Actually I would think that would be easy. If in a game you run 100 plays and sustain 4 injuries, you would conclude in a game with 150 plays 6 injuries would occur. And the more plays run, the more susceptible one is to injury because of fatigue. Again, I'm not supporting this, but I'm guessing that is how you argue it.

 

Logical but has it been proven to be true?

Seems to me the objective should be to practice harder, get in better condition, get stronger and outwork your opponent. Not make excuses about fatigue. If I am not mistaken both teams have the ball pretty much an equal amount of time. Saben, it's time to adapt.

Ridiculous!

I like the rule allowing the substitution for defenders if the offense subs going no huddle. This I would be embarrassed to put my name to.

 

The subbing is a non-issue. Teams do it fine now.

Logical but has it been proven to be true?

Fatigue and injury yes. Not sure of empirical evidence as it relates to football, but that is a general rule in any physical activity.

Colin Cowherd, yesterday, said there were more injuries with slow, ground and pound teams, than the up tempo misdirection ones.

Defensive players must become fitter, smarter and more well rounded in order to defend what the offense throw at them whether on 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th down. Changing the substitution rules is not the answer. The game is gettimg more wide open, like rugby, with fewer periods of inaction. Nothing wrong with that at all IMO.

I have seen one article supporting the proposed new rule, saying that it would benefit the defensive linemen. It said the LB's and DB's are used to running around all day...but, the big lumbering D-linemen aren't. And that with them going full tilt on every play, whether run or pass, puts them in a position to be "winded" more often than anybody else on the field. And that the fatigue factor could lead them to have worse form as the game goes on, and could put them in jeopardy for a potential injury. That's why they need to be substituted for, even if the offense doesn't.

 

It sounds good in theory...but, in reality, have we had that many D-linemen injured because they were fatigued from the offense going no-huddle on a particular series?

I have seen one article supporting the proposed new rule, saying that it would benefit the defensive linemen. It said the LB's and DB's are used to running around all day...but, the big lumbering D-linemen aren't. And that with them going full tilt on every play, whether run or pass, puts them in a position to be "winded" more often than anybody else on the field. And that the fatigue factor could lead them to have worse form as the game goes on, and could put them in jeopardy for a potential injury. That's why they need to be substituted for, even if the offense doesn't.

 

It sounds good in theory...but, in reality, have we had that many D-linemen injured because they were fatigued from the offense going no-huddle on a particular series?

Get the d-linemen in better shape. That is an obvious answer.

Get the d-linemen in better shape. That is an obvious answer.

 

Nah, that'd be too easy. Much better to just come up with a new rule. :lol2:

 

In all honesty, if a coach would actually use this argument, I'd tell to QUIT rotating d-linemen after every single play! I mean, seriously, THAT could have more impact on a guy getting fatigued, than the offense going up tempo.

Doesn't 't the NFL have a rule that says if the O subs the D has to be allowed to have time to sub.

I read an article about this and I'm sorry I can't find it to link it but the gist was that coaches like Saban want this so they can sub on every play. Since they are able to recruit the best players they should be able to overwhelm just about everyone.

Doesn't 't the NFL have a rule that says if the O subs the D has to be allowed to have time to sub.

Both do. And I like that rule.