CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: Mdot21 on December 10, 2021, 08:20:36 AM
-
thanks Kenny Pickett! And right call imo. you either give yourself up with the slide or you don't. no in between, no fakery or tom foolery.
-
thanks Kenny Pickett! And right call imo. you either give yourself up with the slide or you don't. no in between, no fakery or tom foolery.
I always wondered why the Mike Vick play where he looks like he's about to go out of bounds, and then turns up field, I think against West Virginia, was applauded. Same idea, if you expect the defenders to pull up, then it should be an unsportsman like penalty to induce that, as a fake
-
The slide rule is stupid and they should have gotten rid of it
-
thanks Kenny Pickett! And right call imo. you either give yourself up with the slide or you don't. no in between, no fakery or tom foolery.
Agree 100%. And the rulebook already states this. The ball is dead the moment the ballcarrier begins the slide. Faking a slide is by definition beginning the slide, you can't fake it without beginning it, so the fake slide was already illegal by the words in the rulebook. However, if this clarification helps to eliminate the behavior then I'm fine with it.
I always wondered why the Mike Vick play where he looks like he's about to go out of bounds, and then turns up field, I think against West Virginia, was applauded. Same idea, if you expect the defenders to pull up, then it should be an unsportsman like penalty to induce that, as a fake
Agree 1000%. Any rules or conventions that are designed for player safety, and are taken advantage of by the very player who is supposed to be in the protected class, should be declared a dead ball at the point of the fakery, and if the player continues then it should also be called as a penalty for either a delay of game, or an unsportsmanlike conduct.
The slide rule is stupid and they should have gotten rid of it
Agree 1000000%. If the ballcarrier wants to avoid being hit, then he has the option to hit the ground well before the defenders arrive. In college, going to the ground untouched ends the play. Alternatively if the ballcarrier wants to strive for those few extra yards, then the consequence is getting hit. This rule protects a ballcarrier who wants those extra yards but doesn't want to accept the consequences. It's stupid and unnecessary. Eliminate it.
-
Agree 1000000%. If the ballcarrier wants to avoid being hit, then he has the option to hit the ground well before the defenders arrive. In college, going to the ground untouched ends the play. Alternatively if the ballcarrier wants to strive for those few extra yards, then the consequence is getting hit. This rule protects a ballcarrier who wants those extra yards but doesn't want to accept the consequences. It's stupid and unnecessary. Eliminate it.
utee and I agree 100000%
-
Agree 1000000%. If the ballcarrier wants to avoid being hit, then he has the option to hit the ground well before the defenders arrive. In college, going to the ground untouched ends the play. Alternatively if the ballcarrier wants to strive for those few extra yards, then the consequence is getting hit. This rule protects a ballcarrier who wants those extra yards but doesn't want to accept the consequences. It's stupid and unnecessary. Eliminate it.
Disagree. The way the slide works is that the ball is down where the player INITIATES the slide if they go feet-first, and they can't be hit after that point. They're not fighting for extra yards. Since the player is down where the slide initiates, to allow a defender to tee off on the player in the process of the slide is essentially condoning a late hit.
If you go head-first, you're fighting for extra yards and it's not really a "slide" any more--you can be hit.
-
it's not touch football
slide or not, if the ball carrier is not down, they deserve a hit
don't want to get jacked? take a knee early
-
it's not touch football
slide or not, if the ball carrier is not down, they deserve a hit
don't want to get jacked? take a knee early
It's a dead ball as soon as the player STARTS to slide. So the ballcarrier is indeed "down".
Just as a player who signals a fair catch is "down" as soon as he catches the ball, even though he's standing up.
-
Disagree. The way the slide works is that the ball is down where the player INITIATES the slide if they go feet-first, and they can't be hit after that point. They're not fighting for extra yards. Since the player is down where the slide initiates, to allow a defender to tee off on the player in the process of the slide is essentially condoning a late hit.
If you go head-first, you're fighting for extra yards and it's not really a "slide" any more--you can be hit.
I may be off my rocker, but it's hard for me to imagine a QB deciding to use the slide technique if no protection is given. So eliminating the rule wouldn't result in QB's getting lit up while sliding, it would eliminate QB's sliding.
-
Disagree. The way the slide works is that the ball is down where the player INITIATES the slide if they go feet-first, and they can't be hit after that point. They're not fighting for extra yards. Since the player is down where the slide initiates, to allow a defender to tee off on the player in the process of the slide is essentially condoning a late hit.
If you go head-first, you're fighting for extra yards and it's not really a "slide" any more--you can be hit.
Disagree with you 1000000000%.
We already have a rule for when the ball is down. If the ballcarrier doesn't want to get hit, he can go down well before the defenders arrive. But instead, the slide rule enables the ballcarrier to wait until the last possible moment, sometimes even after the defenders are committed to a hit, and then slide. And let's be honest, the typical case here, is a QB who has made it past the first line of defenders, is in the open field, and is trying to make it past the line to gain. The moment he clears that, he begins a slide, and any defender that was about to hit him, must take sometimes extraordinary measures NOT to hit, lest he get called with the foul of hitting the guy wearing a skirt.
The result is that the slide rule's sole purpose effectively becomes protecting a QB trying to gain a couple extra yards without the consequence of getting hit. In the true version of this sport, without the stupid and unnecessary slide rule, if that quarterback doesn't want to get hit, he has the option of going down a couple of yards earlier, well before the defenders arrive. Of course, that would mean he wouldn't get the 1st down. So the slide rule's only real value is enabling a ballcarrier to get extra yardage they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to under the normal rules of the game.
I may be off my rocker, but it's hard for me to imagine a QB deciding to use the slide technique if no protection is given. So eliminating the rule wouldn't result in QB's getting lit up while sliding, it would eliminate QB's sliding.
Absolutely. Eliminate the slide rule, and the QB still avoids the hit by going down a couple of yards earlier, or going out of bounds. The mere existence of the slide rule enables the QB to scrap for more unearned yards than he deserves under the normal rules of the game.
And if anyone hits a ballcarrier that goes down well before the defenders arrive, then we already have late hit/unnecessary roughness rules to address it.
The slide rule is stupid, redundant, and unnecessary to the game. I'd love to see it eliminated.
-
I always wondered why the Mike Vick play where he looks like he's about to go out of bounds, and then turns up field, I think against West Virginia, was applauded. Same idea, if you expect the defenders to pull up, then it should be an unsportsman like penalty to induce that, as a fake
agree completely, should have been an unsportsmanlike penalty.
-
I always wondered why the Mike Vick play where he looks like he's about to go out of bounds, and then turns up field, I think against West Virginia, was applauded. Same idea, if you expect the defenders to pull up, then it should be an unsportsman like penalty to induce that, as a fake
bc they don't give a crap about defense or defenders. they make it harder and harder to play defense with all these rules, and make it easier and easier to play offense. and they never enforce them equally. offenses rarely ever get called for stuff, but defenses get called for defensive holding/targeting/pass interference all the time, it's bullshit.
-
bc they don't give a crap about defense or defenders. they make it harder and harder to play defense with all these rules, and make it easier and easier to play offense. it's bullshit.
this is literally a rule change to help defenders...
-
this is literally a rule change to help defenders...
was not talking about this rule- was referring to the play with Vick he was talking about.
this is a great step in the right direction.
-
This choice was good and allowing the slide at all is bad.
Just let people dive and penalize if folks are obviously piling on when they're on the ground. Done and done. The slide where they pop up and the ball is spotted four yards back is deeply irritating.
-
Yup, this clarification is the first thing I've seen in a long time, aimed at helping the defenders.
Although honestly I think they're more worried about the NEXT time a slide happens, and the defenders presume it's fake, and light the ballcarrier up anyway.
-
Disagree with you 1000000000%.
We already have a rule for when the ball is down. If the ballcarrier doesn't want to get hit, he can go down well before the defenders arrive. But instead, the slide rule enables the ballcarrier to wait until the last possible moment, sometimes even after the defenders are committed to a hit, and then slide. And let's be honest, the typical case here, is a QB who has made it past the first line of defenders, is in the open field, and is trying to make it past the line to gain. The moment he clears that, he begins a slide, and any defender that was about to hit him, must take sometimes extraordinary measures NOT to hit, lest he get called with the foul of hitting the guy wearing a skirt.
The result is that the slide rule's sole purpose effectively becomes protecting a QB trying to gain a couple extra yards without the consequence of getting hit. In the true version of this sport, without the stupid and unnecessary slide rule, if that quarterback doesn't want to get hit, he has the option of going down a couple of yards earlier, well before the defenders arrive. Of course, that would mean he wouldn't get the 1st down. So the slide rule's only real value is enabling a ballcarrier to get extra yardage they wouldn't otherwise be entitled to under the normal rules of the game.
Yeah, but if you can actually make it past the sticks before initiating the slide, then that's a good thing, right?
The bigger issue is someone who starts their slide a yard short of the sticks to avoid the hit, but expects the ball to be spotted beyond the sticks because that's where they actually were when their knee touched.
Refs and replay officials have started to wise up to this. In this year's Purdue/UConn game there was an instance where the UConn QB started his slide about a half yard shy of the sticks on 3rd down and was originally spotted with the first down, and it was overturned on replay, resulting in a punt.
I can also say I don't see a lot of penalties against defenders hitting a sliding player if they actually do pull up. Refs have been pretty lenient on the sort of plays where a defender can't avoid contact as long as the defender shows an attempt to avoid it and doesn't make it an egregious hit.
-
Yeah, but if you can actually make it past the sticks before initiating the slide, then that's a good thing, right?
The bigger issue is someone who starts their slide a yard short of the sticks to avoid the hit, but expects the ball to be spotted beyond the sticks because that's where they actually were when their knee touched.
Refs and replay officials have started to wise up to this. In this year's Purdue/UConn game there was an instance where the UConn QB started his slide about a half yard shy of the sticks on 3rd down and was originally spotted with the first down, and it was overturned on replay, resulting in a punt.
I can also say I don't see a lot of penalties against defenders hitting a sliding player if they actually do pull up. Refs have been pretty lenient on the sort of plays where a defender can't avoid contact as long as the defender shows an attempt to avoid it and doesn't make it an egregious hit.
You and I are just coming at it from different sides then, because I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the ballcarrier begins the slide before the sticks and is still awarded the 1st down, and I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the defenders are called for contact that was literally impossible to avoid because they committed to the tackle before the slide was initiated.
-
This choice was good and allowing the slide at all is bad.
Just let people dive and penalize if folks are obviously piling on when they're on the ground. Done and done. The slide where they pop up and the ball is spotted four yards back is deeply irritating.
But if that's where they initiated the slide, it's correct. The balance of the provision of protection is that you don't get to count any yardage after you initiate the slide. The ball is dead right there even if your knee doesn't touch the ground until 2+ yards downfield.
BTW if the quarterback dives for yardage (head first), that's not a slide and defenders can hit him. There is no protection for the QB in that case.
-
You and I are just coming at it from different sides then, because I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the ballcarrier begins the slide before the sticks and is still awarded the 1st down, and I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the defenders are called for contact that was literally impossible to avoid because they committed to the tackle before the slide was initiated.
Fair enough. I do think spots had been VERY generous in the past and it's something that they've been trying to tighten up. And I've seen quite a few cases where a player can't avoid contact but makes a visible attempt to pull up and not get flagged for it.
Maybe B12 refs are different because they want to support Twelving :57:
-
But if that's where they initiated the slide, it's correct. The balance of the provision of protection is that you don't get to count any yardage after you initiate the slide. The ball is dead right there even if your knee doesn't touch the ground until 2+ yards downfield.
BTW if the quarterback dives for yardage (head first), that's not a slide and defenders can hit him. There is no protection for the QB in that case.
I don't think anyone is arguing this is the correct interpretation of the rule. The irritating part is that it introduces yet another level of subjectivity into a process that shouldn't be all that difficult. There are well established rules for what constitutes being "down" in college football, there are well established rules regarding the penalties for late hits and/or unnecessary roughness, and there are well established rules for what constitutes getting the ball past the line to gain.
The slide rule obfuscates and confuses the rules, because it creates a special case, that doesn't need to be considered. It's redundant and unnecessary. Just use, and enforce, all of the other rules surrounding a ballcarrier, tackling, and the line to gain.
What's the worst outcome? QBs no longer get to wait until the last possible moment to decide to go down while placing the entire onus of deciding whether or not to make a fair tackle in the open field entirely on the defender in a split second with the balance of the game potentially on the line?
Yeah, I can live with that.
-
You and I are just coming at it from different sides then, because I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the ballcarrier begins the slide before the sticks and is still awarded the 1st down, and I've seen (and continue to see) many times when the defenders are called for contact that was literally impossible to avoid because they committed to the tackle before the slide was initiated.
This.
and how many times do we see a targeting call when the defensive player is going in at a sideways, shoulder first angle, the way they are taught but the offense of player lowers his head after the defensive player initiates their action.
the most recognizable one for me was the Shaun Wade ejection for targeting Trevor Lawrence.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=you+tube+shaun+wade+targetting&t=iphone&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTPlANwvBCLY
-
This.
and how many times do we see a targeting call when the defensive player is going in at a sideways, shoulder first angle, the way they are taught but the offense of player lowers his head after the defensive player initiates their action.
the most recognizable one for me was the Shaun Wade ejection for targeting Trevor Lawrence.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=you+tube+shaun+wade+targetting&t=iphone&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DTPlANwvBCLY
man i hate targeting so bad. absolutely nothing wrong with that play.
-
The slide rule is one of the few rules in major sports history that basically exists to protect unathletic people who are trying to make an athletic play.
-
The slide rule is one of the few rules in major sports history that basically exists to protect unathletic people who are trying to make an athletic play.
no reason to bring me into this.
-
I could have gotten paid to play basketball if everyone over 6'2'' wasn't allowed to raise their arms when I took a shot
-
But if that's where they initiated the slide, it's correct. The balance of the provision of protection is that you don't get to count any yardage after you initiate the slide. The ball is dead right there even if your knee doesn't touch the ground until 2+ yards downfield.
BTW if the quarterback dives for yardage (head first), that's not a slide and defenders can hit him. There is no protection for the QB in that case.
Oh, I know that’s the rule, it’s just irritating visually.
And I think if you dive and some trying to tackle you lands on you, that’s AOK. If a whole bunch of people pile on after you land, not ideal, though I’d say that for a tailback too, though they rarely dive just to get down.
-
Another one I hated was the halo rule and, even though that's gone, there's still "allow to catch" rules that are often subjectively called in the same way.
I mean, if only there were some mechanism by which a kick returner that didn't want to get blasted by the opposing team's players, could somehow signal to them that he'd like a fair opportunity to catch the ball. In return he'd be giving up the chance to return it but if those defenders are already barreling down on him, it sure would be really great for there to be some method-- perhaps a hand signal or something-- which would let them know he'd like a fair chance at catching. If only such a thing existed, it would be really great.
-
crazy talk
-
A rule that really hurt Ohio State against Michigan and I think in other game this year is the fair catch on a kickoff. Traditionally, you can't do a fair catch if the ball bounces, but kickoffs are a little different. If you fair catch and the ball bounces, you may then catch it, but are not allowed to advance it. In addition to that, you have waived the right to advance the ball to the 25, and it instead gets put where you pick it up, which was the 5-yard line in this case.
So fine, we can say the fair catch to move the ball to the 25 is a dumb rule to begin with, but if we must accept that as a rule, then we have to fix this fair catch with a bounce rule. Either allow that also to be advanced to the 25, or nullify the fair catch at that point once it bounces and allow a return.
-
A rule that really hurt Ohio State against Michigan and I think in other game this year is the fair catch on a kickoff. Traditionally, you can't do a fair catch if the ball bounces, but kickoffs are a little different. If you fair catch and the ball bounces, you may then catch it, but are not allowed to advance it. In addition to that, you have waived the right to advance the ball to the 25, and it instead gets put where you pick it up, which was the 5-yard line in this case.
So fine, we can say the fair catch to move the ball to the 25 is a dumb rule to begin with, but if we must accept that as a rule, then we have to fix this fair catch with a bounce rule. Either allow that also to be advanced to the 25, or nullify the fair catch at that point once it bounces and allow a return.
Yeah, that happened to Purdue once this season too and I just didn't understand it.
I assume that they don't want someone to catch a kickoff on the bounce after signaling fair catch and get blown up--so if they're not going to let you run with it, they should bring it out to the 25.
-
...or just don't drop the d@mn ball? or learn to read the kick/wind and be in a place to catch it?
-
bc they don't give a crap about defense or defenders. they make it harder and harder to play defense with all these rules, and make it easier and easier to play offense. and they never enforce them equally. offenses rarely ever get called for stuff, but defenses get called for defensive holding/targeting/pass interference all the time, it's bullshit.
PI is a great example of this. WR's almost never get called for PI even when they push off fairly obviously. I do remember one that went against Michigan a few years ago (don't remember the year) but the push was incredibly blatant and obvious. It doesn't get called on WR's anything like it does on DB's where breathing on the WR can sometimes result in a call.
-
Another one I hated was the halo rule and, even though that's gone, there's still "allow to catch" rules that are often subjectively called in the same way.
I mean, if only there were some mechanism by which a kick returner that didn't want to get blasted by the opposing team's players, could somehow signal to them that he'd like a fair opportunity to catch the ball. In return he'd be giving up the chance to return it but if those defenders are already barreling down on him, it sure would be really great for there to be some method-- perhaps a hand signal or something-- which would let them know he'd like a fair chance at catching. If only such a thing existed, it would be really great.
I thought it was a silly rule, but Gamble at Ohio State was phenomenal at taking advantage of it.