Man, Tony Dungy and Bill Polian are the biggest whiners in the game today. And, what's worse, the League constantly indulges them. The title here says "more Colts whining" because this certainly isn't the first occasion. Less than a week after playing the Jets, the Colts whine to Mike Perreira about the too-many-men call, and get him to issue another one of those "rule clarifications" that they did a few years ago with the illegal contact rule. This, from a team that thrives in the no-huddle, and perhaps is just a little peeved that (a) they were played tight, and (b) they didn't think to do this first.LINK
Actually his whining has some merit.... They were called on the same stuff they claim we did a couple years ago and told they had to change.
Here's the problem I have, I agree that you shouldn't be substituting guys just trying to draw a too many men on the field penalty, I won't argue with that. But isn't the point of the no huddle to catch the defense off guard and not having the right personnel on the field? If an offense brings out 5 WR's and the defense is scrambling trying to get a dime package in there why should they sit and wait while the defense adjusts? I still don't think this rule is clarified.
I have to agree with that. It makes sense that the team with the ball has the ability to control the pace of the game within the parameters of the playclock. Seems kinda asinine to have rules that allow you to have sit and wait for the defense to get ready.
Exactly! The purpose of the NH is to not allow the defense to rest up, get the right men out there. Ridiculous. Whenever the Colts complain, the NFL listens.
waaa waaa waaaa do they want some cheese with that whine? Good job by the CS to push the rules to the limit...isn't that the Pats won a few SB's.
Rules don't have spirits they have technical details. If the NFL wants to change the rule they can bloody well change it. Counting angels dancing on the head of a pin has never worked for anybody at anytime.
BS. Doesn't the rule say that if the offense substitutes players the defense must have ample time to do the same? Well, what the hell is considered ample time? Now the NFL is going to give the officiating crews yet another judgement call to screw up.
if the defense wants to substitute it should do it at the same time as the offense. If they aren't quick enough, tough. Call the rule as it is written
There is a rule "no more than 11 men in the huddle", but Chad was not using a huddle. We can have the WHOLE fricken team on the field as long as all but 11 sprint off before the snap. OK,say it's 3rd and 2 and we send our 5 receivers AND our power running guys (3 TE's) to mill around the line of scrimmage while Chad barks orders. Then at the last second the 3 TE's rush off and Chad goes with the 5 recievers, or vice versa. And to make matters better, say we had our 5 receivers on the field on the previous snap, so NO substitutions were made.
I was watching this on the recast, what it looks like they did was call plays that left a couple players near the jets bench, and then subsitituted and shifted while hurrying up to the line.
I just don't fully understand what the rule is. Do the Jets have to allow the Colts time to make subs when they make subs? From the way this is worded how would a ref be able to determine if the Jets were "trying to catch the defense with too many men on the field" as opposed to trying to get the play off before the defense could adjust to their personnel changes? This is nonsense to me, if the defense can't get their subs on the field in time and a team is running the no huddle can they just sent a few people out on the field to get the play stopped?
Colts | Dungy to make changes to Colts' no-huddle? Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:29:47 -0700 The Associated Press reports Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy will employ a new version of the team's base offense if the league doesn't enforce rules regarding the no-huddle offense. Dungy thought the New York Jets violated the rule several times in the teams' Week 4 game this past Sunday. This week the league informed all 32 teams that the original intent of the rule would be applied; if the offense substituted without allowing the defense time to make changes, the play would be voided. A second offense would result in a 15-yard unsportsmanlike call. Some Colts players said the team had not discussed making alterations and didn't believe it was necessary.
My reading is that this isn't really about the no huddle, it's about the no huddle with last-second substitutions. If the Jets (or anyone) aren't making substitutions, they can run the no huddle to their hearts' content, but if they are making substitutions, the defense has to be be given time to substitute players as well. In that sense, they're saying that the no huddle cannot be used to get the wrong personnel on the field, but rather it is used to not give the defense time to rest or time to have their own huddle to set the defensive plays.
The problem I have is that is not what the rule clearly states. If that is what they want, then put it in the rules CLEARLY. I have a problem with this "spirit of the rule" BS. If the NFL wants it that way, then just put it in the rules, otherwise it is fair game imo.
That's what you would think, but the "clarification" given by the NFL in this article seems to focus inordinately on the "trying to catch the defense with too many men on the field" part, which is what has me confused. If the intent is what you're saying why wouldn't they just write the rule that way?
