, a run stopping package, etc. The rapid pace keeps a defense from doing that.

I am all for the winner being decided at the line of scrimmage, as long as our guys are the ones who dominate the line of scrimmage. :bluebiggrin:

 

[TerryP]

While you're chewing on this...let me add something to your plate.

When a team is running this type of offense the plays are being called in from the sidelines while there are personnel changes.

In a different system, the play is called in the huddle and if a team has 12 on the field, in or around the huddle, it's a penalty.

So, how is it within the rules of play for a team to have more than 11 on the field of play when the play is being called? If anything, it's blurring the lines.

NOW, all of this said it's certainly within the rules of play right now.

BUT, if history is any precedent we're going to see changes because it goes against the "level playing field" concept behind the rules of football.

 

[jdpas29]

as far as the speed of the refs... if their speed isn't a limiting factor for the offense that is on the field i don't think it's relevant.


that being said, how funny would it be for a group of refs to be intentionally slow for a no-huddle team?!?!?! i would pay to see that

 

[Bo]

While you're chewing on this...let me add something to your plate.

When a team is running this type of offense the plays are being called in from the sidelines while there are personnel changes.

In a different system, the play is called in the huddle and if a team has 12 on the field, in or around the huddle, it's a penalty.

So, how is it within the rules of play for a team to have more than 11 on the field of play when the play is being called? If anything, it's blurring the lines.

NOW, all of this said it's certainly within the rules of play right now.

BUT, if history is any precedent we're going to see changes because it goes against the "level playing field" concept behind the rules of football.

I thought the the rule was there couldn't be more than 11 in the huddle or more than 11 on the field when the huddle broke?

Either way I agree with your reasoning, I'm just looking for clarification on the rule.

 

[252BAMA]

I thought the the rule was there couldn't be more than 11 in the huddle or more than 11 on the field when the huddle broke?

Either way I agree with your reasoning, I'm just looking for clarification on the rule.

That is beside the point. His point is: if you can't have more than 11 with a huddle offense, then you should not be able to have more than 11 with a no-huddle offense.

 

[TerryP]

That is beside the point. His point is: if you can't have more than 11 with a huddle offense, then you should not be able to have more than 11 with a no-huddle offense.

Yes, exactly. That blurs the lines/definition of what exactly that penalty entails.

 

[Bo]

That is beside the point. His point is: if you can't have more than 11 with a huddle offense, then you should not be able to have more than 11 with a no-huddle offense.

I understand his point, and agree. I was just making sure what I thought constituted the penalty was correct. That as long as there were never more than 11 in the huddle and when the huddle broke all but 11 were off the field it was okay.

 

[TerryP]

as far as the speed of the refs... if their speed isn't a limiting factor for the offense that is on the field i don't think it's relevant.


that being said, how funny would it be for a group of refs to be intentionally slow for a no-huddle team?!?!?! i would pay to see that

If the refs are running to get the ball spotted for a no huddle offense like Ole Miss fields, when an opponent of theirs has the ball shouldn't they be running to get the ball spotted in the same amount of time even if it is a different type of offensive approach?

I see the need for a set amount of time to be determined.

For instance, if the clock doesn't have to be spotted the officials must have the ball spotted within 15 seconds of the whistle—no matter if the team is no huddle or a traditional offense.

 

[Bo]

If the refs are running to get the ball spotted for a no huddle offense like Ole Miss fields, when an opponent of theirs has the ball shouldn't they be running to get the ball spotted in the same amount of time even if it is a different type of offensive approach?

I see the need for a set amount of time to be determined.

For instance, if the clock doesn't have to be spotted the officials must have the ball spotted within 15 seconds of the whistle—no matter if the team is no huddle or a traditional offense.

As part of the chain gang, I'm against this (in high school ball). That would mean way to much running for my my fat arse.

 

[UAgrad93]

When I coached HS, we tried one year to use the wristbands and go no huddle. We went up to one of our rivals and they were more traditional. The officials were in such a hurry to speed us up, that they would rush to spot the ball and blow it in play while we STILL had wrs trying to get back to the line. We weren't going hurry up, we just wanted to get up to the line, see how the defense lined up and then call the play. We had 6 delay of game penalties!!! Seriously!! In pre game at the HS level, you have to let the officials know of any "different" formations or shifts SO they don't throw the flags. Coaches will tell them about unbalanced, swinging gates on XPs, Barn formations (tackles split wide with wrs), hurry up, etc.

 

[TerryP]

I understand his point, and agree. I was just making sure what I thought constituted the penalty was correct. That as long as there were never more than 11 in the huddle and when the huddle broke all but 11 were off the field it was okay.

You're correct on how you're seeing the penalty for a "huddle offense."

My points in this thread, outside of the Mormons, were how this is blurring the lines.

Here's another example to consider Bo.

A defense can be penalized for too many players on the field if the ref believes the snap is imminent. That's the line of demarcation if you will.

When exactly is the snap imminent now? Literally, the defense can substitute and have 11 on the field because the snap is imminent, but the offense—since there is no huddle—can change the plays based on a call from the OC on the sidelines. So technically, the snap wasn't imminent.

There's going to end up being some type of clarification or modification to the rules.

 

[jdpas29]

while we're discussing this... let's talk about why spiking the ball isn't intentional grounding. :icon_bounce:

 

[TerryP]

while we're discussing this... let's talk about why spiking the ball isn't intentional grounding. :icon_bounce:

Search white helmets...it's in that thread.

 

[bamaraider]

Most of you know (and the rest of you have figured it out) that I favor old fashioned football, smash mouth. leather helmets, the whole bit. That being said, this approach is just an entirely legal way of a physically smaller team negating the advantage of a physically superior foe. As someone put it on another thread, if you don't like it, stop it on downs and the advantage goes away. A person even more old fashioned than I am might object to the unlimited substitution where you have a pass rush package, a run stopping package, etc. The rapid pace keeps a defense from doing that.

I am all for the winner being decided at the line of scrimmage, as long as our guys are the ones who dominate the line of scrimmage. :bluebiggrin:

^
[]
[]
[]
What this guy said! I have no problem playing the entire game in the I-formation or in a jumbo package with the TE right in front of the fullback leading the way for the running back.

I remember my dad telling me it was considered weak throwing the football cause it meant you couldn't run the football against them.

I think they should change the penalty "12 men in the huddle", if the Refs see the players running off the field and can confirm that that player( or players) will have no affect on the play, it shouldn't be called.