Just curious what you guys think of Kentucky offensive coordinator Neal Brown’s substitution proposal analogy:
“The offense determines the pace and sometimes it’s to the detriment of the defense,” Brown said. “But they can move all 11 people at any time (prior to the snap). We can’t. When I think about it, it would be like in basketball, you have a runaway fast break and the rules make you stop and wait till the defense gets set.”
Assuming the goal is to give the defense the ability to set fully before the ball is snapped, why limit the rule to ten seconds? (We saw more than enough occasions last season when you could have given Grantham and his defense the entire forty seconds and they still wouldn’t have been ready.) Why not allow defenses to indicate to the officials when they’re ready to go and then snap the ball?
Okay, that’s a rhetorical question. Obviously, everyone wants a reasonable solution. But what’s so magical about ten seconds?
“There are probably some coaches out there who don’t want to defend fast-pace offense,” University of Louisville head coach Bobby Petrino said. “But if (rules-makers) want to control the game or the tempo, they should control how they spot the ball. That’s an easy way to control it …
“Put it on the officials and how they mark the ball. I don’t think you should do it on how many seconds come off the clock.”
There’s some logic to that. Except, you know, officials.
If they’re so worried that things have swung away from defenses, maybe they should think about cleaning up some of the other pro-offense rules (or, perhaps more accurately, the inconsistent enforcement of some rules, which creates advantages for offenses) before tackling HUNH. Just a thought.