Rules Infractions/Gameplay complaints

NavyHog

NavyHog

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
NCAA Moderator
If you have a complaint with someone bring it here. Use Vulcan logic that strips away the emotion, don't write "This asshole played like a jerk with 4th down attempts", instead "Flann went for it on 4th and 8 in the first half". In every instance I will immediately ask, "Did you let the offender know he was breaking the rules?" If not then consider yourself on report as well. Also be aware that one person breaking a rule does not give you the right to ignore the established rules - "no tit for tat".

Myself, the Commish and JSU will rule on it in this column. Schedule permitting all complaints will be answered in 24 hours and all decisions will be final. The 3 mentioned above will interpret the complaint with the commish as the final authority in terms of punishment.

* I think we have a good league and I would like to keep everyone in it as we move forward. This seems fair.
 
guardman23

guardman23

Well-Known Member
200_s.gif
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
JSU Zack said:
Woah! Too much responsibility! Just kidding.

@TXHusker05 made a complaint in the Week 14 thread regarding 4th & 1 attempts. Tex, state your case.
Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily a complaint since obviously the rules are clear, but at one point in the history of our ODs we had a rule in place specifically for a 4th & 1 to win the game situation. I said it at the time it happened this year but I'm pretty sure we put that rule in place when the exact same thing happened to @NavyHog vs me. He had a 4th & 1 to win the game, had to punt and I scored on the final play of the game to win. Somewhere along the lines that rule got removed, likely when we started Powerhouse and retooled the 4th down rules as a whole.

I think there needs to be some mechanism in place to allow a team the freedom to attempt a 4th down play that would seal a victory (opponent's remaining timeouts cannot possibly prevent the clock from expiring with 3 or fewer kneel downs). This isn't something that would happen all that often but when it does it is a fairly important situation. I just hate the idea of forcing someone to punt when 1 yard in plus territory wins them the game. Not many people kick there.

I guess generally speaking I'd like there to be more 4th quarter/end game strategy happening. As it stands now, the 4th down rules are incredibly favorable towards a trailing team when the trailing team really should not be given any extra advantages for having been outplayed for three quarters. A team trailing by even just 1 or 2 can attempt a 4th down anywhere on the field in the 4th quarter, even if there is 6 minutes left but a team leading by a score can't attempt a 4th & 1 to win the game on the other end? Not really fond of that.

I wouldn't mind seeing the 4th down rules adjusted as a whole. I would personally prefer users be allowed to attempt a 4th down than kick an almost automatic 55+ yard FG. Giving up an automatic 55+ yard kick is way more frustrating than giving up a touchdown drive a user really had to grind out.

My proposal before was:

1) Any + territory 4th down can be attempted
2) Any 4th quarter 4th down can be attempted

That's probably a little bit loose, but something in that area would be a lot easier to remember and enforce while also giving a little bit more leeway.
 
JSU Zack

JSU Zack

How do I IT?
@TXHusker05 @NavyHog @Walter323 Personally, I've always been a proponent of going for fourth downs past your 40 at any time. The stats favor the offense once you get to midfield. I know we have strict rules in place to prevent "cheese", but I'm not sure if going for it in a situation as you described would be cheese.

My main anecdote to the current rule is below. Consider this a vote in favor of a rule change.

 
Walter323

Walter323

Well-Known Member
I think the 4th down rule needs some sort of 4th quarter adjustment. Playing devils advocate to @TXHusker05 on a 4th and 1 to seal the game is, should have got 1 more yard on 3rd.
Maybe 4th quarter gets changed to to 50 yard line
 
NavyHog

NavyHog

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
NCAA Moderator
To make it simple I think it should be if trailing OR TIED in the 4th, vice just trailing.

A lot of ways to go with this, but I don't want to change it to much because everyone understands it and the original purpose was to give the defense some help.
 
JSU Zack

JSU Zack

How do I IT?
NavyHog said:
To make it simple I think it should be if trailing OR TIED in the 4th, vice just trailing.

A lot of ways to go with this, but I don't want to change it to much because everyone understands it and the original purpose was to give the defense some help.
Click to expand...

That sort of change doesn't resolve the situation that was discussed though. I recommend 4th down attempts allowed if the game is within one score.
 
JSU Zack

JSU Zack

How do I IT?
Walter323 said:
I think the 4th down rule needs some sort of 4th quarter adjustment. Playing devils advocate to @TXHusker05 on a 4th and 1 to seal the game is, should have got 1 more yard on 3rd.
Maybe 4th quarter gets changed to to 50 yard line
Click to expand...

Defense should stop the offense for four downs. We can go ether way with that one.
 
JSU Zack

JSU Zack

How do I IT?
The rule of threes. Majority rule. The first question is does the rule need to be changed?

Handle the details after we decide that.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Walter323 said:
I think the 4th down rule needs some sort of 4th quarter adjustment. Playing devils advocate to @TXHusker05 on a 4th and 1 to seal the game is, should have got 1 more yard on 3rd.
Maybe 4th quarter gets changed to to 50 yard line
Click to expand...

Isn't the flip side to that: Should have played better for the first 26 minutes so you didn't need a 4th down stop to have a chance to win the game? I mean you can play the should have gained that extra yard game for every third down in all four quarters and we wouldn't need a 4th down rule at all.

I think my main issue is that a team losing by 2 with 6 minutes left in the game can legally attempt a 4th down anywhere on the field but a team winning by 2 just looking to run one 4th down play to end the game in plus territory can't. That is where the 4th down rule loses me. Losing teams shouldn't get special fourth down privileges because they got outplayed for three quarters, nor should winning teams be forced to play at a disadvantage just because they happen to have a lead.

Honestly, I think there are three options here:

1) Have a special 4th quarter 4th down rule, moving it back to the 50 only in the 4th quarter.

2) Move the base 4th down rule back to the 50 for the entirety of the game. I think that would be a lot easier to remember and enforce than having a special 4th quarter 4th down rule.

3) Make any 4th quarter 4th down fair game, regardless of score, time or line to gain. I know that one may be a little extreme, but as it is the losing team can attempt a 4th down anywhere on the field in the 4th quarter even if they trail by 1 point. Why not just extend that to the winning team? I think we have a good enough group that people wouldn't go around attempting extreme 4th downs with a lead and the trailing teams can already attempt it if they so choose.

I personally hate option #1, I think it would only lead to more confusion and as it stands now we still have people pausing games to ask if they can attempt a 4th down. Hell, I routinely have to keep the rules page open while I play to check it and I wrote the fucking rules to begin with. We don't need more confusion in these rules, I'd be happy if half of them were rewritten or disappeared. I'd say either change the 4th quarter rule to "any 4th quarter 4th down" or just change the base 4th down rule to be 4th & 3 from the 50. I think those are the two best options that balance strategy and realism.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
NavyHog said:
To make it simple I think it should be if trailing OR TIED in the 4th, vice just trailing.

A lot of ways to go with this, but I don't want to change it to much because everyone understands it and the original purpose was to give the defense some help.
Click to expand...

Walter323 said:
I think option 1 is pretty straight forward and fair
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you guys are quite understanding what the actual issue is. This is not about offense-defense fairness but rather winning-losing fairness. I'm 100% in favor of any and all rules that can help artificially improve defense but I am very much against rules that give an artificial advantage to a losing team and that is what the current 4th down rules (and by extension option #1) do. Helping defense is one thing, preventing base end game strategies is another.

A user that got outplayed for three quarters should not be given special privileges in the fourth quarter and a winning team should not be put at an artificial disadvantage just because they have a lead. As it stands now, a user could trail by not even a field goal and attempt a 4th down anywhere on the field but a user trying to seal a win can't even attempt a 4th down that would end the game. There should be one standard fourth down rule that applies to both the winning and losing team or a looser 4th down rule in general.

I also disagree that people understand the current 4th down rules as I've had multiple games this season where an opponent paused to ask if a 4th down could be attempted. We definitely do not need to add another 4th down rule to make it more confusing, if anything we need to streamline it even more.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Flanntastic said:
so whatabout

anybody can go for it in the 4th, if past the 45yd line
Click to expand...

How does that solve any of the problems I've brought up? It doesn't even impact the specific situation I brought up regarding my Wake Forest game (4th & 1, +49 to end the game).

Honestly, I don't see any version of Option 1 that solves the problem. I'd rather leave the 4th down rule as is than add in a 4th quarter specific yard line change. The 4th down rules are already confusing enough for most people, I've been stopped mid-game by veteran players this very season asking if they could attempt a certain 4th down conversion, we don't need to add on to an already confusing rule and make it more confusion. Especially when that change doesn't address the core problem.

Options 2 or 3 are really the only viable options that solve the core problem and allow for some strategy. I honestly think Option 3 is perfect, we already have half of Option 3 in the rules, just allowing the winning team to attempt the same 4th downs seems more than fair. Why should a losing team down 1 with plenty of time remaining get to attempt a 4th down a team winning by 1 can't? I don't see how that makes sense. I highly doubt we'd have people just attempting absurd amounts of 4th downs leading in the 4th deep in their own territory. If we have to, we can even put a minimum yardline on it but I would rather the 4th quarter just become fair game than be in a situation where we have a confusing rule change mid-game.

If Option 3 is too extreme, I think Option 2 is a perfectly fair compromise. All it does is extend the current yard line minimum for 4th downs from the 40 to midfield. I don't think it is out of line to allow people facing a 4th and 3 between the 41 and 50 to attempt it if they so chose, as the OD goes on the ~40 is going to be right around FG range for most of us as it is and we're talking 10 extra yards. How many 4th & 3 or less on or between the +41 and 50 really happen during the course of a game? 1? If that?

If Options 2 or 3 don't work for anyone, let's just forget about it and rewrite the end of half hail mary rule to just say any half or game ending play. At the very least that would allow people to attempt a 4th down that, if converted, would end the game without the need for an ensuing snap.
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
I think 50 in a one score game the leading team should be allowed to attempt a 4th and 1, 2, 3. Much more than that and it doesn't make sense.

Case in point today against Sands in the 3rd qtr up 13 on 4th and inches (albeit I was on the +25) I went for it. I've seen a 13 point lead evaporate in video game seconds. That should be extended to the 50 in that case IMO.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Akecheta said:
I think 50 in a one score game the leading team should be allowed to attempt a 4th and 1, 2, 3. Much more than that and it doesn't make sense.

Case in point today against Sands in the 3rd qtr up 13 on 4th and inches (albeit I was on the +25) I went for it. I've seen a 13 point lead evaporate in video game seconds. That should be extended to the 50 in that case IMO.
Click to expand...

That's what happened in the game that brought this all on. I had both a 4th & Inches around the -40 and a 4th & 1 from the +49 late in that game. The 4th & Inches would have forced Wake to use all 3 timeouts just to get the ball back down two scores, all but assuring a win. The 4th & 1 would have ended the game outright, he had just used his third timeout and there was less than a minute remaining. Either conversion effectively wins the game, but I had to punt for each and my 11 point lead turned into a 2 point loss on the last play of the game. The two scores came in less than 2 minutes and the final score came on a drive that went 80 yards in less than 40 seconds.

I don't know what the best overall solution is and I'm open to other options, but something needs tweaking. I think the current 4th down rules only serve to benefit losing teams without any sort of fairness or equality. The goal needs to be protecting defenses, not benefiting whichever team happens to be losing at the time. The idea that a user who is down 1 can attempt a 4th quarter 4th down anywhere on the field while a user who is up 1 can't even attempt a 4th down to win the game in plus territory is a little baffling. Forcing a user to punt when a single yard could potentially end the game is just brutal. There should never be a score situation where one team can go for it and the other team can't, only a time or line to gain

I personally think allowing any 4th quarter 4th down is fair. It sounds extreme, but we already have half of that, why not allow the winning team the same opportunity? I can't imagine we have people just going off the rails attempting 4th & Long from the -20 when they're winning, maybe we would though. If not that, expanding it to the 50 seems fine with me.
 
Flanntastic

Flanntastic

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
TXHusker05 said:
How does that solve any of the problems I've brought up? It doesn't even impact the specific situation I brought up regarding my Wake Forest game (4th & 1, +49 to end the game).

Honestly, I don't see any version of Option 1 that solves the problem. I'd rather leave the 4th down rule as is than add in a 4th quarter specific yard line change. The 4th down rules are already confusing enough for most people, I've been stopped mid-game by veteran players this very season asking if they could attempt a certain 4th down conversion, we don't need to add on to an already confusing rule and make it more confusion. Especially when that change doesn't address the core problem.

Options 2 or 3 are really the only viable options that solve the core problem and allow for some strategy. I honestly think Option 3 is perfect, we already have half of Option 3 in the rules, just allowing the winning team to attempt the same 4th downs seems more than fair. Why should a losing team down 1 with plenty of time remaining get to attempt a 4th down a team winning by 1 can't? I don't see how that makes sense. I highly doubt we'd have people just attempting absurd amounts of 4th downs leading in the 4th deep in their own territory. If we have to, we can even put a minimum yardline on it but I would rather the 4th quarter just become fair game than be in a situation where we have a confusing rule change mid-game.

If Option 3 is too extreme, I think Option 2 is a perfectly fair compromise. All it does is extend the current yard line minimum for 4th downs from the 40 to midfield. I don't think it is out of line to allow people facing a 4th and 3 between the 41 and 50 to attempt it if they so chose, as the OD goes on the ~40 is going to be right around FG range for most of us as it is and we're talking 10 extra yards. How many 4th & 3 or less on or between the +41 and 50 really happen during the course of a game? 1? If that?

If Options 2 or 3 don't work for anyone, let's just forget about it and rewrite the end of half hail mary rule to just say any half or game ending play. At the very least that would allow people to attempt a 4th down that, if converted, would end the game without the need for an ensuing snap.
Click to expand...

that was one game, it may never happen again. I am starting to think you just want to argue to hear yourself talk
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
Flanntastic said:
that was one game, it may never happen again. I am starting to think you just want to argue to hear yourself talk
Click to expand...

It may never happen again, but a team trying to close out a game should be given the chance I think. That team is assuming risk as well such as giving a surging opp a short field.
 
Flanntastic

Flanntastic

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
in real life, most teams would punt from the 49 yd line, and let their defense win the game for them.
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
Flanntastic said:
in real life, most teams would punt from the 49 yd line, and let their defense win the game for them.
Click to expand...
I agee that most would. But some gamble ot happens every bowl, every conference championship. Momentum shifting, defense is tiring, coach decides his best chance is to get that first down and close it out.
 
JSU Zack

JSU Zack

How do I IT?
Flanntastic said:
Maybe that's the problem
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

If you don't want to hear them, don't read them. Many of our peers just play the games and post the regular "green" or "I need another day" update.

I think Tex's heart is in the right place and just wants the league to be more competitive. I think we can all agree that's what we're all after - a competitive, fun league. Obviously, continual mutterings of frustration aren't fun, but we all go through that. Even real leagues have that issue (i.e. Spurrier & Bielema at last year's SEC Media Days).
 
NavyHog

NavyHog

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
NCAA Moderator
Current 4th down rules:

Because the game is so significantly swayed towards offensive football, we have to restrict the number and type of 4th downs users can attempt. In an effort to simplify that rule, one of the following situations must exist to attempt a 4th down:

- Ball is on or beyond opponents (+)40 and it is 4th & 3 or less
- If trailing in the 4th
- If trailing by 21+ points
- End of the Half Hail Mary

Everyone re-read the first line. Because the game is so significantly swayed towards offensive football, we have to restrict the number and type of 4th downs users can attempt. I feel that is still the direction we should continue. Everyone acknowledges that defense is HARD. Very demoralizing to go through an entire game and not return a punt. That was the goal of the rules above that @TXHusker05 and @Flanntastic and me agreed to about 1-2 yrs ago. @bruin228 never agreed with all of it, but for the most part we had a consensus. Not to say it's perfect, if it was we wouldn't need rules to "stimulate" more defense.

With that said this is what I recommend:

- Ball on or past the 50, 4th and 5 or less any quarter, whether ahead or trailing
- All other 4th down rules remain in place

This allows more leeway to those that want to gamble, and it opens up the aperture for those that are looking to close the game out. I don't want this change anywhere before midfield. As stated before, I still want to extend some help to the defense.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Agree with @NavyHog's suggestion, which is even more lenient than the one I suggested. It is the most common sense fix to a rule that I think everyone agrees needs at least some sort of tweaking. We have all encountered multiple 4th downs every year we wished we could attempt. Even though the 4th down rule has been in place as is for years, we still have experienced Utopia OD members pausing games asking if they can attempt certain 4th downs (including one member of this "rules committee").

It's important to remember that the current 4th down rules were created at a time in our ODs where we were routinely breaking in 4 or 5 new members per OD, per season. We needed to be a bit more in-depth with the rules because we had no idea how those guys would play. As it stands now, this OD is made up almost entirely of veteran members with only 1 or 2 "unknowns", I think we can trust a mostly veteran OD crew to open things up a bit and use judgment without crossing the line between sim and lobby ball.

It is fascinating to me that I'm the one still taking shit when @NavyHog suggested exactly the same thing I did and I'm the one asking for LESS rules. I ask for rules to be enforced, I take shit. I ask for rules to be streamlined so they're easier to follow, I take shit. Mind blowing. If you don't like the discussion, you don't need to read it. This is a message board, what the fuck else are we supposed to do? We do NOT need this many rules in an OD where all but a couple of users have been playing here for years and since quite a few veteran users still don't know or don't follow the rules, why not just streamline things and open it up a bit? People are doing it anyway, why do we need to have ambiguity within the rules? There are ways to open games up without making it an offense-first free for all, this is just one of those steps. I think we can trust those of us who remain to play "sim" ball without going off the deep end.

If @JSU Zack and @Walter323 are good with @NavyHog's suggestion, I think it is perfect going forward beginning next season.
 
Walter323

Walter323

Well-Known Member
TXHusker05 said:
Agree with @NavyHog's suggestion, which is even more lenient than the one I suggested. It is the most common sense fix to a rule that I think everyone agrees needs at least some sort of tweaking. We have all encountered multiple 4th downs every year we wished we could attempt. Even though the 4th down rule has been in place as is for years, we still have experienced Utopia OD members pausing games asking if they can attempt certain 4th downs (including one member of this "rules committee").

It's important to remember that the current 4th down rules were created at a time in our ODs where we were routinely breaking in 4 or 5 new members per OD, per season. We needed to be a bit more in-depth with the rules because we had no idea how those guys would play. As it stands now, this OD is made up almost entirely of veteran members with only 1 or 2 "unknowns", I think we can trust a mostly veteran OD crew to open things up a bit and use judgment without crossing the line between sim and lobby ball.

It is fascinating to me that I'm the one still taking shit when @NavyHog suggested exactly the same thing I did and I'm the one asking for LESS rules. I ask for rules to be enforced, I take shit. I ask for rules to be streamlined so they're easier to follow, I take shit. Mind blowing. If you don't like the discussion, you don't need to read it. This is a message board, what the fuck else are we supposed to do? We do NOT need this many rules in an OD where all but a couple of users have been playing here for years and since quite a few veteran users still don't know or don't follow the rules, why not just streamline things and open it up a bit? People are doing it anyway, why do we need to have ambiguity within the rules? There are ways to open games up without making it an offense-first free for all, this is just one of those steps. I think we can trust those of us who remain to play "sim" ball without going off the deep end.

If @JSU Zack and @Walter323 are good with @NavyHog's suggestion, I think it is perfect going forward beginning next season.
Click to expand...
You get shit because you are a dick about everything.
Plain and simple.

Rule adjustment looks fine to me
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Walter323 said:
You get shit because you are a dick about everything.
Plain and simple.

Rule adjustment looks fine to me
Click to expand...

If it takes being a dick to make people realize how absurd it is that we need to tell veteran players (many of whom don't know or follow all the rules anyway) how to play, so be it. We've all played dozens of games against each other and hundreds of user vs user games in general, those of us still playing this game play how they play, it isn't going to change. If a user didn't follow the rules before, they aren't going to start now.

We are three years into this ridiculous game, we are all that remains of legitimate sim NCAA players, we do not need 5000 characters worth of rules that absolutely no one fully understands or follows (including me, the author of them). We play how we play, let's reorganize and streamline the rules to recognize that and let the dying days of this game be user vs user, strategy vs strategy.

That's my point. If it takes being a dick about to get that point across, I really don't care. I've played games this season where VETERAN Utopian players were using strategies I haven't seen since I played lobby ball, I'm done fighting it. Everyone needs to play how they want to play and stop worrying about 5000 characters worth of rules.
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
Reminds me of a line from Patch Adams. "You know I forget how young you are sometimes Mitch. That you believe you have to be a Prick to get things done, and that you actually believe its a new idea."

TxHusker we've agreed on a lot of things, but I don't think I've seen any approach that went without a snarky smartass shot at one of the users, normally the veterans you're used to.

I dont want to derail the thread I'm just saying maybe BOTH sides need to look at the approaches to these topics.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
@Walter323 you might also think about either returning the manual DL movement rule to its previous version or remove it entirely and allow free reign of manual DL movement. I know @NavyHog mentioned it to you before but the change you made is really vague.

I'm not particularly fond of manual DL movement, but again, at this point we have quite a few people who play on the line and might as well just allow it (so long as the DL isn't removed from the line itself). We could probably just remove all the defensive rules as a way to offset the extended 4th down territory.
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
5) Hurry-up, no-huddle offenses are permitted at all times while the clock is running. If the clock stops for an incomplete pass or a play out of bounds in the last two minutes of each half, you are required to return to the huddle.

When did that rule change? When I first joined I was told on negative plays you had to return to the huddle.
 
Walter323

Walter323

Well-Known Member
Akecheta said:
5) Hurry-up, no-huddle offenses are permitted at all times while the clock is running. If the clock stops for an incomplete pass or a play out of bounds in the last two minutes of each half, you are required to return to the huddle.

When did that rule change? When I first joined I was told on negative plays you had to return to the huddle.
Click to expand...
Haven't touched it
 
NavyHog

NavyHog

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
NCAA Moderator
@Walter323

IDK when it changed. For simplicity sake recommend we change it to you can no-huddle at any point EXCEPT incomplete passes.

Also on defense you can manually move any amount of defenders as long as it isn't to set up a NANO blitz or some other AI defeating formation. On the DL you may not manually drop back into pass coverage (CPU can hot route into coverage), but a DL can manually move one gap over to either side of his original stance.

I think that would alleviate a lot of confusion.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
Akecheta said:
5) Hurry-up, no-huddle offenses are permitted at all times while the clock is running. If the clock stops for an incomplete pass or a play out of bounds in the last two minutes of each half, you are required to return to the huddle.

When did that rule change? When I first joined I was told on negative plays you had to return to the huddle.
Click to expand...

Looking at my copy of the original rules for Powerhouse, the current rule is the same as the original. I don't know if it had been changed between then and now though. I know I wasn't playing here when there was a negative play provision to that rule but there appear to have been a few tweaks to the rules between then and now so it certainly could have been.

I think @NavyHog is on the money when it comes to both no huddle and defense. As long as DL aren't being manually removed from the line entirely pre-snap, I'd say just let any D movement go. Obviously if D movement is being used to set up something absurd that would still be against the "golden" rule about just being sim but anything else, go for it.
 
Akecheta

Akecheta

Well-Known Member
TXHusker05 said:
Looking at my copy of the original rules for Powerhouse, the current rule is the same as the original. I don't know if it had been changed between then and now though. I know I wasn't playing here when there was a negative play provision to that rule but there appear to have been a few tweaks to the rules between then and now so it certainly could have been.

I think @NavyHog is on the money when it comes to both no huddle and defense. As long as DL aren't being manually removed from the line entirely pre-snap, I'd say just let any D movement go. Obviously if D movement is being used to set up something absurd that would still be against the "golden" rule about just being sim but anything else, go for it.
Click to expand...
Yup, I dont mind the current wording, I just didn't realize it had changed.
 
TXHusker05

TXHusker05

Well-Known Member
NCAA Moderator
I agree with Navy that no huddle is fine as long as it isn't following an incomplete pass. If it is incomplete, huddle up. Otherwise, no huddle is fair game. I like the idea of removing the out of bounds in the last two minutes part of the rule entirely, if only because I think some people lose track of the time left easily.

I've had a few people comment this year about my no huddle, not realizing that out of bounds outside of 2 minutes in the half doesn't actually stop the clock. I've also had a few games where a drive started outside of two minutes and then would go into two minutes and I'd end up out of bounds and have to huddle up which really destroys momentum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top