“Mark Richt would eat their lunch.”

While I’m in airing-of-grievances mode this morning, this short passage in an otherwise inoffensive piece about Georgia’s move to the no-huddle last season ticked me off.

Georgia used the no-huddle early in Coach Mark Richt’s tenure, but he eventually backed away from the attack that he had employed so successfully at Florida State, claiming that SEC officials would not allow the Bulldogs to snap the ball quickly enough for it to maintain its effectiveness.

“Claiming”?  Why, wherever would Richt get that idea?

… SEC officials are required to pause for 12-14 seconds between each play, and that’s not going to change despite Richt’s arguments, Gaston said.

“He doesn’t agree with it, but he knows what we’re doing,” Gaston said.

The mandatory pause is to allow the officiating crew to get in position, Gaston said. Richt argued that the officials should put the ball in play as soon as they are set, regardless of how much time has elapsed, but Gaston said that would provide the offense an unfair advantage.

“Mark Richt would eat their lunch,” he said. “He would go straight to the ball and snap it. He’d get in 100 plays. We have about half the coaches who think we go too fast and about half who think we go too slow so we must be in about the right spot.”

How thoughtful.

28 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, SEC Football, Strategery And Mechanics

28 responses to ““Mark Richt would eat their lunch.”

  1. ChicagoDawg

    So 11 players can get off a pile, get lined up and get a play called in less than 12 seconds, but the officials can’t get their tired asses organized in that same time? Nice.

    • Hogbody Spradlin

      Chicago, think of it as 22 players, even funnier. But bear in mind some of those officials are my age. I can still get a beer in less than 12 seconds, but not much else.

      • dawgfan17

        The SEC has the money to replace them with younger, in better shape officials. Let the officials know if they can’t do their job then they can be replaced.

      • ChicagoDawg

        The medocrity and/or incompetence along with lack of accountability around all aspects of officiating is astounding.

        • Mayor of Dawgtown

          Since when do the officials, even the director of officiating, get to set policy for the SEC?

  2. “Sec officials are required for 12-14 seconds between each play”. I’ve got to call “bullshit” on this. I’ve seen SEC officials get in a big hurry when the right team was on a late drive. Like most rules, this one is selectively enforced. They have no business determining the tempo of a game. If the Offensive is set, it should be allowed to snap the ball.
    I would like to see a rule that once the offense is up to the line and the center places his hands on the ball, no time-out can be called. I still believe Georgia got screwed in the downpour against Florida. Georgia scored to win and the ref said Florida called time out before the snap.( Sorry,..I can’t tell you the year, but Eric Zier was the QB.)
    This is especially unsporting on FG attempts.

  3. Macallanlover

    It was in the Gaston era that SEC officials slipped into the basement of collegiate zebras. Follow that with a “Gaston puppet” and you see why it hasn’t gotten any better. Another chance for Slive to do something worthwhile in his tenure but no sign of improvement yet but I am a Steve Shaw fan so hope springs eternal.

    Despite, in order, the Sanks fumble fiasco, the AJ celebration pukefest, or the Fairley travesty, my comment does not mean I feel it is just a conspiracy against UGA; SEC officials are terribly inconsistent for both teams, you just never know what you will get from play to play or crew to crew. I am embarrassed when I see an SEC crew call bowl games for other conferences. How can the quality of your football programs tolerate this? It isn’t for lack of money, it is just apathy and old boy cronyism. Even replay hasn’t been able to save these guys.

  4. IveyLeaguer

    There’s a big difference between the Richt no-huddle and the Bobo no-huddle that debuted last year. The Richt version is still effective, fits our personnel, and keeps the defense off balance. It compliments our offense very well. You use it when you need it, or when you need a spark.

    The Bobo version is an awkward, malfunctioning mess, that disrupts the natural timing and rhythm of the offense, and perhaps even more significantly, it’s QB.

    I hate it, and hope we’ve canned it for good.
    ~~~

    • AusDawg85

      Correct. No huddle when you line-up quickly, keep the D from making personnel changes, calling the play and snapping quickly is effective. Lining-up quickly, then everyone take a pause, stand-up, look to the sidelines for position coach signals, then getting re-set is….not so effective, other than it MAY be keeping D personnel from changing. Meh….

      • Mayor of Dawgtown

        If you are an O-lineman it is very difficult to stay in your stance as long as is required by the Bobo no huddle, too.

        • IveyLeaguer

          That’s another reason I hate it. That HAS to wear on the OL over the course of the game.
          ~~~

    • hailtogeorgia

      I’m not really sure I agree with you here. For one, yeah, Bobo’s version of the no huddle looked awkward in the Boise game, but as the season progressed and the offense adjusted, it looked much more clean. Second, Bobo said he was switching to it for the offense to run more plays, and if you go back and look at the number of plays run by SEC teams, he was highly successful in doing that. I don’t see how ‘an awkward, malfunctioning mess’ would’ve been successful there.

      As for it disrupting the natural rhythm of the offense, I just flat out disagree. You could make the same argument about a huddle in saying that it disrupts the natural rhythm of the offense. The rhythm of the offense is entirely subjective. I would venture to say that the flow and smoothness of Bobo’s no huddle is much more dependent upon the quarterback than the other way around. When our offense looked out of sync last year in terms of rhythm and flow, it looked to me like that fell much more at the feet of one Aaron Murray than Mike Bobo. Murray looked completely comfortable running the offense for stretches (particularly when we made a run in the second half of the Carolina game), and looked out of sorts entirely at other times (like when he missed on nine straight throws against Florida, allowing them to stay in the game). You may disagree with the playcalling (and you’d have a valid argument) but I’m fairly certain Bobo’s plan with the no huddle was successful.

      • IveyLeaguer

        We just see it differently.

        I see no advantages in it. We can run as many, and probably more, plays from the standard Richt no-huddle. I think taking the QB out of the thinking game, and out of the game we recruited him for, in order to give Bobo the audible, hurts us for a number of reasons.

        There are other disadvantages that have been mentioned already, as well. No problem, though. Thanks for your thoughts.
        ~~~

  5. rugbydawg79

    Agree with IveyLeaguer and while I am on record as being a Bobo fan-It was very awkward watching our QB in shotgun looking to the sidelines-It really gave the impression we did not have it together-A vastly improved OL will put all this to rest.If you can run the ball effectively everything else will be there.

  6. Will Trane

    I am puzzled how officials think there should be a mandatory 12-14 second pause between plays. Is there an official charged with a clock for that time span. No doubt officials can dictate the pace and flow of a game purely by ball placement and starting the play clock. That is two separate functions between plays.
    I do not buy into Gaston’s, SEC officials, and the SEC office on this. The no-huddle is not time between plays. It is purely getting players substituted for a set(s) or scheme(s). The players simply do not huddle. How many times do you see players look to the sideline for a play call or the QB checks out to a play. Most often that occurs when the defense locks the box. The play clock is running. The purpose of the no huddle is simply to run more plays because you should have more success and points. But not always the case. Most teams do not huddle anymore. Even if the ball is placed the offense always waits for the play clock to start. The clock should start as soon as the ball is placed. And that should not take long considering the location of officials during a play…before and after.
    As far as the defense being at a disadvantage. Do not buy that either. They can have their personnel ready based on what they see coming into the game from the opposite sideline. Most coaches may lock the box but switch out at the last second. Coach Grantham understands the need to have defense players crossed trained and rep’d for a fast paced no huddle offense. As well as injury, substitution, and game situations.
    Maybe the time has come for official substitutions in a game. Have at least three extra so they can handle the pace.
    Fans go to the game to see football, and not some official dawdle a ball placement or starting the play clock.
    I do not recall any ACC officials complaing about Coach Richt. Frankly, it is the same old good old boys club from Alabama bitching because their two favorite schools could be at a disadvantage.
    Huddle or no huddle the Dawgs have had more than their share of “poor damn officiating in the conference.”

  7. Skeeter

    The officials need the extra time for their seeing eye dogs to lead them back to their proper position on the field.

  8. I knew it is BOBO’s fault again. I am just excited to see what BOBO does this time.

  9. ScoutDawg

    What a whole different world it would be… The “Richt

    What a whole different world it would be. Who needs a spread when you got a fast paced NFL offense. Yep, I am sure they would have said NO to Staban.

  10. Bulldog Joe

    When an SEC official is tired, he calls a penalty on the lower-ranked team.

    It’s got to be in the rule book somewhere.

  11. W Cobb Dawg

    We change our whole philosophy because of a lousy ref?! What bothers me most is how we meekly rolled over and allowed Gaston to call the shots. Talk about the tail waggin the Dawgs! Gaston would’ve backed down in a split second if we had enough gumption to call his bluff. No wonder ncaa walked all over us on the AJ issue – they knew we wouldn’t put up a fight.