# NCAA Proposed Changes



## rhbama3 (Feb 12, 2014)

Gus Malzahn is gonna have a cow if the 2nd proposal passes. 

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...tee-slightly-adjusts-targeting-rule-defensive


----------



## Silver Britches (Feb 12, 2014)

Those changes would be welcomed by me.


----------



## tcward (Feb 12, 2014)

Fine by me!!


----------



## Silver Britches (Feb 12, 2014)

Now, if we could just find some competent refs to call these games.


----------



## weagle (Feb 12, 2014)

You know you have everyone intimidated when they go to the rules committee to try to slow you down.  

It won't help.  The Tigers will be bigger faster more experienced this year.


----------



## westcobbdog (Feb 12, 2014)

weagle said:


> You know you have everyone intimidated when they go to the rules committee to try to slow you down.
> 
> It won't help.  The Tigers will be bigger faster more experienced this year.



You sayin' the luck you had last year continues?
I think not.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 12, 2014)

weagle said:


> You know you have everyone intimidated when they go to the rules committee to try to slow you down.
> 
> It won't help.  The Tigers will be bigger faster more experienced this year.



Intimidated? hardly.
This is a logical and fair rule.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 12, 2014)

Don't agree with #2 myself


----------



## yellowduckdog (Feb 13, 2014)

It want pass to many using it, def coor need to coach a little harder an quit whining ..


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 13, 2014)

yellowduckdog said:


> It want pass to many using it, def coor need to coach a little harder an quit whining ..



The offenses already have a huge advantage over the defenses which is pathetic as it is, compounded with the targeting rule, and now not allowed to substitute with in a reasonable time frame,...and 10 seconds is reasonable, to say nothing about downfield blocking on passing plays...

you want rugby?,..then go play rugby


----------



## weagle (Feb 13, 2014)

I have no problem with the 2nd rule.  I would probably extend it to the last 3 minutes of each half.  

I still hate that targeting rule.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm glad they are changing the targeting rule for sure. Like I said, still not a fan of slowing the game down. Give the defense a fair amount of time to get lined up and play ball. It seems like the coaches who have a hard time stopping it can't stand being out coached so they pander for a rule change.


----------



## The Longhunter (Feb 13, 2014)

I guess I'm slow, if most "hurry up" teams can't get a play off until there are 30 seconds on the clock, what's the point of making it one more rule to slow the game down.  Defense has a de facto 10 seconds to get their substitutions made.  Making it a rule, is just a cover for poor, unorganized coaching.  "Back in the day" when guards were used to run in plays, the substitution was made on the order of 5 seconds.  It really grinds my shorts that each play has to be "planned" like it was D-Day.  

The only way the offense can keep the defense from substituting is for the offense to play the same 11 players (and the defense can still substitute), so where's the harm to the defense, having to play with the same 11.


----------



## DSGB (Feb 13, 2014)

The change to the targeting rule is a no brainer. 

Not sure if the other will pass, but I saw where Hugh Freeze and Rich Rodriguez were both quoted as saying they don't typically snap the ball within 10 seconds anyway, so they feel creating a rule is unnecessary.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 13, 2014)

What happens if you are down two scores with 4 minutes left. You HAVE to kill time??? Don't like it at all.


----------



## weagle (Feb 13, 2014)

Trying to slow the Gus Bus down.


----------



## yellowduckdog (Feb 13, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> The offenses already have a huge advantage over the defenses which is pathetic as it is, compounded with the targeting rule, and now not allowed to substitute with in a reasonable time frame,...and 10 seconds is reasonable, to say nothing about downfield blocking on passing plays...
> 
> you want rugby?,..then go play rugby



You want a pitchers dual go play baseball, defensive duals aren't my cup of tea or a lot of other if it's yours so be it. As for those complaining adapt if you can we've came along way from the wishbone try an keep up.


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 13, 2014)

I think this is a lot of fuss about nothing. The article states that there were a low percentage of plays that would have been affected by this rule. If the play clock starts when it is supposed to there is not an issue. These team that run the HUNH would usually stand over the ball and look over for the play call and that was more than 10 seconds. More than anything, i think the refs need the opportunity to look over the formations to make sure they are not using illegal formations. Right now, everything is happening so fast that they don't have time to get in position to make the call.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 13, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> I'm glad they are changing the targeting rule for sure. Like I said, still not a fan of slowing the game down. Give the defense a fair amount of time to get lined up and play ball. It seems like the coaches who have a hard time stopping it can't stand being out coached so they pander for a rule change.



Defenses substitute for situations, "fair amount of time"? 10 seconds seems pretty darn fair.
How about a 15yd penalty for OL downfield blocking on the run/pass option? or DB can maintain contact for 10 yds with no foul?

I don't mind the HUNH, but the defense should get the opportunity to substitute whether the O does or not, and 10 seconds won't make a difference.
As to the "outcoached" comment,...the HUNH is designed with one purpose in mind, fatigue the defense...  

...and if you are concerned so much about being outcoached,...then why should you care if the defense has an opportunity to substitute players for situations? after all that is all about "coaching/strategy"


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 13, 2014)

yellowduckdog said:


> You want a pitchers dual go play baseball, defensive duals aren't my cup of tea or a lot of other if it's yours so be it. As for those complaining adapt if you can we've came along way from the wishbone try an keep up.



these offense use variations of the wishbone, just dressed up a little different, actually the offenses are reverting back to old offensive philosophies.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 13, 2014)

weagle said:


> Trying to slow the Gus Bus down.



In case you missed it, the Gus bus has been slowed down, stopped and turned around...the last 3 games should have made that apparent.


----------



## tcward (Feb 13, 2014)

westcobbdog said:


> You sayin' the luck you had last year continues?
> I think not.


----------



## weagle (Feb 13, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> In case you missed it, the Gus bus has been slowed down, stopped and turned around...the last 3 games should have made that apparent.



In case you missed it: Worst to First


----------



## SpotandStalk (Feb 13, 2014)

Go Noles!!!


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 13, 2014)

weagle said:


> In case you missed it: Worst to First





Nope, but it sure wasn't the gus bus that won those games...


----------



## weagle (Feb 13, 2014)

The "Gus Bus" is a state of mind.


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 14, 2014)

Is it true that the NFL is looking at the same rule? If so, Saban's reach is a lot further than most think. Maybe he is trying to protect all the first rounders he produces.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 14, 2014)

How many of those first rounders have gotten hurt because they had to play a HUNU offense? The injury excuse seems to be code for "I don't want to have to defend against it because it is complicated." I mean, if they are so concerned about injury they should approach the rules commitee and put a limit on how fast a linebacker can run or how much a nose guard can weigh. It all just stinks of sour grapes and seems like if a couple of guys can't defend it then they want to change the rules of the entire game.


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 14, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> How many of those first rounders have gotten hurt because they had to play a HUNU offense? The injury excuse seems to be code for "I don't want to have to defend against it because it is complicated." I mean, if they are so concerned about injury they should approach the rules commitee and put a limit on how fast a linebacker can run or how much a nose guard can weigh. It all just stinks of sour grapes and seems like if a couple of guys can't defend it then they want to change the rules of the entire game.



I think you missed my point or maybe I am missing yours. What I am saying is a lot of people are saying this is because of Saban and I say that one man cannot have that much control over the way college and professional football is played or the rules that may or may not be changed. Did he have anything to do with the targeting rule?


----------



## weagle (Feb 14, 2014)




----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 14, 2014)

People keep talking about Saban being the reason for the rule change and it was Bret Bielema who proposed the change during the SEC meetings last spring. Personally, I really don't like that style of offense but feel like teams should be able to run what they want. Get the personnel needed to defend it and then learn how. I find it hard to watch even when Leach was running it at Texas Tech, Oregon was running it and now others. I think that if a team runs it the best defense is to have corners that can play man coverage and then have the LB's pound the QB and running back every chance they get. The Dual threat QBs should be treated as a RB.


----------



## Paymaster (Feb 14, 2014)

Rule #2 should be tossed.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 14, 2014)

fairhope said:


> I think you missed my point or maybe I am missing yours. What I am saying is a lot of people are saying this is because of Saban and I say that one man cannot have that much control over the way college and professional football is played or the rules that may or may not be changed. Did he have anything to do with the targeting rule?



I understand man. But... Saban did meet with the rules committee by request so his name will likely continue to be brought up in relation. Check it out:

 NEW YORK (AP) — Arkansas coach Bret Bielema and Alabama coach Nick Saban voiced their concerns about the effects of up-tempo, no-huddle offenses on player safety to the NCAA committee that passed a proposal to slow down those attacks.

Neither Bielema nor Saban were on the committee and they did not vote on the proposal passed Wednesday to allow defenses time to substitute between plays by prohibiting offenses from snapping the ball until 29 seconds are left on the 40-second play clock.

NCAA coordinator of officials Rogers Redding said Thursday that Bielema was at the meeting in Indianapolis as a representative of the American Football Coaches Association.

"Coach Saban asked for the opportunity to meet with the committee and talk about this," Redding said. "It's not routine, but it's not unique, either."

Bielema and Saban run methodical offenses and have publicly questioned if the quickening pace of offenses is good for the game.

FBS coaches on the panel are Air Force's Troy Calhoun, who is the chairman, and Louisiana-Lafayette's Todd Berry. Their teams ranked 104th and 93rd, respectively, last season in plays per game in FBS.

The proposal must be approved by the playing rules oversight panel, which meets March 6. Redding said it's not a rubber stamp panel, but more often than not it approves proposals. The panel does not consider competitive issues, Redding said.

"Their role is to examine rules on the basis of player safety, economic impact and image of the game," he said.

Right now the proposal is in what is known as a comment period. Coaches can electronically submit their opinions to the NCAA on the proposal, supporting it or opposing it.

Redding said it is "rare though not unheard of for the committee to revisit" a proposal. He added the comments are taken seriously by the oversight panel.

Redding said rules changes that would affect the pace of the game were discussed by the committee last year and during the AFCA convention in January at meeting he attended of about 35 coaches, including Bielema. The proposal passed by the NCAA committee was an idea that came out of the AFCA meeting, Redding said.

Plenty of coaches have made it known they are not happy with the proposal, especially those such as Auburn's Gus Malzahn, Texas Tech's Kliff Kingsbury, Texas A&M's Kevin Sumlin and Arizona's Rich Rodriguez who run fast-paced offenses.

"The 10-second rule is like asking basketball to take away the shot clock - Boring!" Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy tweeted Thursday. "It's like asking a blitzing linebacker to raise his hand."

The committee said the proposed change addresses concerns that defensive players are at increased risk for injury because defenses cannot substitute if the offense goes straight to the line scrimmage when the ball is spotted and the 40-second clock has starts.

An exception will be made in the final two minutes of each half to allow the offense to snap the ball as quickly as it wants.

Many coaches aren't convinced this is a player safety issue.

"I don't see the injury piece," said Boston College coach Steve Addazio, whose team runs an offense that is rarely in a rush. "I think we need more data."

Redding said the proposal was not made based on a study of data.

"I can't say there is hard physical evidence," he said. "It's more common sense."

Redding added he studied film of two games involving up-tempo offenses and only once in each game did a team snap the ball within 10 seconds of the 40-second clock starting.

"The majority of time was somewhere in the 20s," he said. "The average time was 17 seconds.

"You really don't impact what people are already doing.


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 14, 2014)

As mentioned in the article, very seldom is a play ran in the first 10 seconds anyway. I think there is ultimately a misconception of HUNH. Really what is happening is Hurry Up Set. The Offense is in a hurry to set so that the defense cannot sub, but then spend 15 seconds or longer getting the call from the sideline. If the defense tries to sub in that time, they snap the ball for a cheap 5. All the teams that run it get upset about injuries and say they are faking injuries to slow down the game. If so, so be it. Injuries are part of the game and cramping will inevitably go up. One of the best faking injury incidents came from a HUNH teams defensive player. It happens and will continue.


----------



## Beartrkkr (Feb 14, 2014)

To claim this is about player safety is bull.  There are plenty of factors to affect player safety.  300+lb linemen certainly are more a factor than fatigue.   It's 10 seconds now, it'll be another 5 or 10 later.

How about no more than one 5-star lineman on the field at one time?


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 14, 2014)

I don't really see a problem with rule #2.  Why should the offense be able to dictate substitutions?  How is that fair?  

What if it were reversed and the defense dictated substitutions?  Offense doesn't get to substitute unless the defense does.  

I think both sides of the ball should have a reasonable amount of time to substitute players in and out of the game.  If you choose not to substitute, that is your choice.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 14, 2014)

fairhope said:


> As mentioned in the article, very seldom is a play ran in the first 10 seconds anyway. I think there is ultimately a misconception of HUNH. Really what is happening is Hurry Up Set. The Offense is in a hurry to set so that the defense cannot sub, but then spend 15 seconds or longer getting the call from the sideline. If the defense tries to sub in that time, they snap the ball for a cheap 5. All the teams that run it get upset about injuries and say they are faking injuries to slow down the game. If so, so be it. Injuries are part of the game and cramping will inevitably go up. One of the best faking injury incidents came from a HUNH teams defensive player. It happens and will continue.



Then why have the rule change? It is obviously a big deal to someone, right?


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 14, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Then why have the rule change? It is obviously a big deal to someone, right?



Probably to allow substitution. As it stands right now the offense dictates substitution. When there is that much chaos going on I am sure they get players on the field and off the field unnoticed. But like the previous poster posted, why is it fair that the offense is able to dictate substitutions? I can tell you that there are a lot of illegal formations that aren't called and other penalties because the officials are winded and out of position.


----------



## Paymaster (Feb 14, 2014)

It is to stop no-huddle, hurry up offences, pure and simple. Nothing to do with safety. Offences have always determined the pace. When the ball is snapped, the play begins!


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 14, 2014)

Paymaster said:


> It is to stop no-huddle, hurry up offences, pure and simple. Nothing to do with safety. Offences have always determined the pace. When the ball is snapped, the play begins!



It sounds to me like they are trying to make it more fair for the defense to be able to substitute.  Also, like has already been said, most offenses don't snap the ball within the 10 second time frame anyway.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 14, 2014)

The offense is in control of the tempo and substitutions in many sports. The defense can't sub in basketball either (can't call a timeout unless you are on offense)...


----------



## bigfeet (Feb 14, 2014)

What the king wants,the king gets,being the king is good


----------



## Chris 195 7/8 B&C (Feb 14, 2014)

They need to scratch that 2nd rule change and quit trying to govern the pace of the game and the type of offense a team can run.

A defense or d-lineman being winded and sucking for air doesn't constitute an injury nor should it be. 

I think it was Dick Butkus who said if they really want to eliminate targeting then they should remove everyone's face mask and bring back the leather helmets and DB's wouldn't be so quick to lower their heads.


----------



## Beartrkkr (Feb 15, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> It sounds to me like they are trying to make it more fair for the defense to be able to substitute.  Also, like has already been said, most offenses don't snap the ball within the 10 second time frame anyway.



Then if most offenses don't snap the ball in 10 seconds _then the rule is not needed_.  Of course, that is not the reason.  The reason is to get rid of the threat that the offense might snap the ball quickly.  Saban wants to see what the offense might do then try to get his best players in.


----------



## weagle (Feb 15, 2014)

It's ridiculous to try to hide behind "player safety" for the rule change.  Are they not worried about the players' safety in the last 2 minutes ?


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 16, 2014)

Beartrkkr said:


> Then if most offenses don't snap the ball in 10 seconds _then the rule is not needed_.  Of course, that is not the reason.  The reason is to get rid of the threat that the offense might snap the ball quickly.  Saban wants to see what the offense might do then try to get his best players in.



what's wrong with that, I believe it's called strategy, and coaching.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 16, 2014)

weagle said:


> It's ridiculous to try to hide behind "player safety" for the rule change.  Are they not worried about the players' safety in the last 2 minutes ?



Agree 100%. First of all, there is no information available that says there have been any increase in safety concerns or injuries involving teams that play against the no huddle offense.  Secondly, if this was about safety, do they need to eliminate the concept of blitzing as it gives an advantage to the defense by rushing more than can be blocked? Allowing a 250 lb man running a 4.4 unblocked into a QB's blindside is a pretty big safety issue as well.  Should the defense have to identify rushers and give the offense 5 seconds to adjust due to player safety?  

What I don't like about this rule is that it undermines what makes sports great, the unknown strategy.  When an overmatched opponent can realize that they can't match the depth of an FSU or  Bama they decide to take away that advantage by running a hurry up even though it may hurt them as well by not being able to rest and strategize.  I for one hope it does not happen.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 16, 2014)

weagle said:


> It's ridiculous to try to hide behind "player safety" for the rule change.  Are they not worried about the players' safety in the last 2 minutes ?



If you really want to be honest about the situation, the HUNH was designed and implemented by teams with inferior talent, check out Fedora's comments, as a means to try and gain an advantage.

to heck with "player safety", it's about strategy and evening the playing field...and make NO mistake, Auburn did not beat BAMA or UGA with the HUNH, nor did TAMU.
I think it degrades the traditional game

What is your problem with giving the defense 10 seconds to substitute if they choose?

...you guys NEVER speak of the OL downfield blocking on pass plays, a clear violation of the current rules which is missed frequently during this so called HUNH scheme.


The officials do the best they can to keep up,...but can't.

Alter the rules to make it fair to both sides.


----------



## Beartrkkr (Feb 16, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> If you really want to be honest about the situation, the HUNH was designed and implemented by teams with inferior talent, check out Fedora's comments, as a means to try and gain an advantage.
> 
> to heck with "player safety", it's about strategy and evening the playing field...and make NO mistake, Auburn did not beat BAMA or UGA with the HUNH, nor did TAMU.
> I think it degrades the traditional game
> ...




Why does it have to be fair?  The offense dictates when the ball is snapped.  Is that fair?  Is it fair for the defense can blitz seven men?  Is it fair that Bama can sign more 5 star athletes than most other teams.  Man up and play the game.  If the HUNH offense degrades the "traditional" game lets roll back the time where football was football. In the "traditional" game game of football the forward pass was illegal for nearly 40 years.  Also, there was no sustituting players depending on the situation or down.  If you played defense, you played all the time (and might play on offense too). 

Football stategies evolve, just like it did with the forward pass, the option, wildcat, and whatever else someone thinks up.

This ain't about player safety, it about Saban not being able to send in a fresh set of 5 star athletes into the game every other down.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 16, 2014)

Beartrkkr said:


> Why does it have to be fair?  The offense dictates when the ball is snapped.  Is that fair?  Is it fair for the defense can blitz seven men?  Is it fair that Bama can sign more 5 star athletes than most other teams.  Man up and play the game.  If the HUNH offense degrades the "traditional" game lets roll back the time where football was football. In the "traditional" game game of football the forward pass was illegal for nearly 40 years.  Also, there was no sustituting players depending on the situation or down.  If you played defense, you played all the time (and might play on offense too).
> 
> Football stategies evolve, just like it did with the forward pass, the option, wildcat, and whatever else someone thinks up.
> 
> This ain't about player safety, it about Saban not being able to send in a fresh set of 5 star athletes into the game every other down.



THIS  is the real issue,...pure, unadulterated envy.
Recruiting rules are the same for every coach/school.
some coaches/schools are more successful than others at attracting top talent...and the lesser schools/fans are envious.


as to your ridiculous point about the offense dictates when the ball is snapped? that is how the game is designed, the offense initiates the "play",not the clock...but when the ball is blown dead the "play" is over...not the clock, the clock, and hence the game is controlled by the *officials,* why? fair management of the game/players/rulings...and safety.      

you guys want to say that the HUNH coaches "outcoach" the other coaches, *yet what you are trying to prevent* is the other coaches having the opportunity to "coach" the defense into situational formations...at least you can *man-up* and be honest about this.


----------



## riprap (Feb 16, 2014)

Player safety.


----------



## weagle (Feb 16, 2014)

It's just funny that Malzahn is in Saban's head so much that he actually went and lobbied for a rule change.   And don't be mistaken, that's exactly how this came about.


----------



## Matthew6 (Feb 16, 2014)

weagle said:


> It's just funny that Malzahn is in Saban's head so much that he actually went and lobbied for a rule change.   And don't be mistaken, that's exactly how this came about.



So you were in the meeting and heard this I guess.


----------



## rhbama3 (Feb 16, 2014)

Matthew6 said:


> So you were in the meeting and heard this I guess.



He missed the part where Bielema, Spurrier, Muschamp, and a few others also wanted the rule change, but that doesn't matter. 
When Saban speaks, everybody listens and then chastises accordingly. Remember, he is da debil.


----------



## yellowduckdog (Feb 16, 2014)

Not just here , most of the journalist ,and a lot of coaches think bulimia & sabun are a bunch a whiny butts , but hey defend all you want it's your right.
    It's kinda like golf if after 18 holes your not winning pencil whip them with an eraser.


----------



## Silver Britches (Feb 16, 2014)

Maybe the real reason behind the second rule is to TRY and cut out some of this. 



Please don't watch the video below if you have a weak stomach! It's gruesome! 



Again, I don't see rule 2 being a problem.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

Haha..  This is hilarious. I told you guys a long time ago Saban can't outcoach a high speed offense, and teams with high speed offenses will do just fine in the SEC. Now he is supporting a rule change that will obviously sway the game back to both His, and the SEC's strength.  It's funny to listen to the SEC coaches whine about having to defend high speed offenses and how it's so "unfair".  Other conferences have been doing it for years.  But I guess when you get crushed by a mid level Big-12 team in a BCS game, and a low level Big-12 team darn near rolls through the SEC as a new member, everything changes.   Tell ya what old Nicky Boy.  Learn how to defend against it, then beat it.  That's what they've done in the PAC-12 and the BIG-12, and you don't hear them complaining like a bunch of girls.  I guess the with the upcoming playoff being implemented, and the knowledge that they will actually have to win a NC on the field, and without the BCS bias, the thought of that terrifies Nick Saban and most of the SEC. Like I said, as soon as there's a playoff, SEC dominance disappears.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Haha..  This is hilarious. I told you guys a long time ago Saban can't outcoach a high speed offense, and teams with high speed offenses will do just fine in the SEC. Now he is supporting a rule change that will obviously sway the game back to both His, and the SEC's strength.  It's funny to listen to the SEC coaches whine about having to defend high speed offenses and how it's so "unfair".  Other conferences have been doing it for years.  But I guess when you get crushed by a mid level Big-12 team in a BCS game, and a low level Big-12 team darn near rolls through the SEC as a new member, everything changes.   Tell ya what old Nicky Boy.  Learn how to defend against it, then beat it.  That's what they've done in the PAC-12 and the BIG-12, and you don't hear them complaining like a bunch of girls.  I guess the with the upcoming playoff being implemented, and the knowledge that they will actually have to win a NC on the field, and without the BCS bias, the thought of that terrifies Nick Saban and most of the SEC. Like I said, as soon as there's a playoff, SEC dominance disappears.



Might want to do some homework about Oklahoma being "mid level".  Fairly certain Oklahoma would be considered top tier program with numerous national titles including the BCS era to anybody who actually knows about football.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 19, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> The offense is in control of the tempo and substitutions in many sports. The defense can't sub in basketball either (can't call a timeout unless you are on offense)...



Defense can call a time out in football.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

They also haven't won the Big 12 outright in several years.  They finished in a three way tie for second last year.  They haven't been dominate in several years, and have been a mid level Big-12 team in that time.  Heck, Texas killed them last year.  So yes, in the last several years, they have been a mid level Big-12 team.  As far as the rest of the crud you spewed.  Michigan is the winningest college football team in history, yet we sure don't call them a top team right now do we.  

Face it, the SEC has not done well against high speed offenses with dual threat QB's.  Make no mistake about it, Saban knows that, and that's why he wants the rule changed.  He wants the rules changed to gain an advantage because he hasn't figured out how to stop high powered offenses.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 19, 2014)

Beartrkkr said:


> Then if most offenses don't snap the ball in 10 seconds _then the rule is not needed_.  Of course, that is not the reason.  The reason is to get rid of the threat that the offense might snap the ball quickly.  Saban wants to see what the offense might do then try to get his best players in.



They want the rule so that they can sub if they want.  I just don't see a problem with giving the defense the opportunity to substitute.  The offense has the option, but can choose or not to do so.  The defense can only sub if the offense does.

I don't think it has anything to do with the quick snap of the ball.  It has to do with the offense not substituting so that they keep the same players on the field.  Most of the time they don't snap the ball, look over to the sideline and see what play to run based on how the defense is set up.  The coaches who want the rule want a level playing field for both offense and defense.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

Ok, let me get this straight.  The offense decides not to sub, so the defense can't sub.  So, its athlete vs athlete, everyone staying on the field and playing the game.  How is that not a level playing field?  

You know what would be fair.  After a change of possession, when the offense gets the ball, those players on the field at the snap, both offensive and defensive, are all required to stay on the field until a change of possession.  THAT, would be a fair and level playing field.  This new rule is simply the SEC realizing they have a weakness, not being able to come up with a solution, and wanting to change the playing field to their favor.  Teams have come up with a brilliant way to beat SEC style power football, and the SEC doesn't like it, so they are trying to change the rules.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> They also haven't won the Big 12 outright in several years.  They finished in a three way tie for second last year.  They haven't been dominate in several years, and have been a mid level Big-12 team in that time.  Heck, Texas killed them last year.  So yes, in the last several years, they have been a mid level Big-12 team.  As far as the rest of the crud you spewed.  Michigan is the winningest college football team in history, yet we sure don't call them a top team right now do we.
> 
> Face it, the SEC has not done well against high speed offenses with dual threat QB's.  Make no mistake about it, Saban knows that, and that's why he wants the rule changed.  He wants the rules changed to gain an advantage because he hasn't figured out how to stop high powered offenses.



So 2nd place in the big 12 is now mid level?   I guess I need to remember the source.  I have another question, you love to say that Texas a@m has " rolled" through the sec?  Is 20-6 with no division titles really rolling?  Losses this year to the 3 traditional powers in the west.  I guess those guys figured it out and stopped it?  Did South Carolina roll through the sec the last 2 years at 22-4?  What a joke.


----------



## yellowduckdog (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Ok, let me get this straight.  The offense decides not to sub, so the defense can't sub.  So, its athlete vs athlete, everyone staying on the field and playing the game.  How is that not a level playing field?
> 
> You know what would be fair.  After a change of possession, when the offense gets the ball, those players on the field at the snap, both offensive and defensive, are all required to stay on the field until a change of possession.  THAT, would be a fair and level playing field.  This new rule is simply the SEC realizing they have a weakness, not being able to come up with a solution, and wanting to change the playing field to their favor.  Teams have come up with a brilliant way to beat SEC style power football, and the SEC doesn't like it, so they are trying to change the rules.



2 SEC teams trying to change rules , without consulting any other so don't lump them all into a pile. One coach just came from Wisconsin which I think he quickly saw the error in that so is looking to change things.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

flowingwell said:


> So 2nd place in the big 12 is now mid level?   I guess I need to remember the source.  I have another question, you love to say that Texas a@m has " rolled" through the sec?  Is 20-6 with no division titles really rolling?  Losses this year to the 3 traditional powers in the west.  I guess those guys figured it out and stopped it?  Did South Carolina roll through the sec the last 2 years at 22-4?  What a joke.



Offensively they did.  And that 20-6 record is a heck of a lot better than A&M's last two years in the Big-12, where they finished 16-10, and never won the conference...  EVER..  Didn't Mizzu win the East last year?  



yellowduckdog said:


> 2 SEC teams trying to change rules , without consulting any other so don't lump them all into a pile. One coach just came from Wisconsin which I think he quickly saw the error in that so is looking to change .



Im not, Im just lumping all the teams who can't stop high powered offenses.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Offensively they did.  And that 20-6 record is a heck of a lot better than A&M's last two years in the Big-12, where they finished 16-10, and never won the conference...  EVER..  Didn't Mizzu win the East last year?
> 
> 
> 
> Im not, Im just lumping all the teams who can't stop high powered offenses.




Actually Tex a&m did win the Big 12 title in 1998, but who cares about facts.  By the way, OU won the big 12 in 2012, 2010, 08, 07, 06, and 02 (what a mid level team).  See ya next time.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Offensively they did.  And that 20-6 record is a heck of a lot better than A&M's last two years in the Big-12, where they finished 16-10, and never won the conference...  EVER..  Didn't Mizzu win the East last year?
> 
> 
> 
> Im not, Im just lumping all the teams who can't stop high powered offenses.



there is nothing *powerful* about these offenses,...that's the whole point,....these teams can not compete man to man, so they have to outpace the defense, simple as that, and with the rules currently in place, the offense has a huge advantage, ol blocking downfield, receiver "picks", "targeting", QB's pampered...I know lefties like this sort of non-sense, but it's not football, each side should have no clear cut advantage vs. the other, you want ol downfield? allow receivers to be engaged out to 10 yds, and no "holding" on the receiver if the QB breaks containment and is moveing toward the line of scrimmage as if he were going to run.
you want quick snap? make it a 15 yd penalty and loss of down if the offense is not set for 1 full count before snap.
I can go on...


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> there is nothing *powerful* about these offenses,...that's the whole point,....these teams can not compete man to man, so they have to outpace the defense, simple as that, and with the rules currently in place, the offense has a huge advantage, ol blocking downfield, receiver "picks", "targeting", QB's pampered...I know lefties like this sort of non-sense, but it's not football, each side should have no clear cut advantage vs. the other, you want ol downfield? allow receivers to be engaged out to 10 yds, and no "holding" on the receiver if the QB breaks containment and is moveing toward the line of scrimmage as if he were going to run.
> you want quick snap? make it a 15 yd penalty and loss of down if the offense is not set for 1 full count before snap.
> I can go on...



If the same guys stay on the field on each play, isn't that about as even as it gets?  Substituting allows the advantage, it doesn't take it away.  If the guys your team puts on the field can't keep up with the guys the other team puts on the field, tough!  Get players with more speed and stamina.  If your defensive line can't get back to the line in time because they are too fat and out of shape, build their stamina so they can.  

Now you also want to take away the Dual threat QB's threat of running?   That's why they call them a DUAL THREAT!!!  Don't like it?  Go recruit one like everyone else is doing.  Heck, they are even doing it in the NFL.  Being able to hold the receiver just because the QB moves towards the line is ridiculous.   Whats next, are you going to ban the reverse just because the original RB moved in one direction, only to hand the ball off to a guy running another direction?   Football has evolved, and none of the DC's  in the other Conferences are complaining.  They've learned how to defend it.  Maybe Nick Saban should too!  As of now, hes been exposed.  Nick Saban can't coach against a HIGH POWERED fast offense, and either can the rest of the SEC D's.  

But then again, many of us on this board have been pointing that out for years.  You know why SEC guys always said they play no defense in the Big-12 and PAC-12?  Its not because of lousy Defenses, its because of the offenses.  The SEC has just been slow to adjust.  But now that you have Malzhan, Sumlin,  and others adopting to the high speed offense in the SEC, those D's don't seem so big and bad.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> If the same guys stay on the field on each play, isn't that about as even as it gets?  Substituting allows the advantage, it doesn't take it away.  If the guys your team puts on the field can't keep up with the guys the other team puts on the field, tough!  Get players with more speed and stamina.  If your defensive line can't get back to the line in time because they are too fat and out of shape, build their stamina so they can.
> 
> Now you also want to take away the Dual threat QB's threat of running?   That's why they call them a DUAL THREAT!!!  Don't like it?  Go recruit one like everyone else is doing.  Heck, they are even doing it in the NFL.  Being able to hold the receiver just because the QB moves towards the line is ridiculous.   Whats next, are you going to ban the reverse just because the original RB moved in one direction, only to hand the ball off to a guy running another direction?   Football has evolved, and none of the DC's  in the other Conferences are complaining.  They've learned how to defend it.  Maybe Nick Saban should too!  As of now, hes been exposed.  Nick Saban can't coach against a HIGH POWERED fast offense, and either can the rest of the SEC D's.
> 
> But then again, many of us on this board have been pointing that out for years.  You know why SEC guys always said they play no defense in the Big-12 and PAC-12?  Its not because of lousy Defenses, its because of the offenses.  The SEC has just been slow to adjust.  But now that you have Malzhan, Sumlin,  and others adopting to the high speed offense in the SEC, those D's don't seem so big and bad.



No No:
who said anything about eliminating the QB's "dual threat?
he can still run, or pass, but now he can't "dink" the DB/LB into releasing the reciever, nor allow the OL to release downfield, and if the receivers can be engaged fully 10yds downfield, the picks and rubs can be properly dealt with.

Like I've said many times before, and none of you HUNH guys respond,...you want rugby, go watch rugby.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

That's the point of the Dual Threat QB.  To use the current rules to gain an advantage.  Now you want to change the rules because you've lost the advantage?  You know what I suggest?  Go get a dual threat QB and adapt, don't try and change the rules because your recruiting isn't keeping up with the modern game.  Learn how to play fast paced with your offense, and use the same rules everyone is playing by, to your advantage.

 I'm pretty sure an NFL team just won something called the Super Bowl with a QB who was too short, too small, and not good enough to play in the NFL.  Guess what, the Seahawks adapted to the rules and handed most everyone in the NFL their tails.  The two best QB's in the NFC are now dual threat QB's.  Remember just a few years ago when everyone still wanted a pocket passing Payton Manning type QB?  Well Payton just got his tail handed to him by a team that easily defended Denver's style of old school NFL football.  

Don't be mad that Bama got crushed by Choklahoma.  Get even.   The game changes, if you don't adapt, you will be left behind.


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> If the same guys stay on the field on each play, isn't that about as even as it gets?  Substituting allows the advantage, it doesn't take it away.  If the guys your team puts on the field can't keep up with the guys the other team puts on the field, tough!  Get players with more speed and stamina.  If your defensive line can't get back to the line in time because they are too fat and out of shape, build their stamina so they can.
> 
> Now you also want to take away the Dual threat QB's threat of running?   That's why they call them a DUAL THREAT!!!  Don't like it?  Go recruit one like everyone else is doing.  Heck, they are even doing it in the NFL.  Being able to hold the receiver just because the QB moves towards the line is ridiculous.   Whats next, are you going to ban the reverse just because the original RB moved in one direction, only to hand the ball off to a guy running another direction?   Football has evolved, and none of the DC's  in the other Conferences are complaining.  They've learned how to defend it.  Maybe Nick Saban should too!  As of now, hes been exposed.  Nick Saban can't coach against a HIGH POWERED fast offense, and either can the rest of the SEC D's.
> 
> But then again, many of us on this board have been pointing that out for years.  You know why SEC guys always said they play no defense in the Big-12 and PAC-12?  Its not because of lousy Defenses, its because of the offenses.  The SEC has just been slow to adjust.  But now that you have Malzhan, Sumlin,  and others adopting to the high speed offense in the SEC, those D's don't seem so big and bad.



With all due respect, I don't think they have learned to defend anything. When scoreboards are reading 63-56 or higher, there is no defense being played.  As far as the defensive players being out of shape compared to the ofensive players, I have to differ with you there too. Defensive players are always chasing after the ball carrier. The offensive lineman are pretty much done once the ball carrier hits the second level. Every once in a while you will see an OL trailing the play but more so than not they are not chasing the play like the defense.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> If the same guys stay on the field on each play, isn't that about as even as it gets?  Substituting allows the advantage, it doesn't take it away.  If the guys your team puts on the field can't keep up with the guys the other team puts on the field, tough!  Get players with more speed and stamina.  If your defensive line can't get back to the line in time because they are too fat and out of shape, build their stamina so they can.
> 
> Now you also want to take away the Dual threat QB's threat of running?   That's why they call them a DUAL THREAT!!!  Don't like it?  Go recruit one like everyone else is doing.  Heck, they are even doing it in the NFL.  Being able to hold the receiver just because the QB moves towards the line is ridiculous.   Whats next, are you going to ban the reverse just because the original RB moved in one direction, only to hand the ball off to a guy running another direction?   Football has evolved, and none of the DC's  in the other Conferences are complaining.  They've learned how to defend it.  Maybe Nick Saban should too!  As of now, hes been exposed.  Nick Saban can't coach against a HIGH POWERED fast offense, and either can the rest of the SEC D's.
> 
> But then again, many of us on this board have been pointing that out for years.  You know why SEC guys always said they play no defense in the Big-12 and PAC-12?  Its not because of lousy Defenses, its because of the offenses.  The SEC has just been slow to adjust.  But now that you have Malzhan, Sumlin,  and others adopting to the high speed offense in the SEC, those D's don't seem so big and bad.



I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post.  This is exactly why the defense wants to be able to substitute whenever they want.  It only takes one error in subsitution on behalf of the defense for the offense to gain a clear advantage by not having to substitute.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 19, 2014)

fairhope said:


> With all due respect, I don't think they have learned to defend anything. When scoreboards are reading 63-56 or higher, there is no defense being played.  As far as the defensive players being out of shape compared to the ofensive players, I have to differ with you there too. Defensive players are always chasing after the ball carrier. The offensive lineman are pretty much done once the ball carrier hits the second level. Every once in a while you will see an OL trailing the play but more so than not they are not chasing the play like the defense.



Stanford ranked #10 in points against last year, Oregon #13, and USC #16, all against PAC-12 up temp offenses.  UW and UCLA didn't fare too badly either.  The year that Oregon played AU in the BCS NC game, their D held Auburn to near season low stats in almost every defensive category.  But everyone said Oregon didn't play defense.  Yet they did what all the SEC defenses couldn't.


----------



## RipperIII (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> That's the point of the Dual Threat QB.  To use the current rules to gain an advantage.  Now you want to change the rules because you've lost the advantage?  You know what I suggest?  Go get a dual threat QB and adapt, don't try and change the rules because your recruiting isn't keeping up with the modern game.  Learn how to play fast paced with your offense, and use the same rules everyone is playing by, to your advantage.
> 
> I'm pretty sure an NFL team just won something called the Super Bowl with a QB who was too short, too small, and not good enough to play in the NFL.  Guess what, the Seahawks adapted to the rules and handed most everyone in the NFL their tails.  The two best QB's in the NFC are now dual threat QB's.  Remember just a few years ago when everyone still wanted a pocket passing Payton Manning type QB?  Well Payton just got his tail handed to him by a team that easily defended Denver's style of old school NFL football.
> 
> Don't be mad that Bama got crushed by Choklahoma.  Get even.   The game changes, if you don't adapt, you will be left behind.



typical,...you avoid the point and attempt to re-direct.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 19, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Stanford ranked #10 in points against last year, Oregon #13, and USC #16, all against PAC-12 up temp offenses.  UW and UCLA didn't fare too badly either.  The year that Oregon played AU in the BCS NC game, their D held Auburn to near season low stats in almost every defensive category.  But everyone said Oregon didn't play defense.  Yet they did what all the SEC defenses couldn't.



Interesting using only "points against" to prove a point but here are the official stats from the NCAA website after the conclusion of the season in regards to Total Offense and Total Defense, a little more comprehensive to most people.  

In terms of Total Offense, the SEC placed 5 in the top 25 units compared to 2 for the PAC 12: (4) Tex A&M, (11) Aub, (16) Mizzou, (17) UGA, and (21) Ole Miss Vs. (2) Oregon and (13) Washington

As for Defense: SEC managed to have 6 units in the top 25 teams for Total Defense vs 2 for the PAC12.  Looks like this, (5) Bama, (8) UF, (15) LSU, (18) Miss St. (19) USCe, and (23) Vandy VS. (13) USC and (16) Stanford

It appears that the SEC may do a better job on offense and defense (even with these high flying offenses we have to play against) by a wide margin.  Here is the link if you wish to read for yourself

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21


----------



## yellowduckdog (Feb 19, 2014)

Doesn't appear it's going to pass anyway so we are beating a dead horse ...


----------



## Beartrkkr (Feb 20, 2014)

fairhope said:


> With all due respect, I don't think they have learned to defend anything. When scoreboards are reading 63-56 or higher, there is no defense being played.  As far as the defensive players being out of shape compared to the ofensive players, I have to differ with you there too. Defensive players are always chasing after the ball carrier. The offensive lineman are pretty much done once the ball carrier hits the second level. Every once in a while you will see an OL trailing the play but more so than not they are not chasing the play like the defense.



An innovative coach could substitute if he was prepared to.  How often is the ball spotted and ready for play within just a few seconds?  In most cases it is indeed at least 10 seconds before and offense is even ready and set to run a play.   Except possibly with a short run up the middle, by the time the ball is spotted and offensive players get back into their approximate positions, players that were ready could run on and off before most offenses could get lined back up and ready to snap the ball.

Watched a bit of Oregon -  Stanford on youtube and saw Stanford players (when substitutes came in) running on immediately after the play was blown dead. They were ready and hustled on and off the field.  Sorry, but the big nasties just have to get into better shape.


----------



## Jetjockey (Feb 20, 2014)

flowingwell said:


> Interesting using only "points against" to prove a point but here are the official stats from the NCAA website after the conclusion of the season in regards to Total Offense and Total Defense, a little more comprehensive to most people.
> 
> In terms of Total Offense, the SEC placed 5 in the top 25 units compared to 2 for the PAC 12: (4) Tex A&M, (11) Aub, (16) Mizzou, (17) UGA, and (21) Ole Miss Vs. (2) Oregon and (13) Washington
> 
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.  Two of the top three offenses in the SEC are Big-12 offenses.  The third, AU, adopted the style and won the SEC.  Let me know when the SEC learns how to stop dual threat fast speed offenses.


----------



## flowingwell (Feb 20, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Thanks for proving my point.  Two of the top three offenses in the SEC are Big-12 offenses.  The third, AU, adopted the style and won the SEC.  Let me know when the SEC learns how to stop dual threat fast speed offenses.



What a joke.    good luck next year, maybe one of your teams will finally make your dreams come true.


----------



## 00Beau (Feb 20, 2014)

All the Aubum`s thinking Saban has this kind of pull is out of their minds. It looks to me that Saban is all in  of your heads, Aubum blames it all on Saban. Read the facts and quit just blowing bull.   Malzahn will be a one year wonder just like Cheese Dip. Being lucky will run out .   Roll Tide


----------



## weagle (Feb 20, 2014)

00Beau said:


> All the Aubum`s thinking Saban has this kind of pull is out of their minds. It looks to me that Saban is all in  of your heads, Aubum blames it all on Saban. Read the facts and quit just blowing bull.   Malzahn will be a one year wonder just like Cheese Dip. Being lucky will run out .   Roll Tide



Who went to the rules committee? answer: Saban.

Who tried to frame this rule change as a player safety issue ( the only way to sneak in a rule change in a not rule change season)? Saban

And I think Saban has less pull than than he and the Bama nation think.  The rule change he's begging for will probably not pass duing a "non rule change year" and next year when it goes before the full review it will get shot down again.  

It's Malzahn who is in Saban's head.  And, as it has always been,  Bama fans lay awake worried about Auburn.  That's because the greatest coach Bama has ever had is 1 game over .500 in iron bowls and will most likely lose that advantage this year in his home stadium.  

Saban and Bama fans are desperate and Auburn fans a champing at the bit.


----------



## 00Beau (Feb 20, 2014)

weagle said:


> Who went to the rules committee? answer: Saban.
> 
> Who tried to frame this rule change as a player safety issue ( the only way to sneak in a rule change in a not rule change season)? Saban
> 
> ...



Stay in fantasy land if you like it there, Aubum doesn't concern me for a second.  When Aubum wins 3 NC in 5 years you might have a coach. Malzahn will get the brunt of the Sec this year. And yall won't be crowing so loud. 8-4 won't be too bad for yall this season, it will be back to normal on the Plains. Roll Tide


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 20, 2014)

weagle said:


> Who went to the rules committee? answer: Saban.
> 
> Who tried to frame this rule change as a player safety issue ( the only way to sneak in a rule change in a not rule change season)? Saban
> 
> ...



Just for the record, I am a Bama fan and have never lay awake at night worried about Auburn.


----------



## weagle (Feb 20, 2014)

fairhope said:


> Just for the record, I am a Bama fan and have never lay awake at night worried about Auburn.



Nightmares?


----------



## fairhopebama (Feb 20, 2014)

weagle said:


> Nightmares?



Maybe... but this helped.


----------



## onfhunter1 (Feb 20, 2014)

I tell you what why don't we take there pads away and make them play touch football. I mean come on this is football if your defense gets tired maybe you should have work harder in the
 Offseason. Football is getting to be a bunch of cry baby's


----------



## rhbama3 (Feb 20, 2014)

What in the world did y'all do to my thread?


----------



## riprap (Feb 20, 2014)

rhbama3 said:


> What in the world did y'all do to my thread?





Saban was brought up and feelings were hurt.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 20, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> Defense can call a time out in football.



Really????   I said basketball ;-)


----------



## weagle (Feb 20, 2014)

rhbama3 said:


> What in the world did y'all do to my thread?



Bait hook, free spool for 10 seconds, set drag.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Feb 21, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Really????   I said basketball ;-)



Just noting that football and basketball are different.


----------



## greene_dawg (Feb 21, 2014)

Whoever said Spurrier wanted the rule change is dead wrong. 

South Carolina's Steve Spurrier added his name to the list of coaches opposed to a rule proposal that would slow down college offenses, and he wasn't afraid to point fingers while criticizing it.

"So, you want to talk about the 'Saban Rule'?" Spurrier told USA Today on Thursday. "That's what I call it. Looks like it's dead now, hopefully."

During the rules committee meeting last week, Alabama coach Nick Saban debated a rule policy that would force offenses to wait 10 seconds to snap the ball. Saban, along with Arkansas coach Bret Bielema, cited safety as the reason behind the proposal, but he's also been a longtime opponent of hurry-up offenses.

"Should we allow football to be a continuous game? Is that the way the game was designed to play?" Saban asked during last summer's SEC media days.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel will consider the slow-down proposal March 6.

But Spurrier, a rival of Saban and Bielema's in the SEC, has joined Auburn coach Gus Malzahn in advocating against the proposal. Spurrier told USA Today he left a voicemail for Air Force coach Troy Calhoun, chairman of the rules committee.

"I just told him I was against it," Spurrier told the newspaper. "It's ridiculous. Let's let everybody keep playing the way they've been playing."

Although Rogers Redding, the NCAA's coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the rules committee, says Saban's role in the proposal has been overstated, Spurrier doesn't believe that.

"He took it upon himself to go before the rules committee and get it done," Spurrier said of Saban. "They tried to change the rules. But I don't think they're gonna get away with it."

Georgia coach Mark Richt said defenses should have to adjust to evolving offenses.

"I feel like if you can train offensive players to play five or six plays in a row, you can train defensive players to play that many plays in a row, too," Richt told the Athens Banner-Herald.

Richt also said he doubted no-huddle offenses prevented a safety hazard. Calhoun said he has yet to see a medical study linking the rapid pace of an offense to potential health issues for defensive players.

Bielema said he's never seen a player safety proposal passed by the committee fail in front of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel.

"To me, that's part of football," Spurrier said. "The 'no-huddle' has always been available. I don't see why we'd take it away right now."


----------

