Change to NFL No-Huddle Rule

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9709450

I can't recall a season where I saw so many teams run the no-huddle offense. Neither can the NFL, and now it has had to respond to the practice to assist defenses unable to make necessary substitutions -- which, consequently, left them at a competitive disadvantage.

Earlier this week the league's vice president of officiating, Mike Pereira, sent a memo to the NFL's 32 clubs notifying them that officials would start acting to prevent offenses from gaining competitive advantages by making last-second personnel changes.
In essence, offenses must now allow defenses sufficient time to make corresponding player substitutions.
Let me explain: I'm sure you've seen the no-huddle or hurry-up offense when the Colts play. Or New England. But last weekend, even San Diego resorted to the hurry-up strategy with last-minute subs, rushing to the line of scrimmage when quarterback Philip Rivers saw Baltimore starting to make a defensive change.
What the Chargers did wasn't illegal. In fact, it was part of a growing trend that's become all too common in the NFL. Your offense assembles shortly after one play, runs one or two subs on to the field, then hurries to the line of scrimmage.
The defense, suddenly confronted with a new offensive setup, tries to respond by rushing its own subs on the field -- but often it's too late, forcing it to take a penalty or to use one of its timeouts.
It happened last weekend in the Indianapolis-New York Jets game, but get this: It was the Jets that caught Indy short-handed. Running the no-huddle, they would substitute personnel, then have quarterback Chad Pennington rush to the line of scrimmage before the Colts could respond.
Indianapolis was forced to call a timeout.
"The only provision in the recent rulebook is for defenses to foul and void the play," said Pereira. "So defenses were put in a very difficult predicament."
Competitive advantages caused by hurried substitutions have been subjects of discussion at recent meetings of the league's competition committee, but the NFL felt compelled to act after this season's spate of activity -- with offenses adopting the hurry-up offense to catch opponents off guard.
Running a hurry-up or no-huddle offense is OK. But when offenses rush substitutes on to the field and hurry to the line of scrimmage -- specifically to outman surprised opponents -- it's a competitive advantage, and the league wanted to end the practice.
And how does it do that? From now on, the umpire will stand over the football and won't hand it to the center until he gains a signal from the referee that the defense has had sufficient opportunity to make a personnel change. Then, play will resume as usual.
"This wasn't directed at any one team," said Pereira. "This is something we talked about for a long time."

[MikeVic]

So the ref can theoretically stand over the ball while the clock runs down? Why would defensive players hurry on to the field with 10 seconds running, up by 4, and their opponent is on the 10-yard line?

[Pumpy Tudors]

What's the point of having a competition committee and voting on rule changes if they can just change the rules in the first quarter of the season? What's next? They'll decide after week 7 that there are too many video reviews, so instant replay will go away? What about deciding to use the new NCAA timing rules after week 12? Maybe go to a college-style overtime system starting in week 16! This is great!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So the ref can theoretically stand over the ball while the clock runs down? Why would defensive players hurry on to the field with 10 seconds running, up by 4, and their opponent is on the 10-yard line?

If I'm reading it correctly (and I could be wrong), the refs only give the defense time if the offense makes personnel changes. If the offense keeps the same people on the field, then the ref won't slow things down. I assume the NFL is trying to avoid things like what Clemson did a few years ago (running 5 players on the field immediately with no huddle and then starting the play right away). I agree that it is an odd time to start enforcing the rule this way, but I can see the logic behind it.

[Raiders Army]

Yep. Changing in midstream doesn't make any sense.

[PackerFanatic]

I don't think they are changing though...at least fro mthe article I saw on NFL.com (similar to the one above) they were simply more strongly enforcing a rule that was already in place. Granted it still seems ridiculous.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/IND/9709478

"Dungy thought he understood the rule regarding no-huddle offenses until he sought an explanation from league officials this week. It was then Dungy found out there had apparently been a change.

Dungy said he was told part of the wording -- giving the defense time to substitute -- had changed in the 1990s but that few knew of it. "

[JPhillips]

I thought this basic rule change happened after the Bengals-Bills playoof game where Levy kept having players fake injuries so that he could make substitutions.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So the ref can theoretically stand over the ball while the clock runs down? Why would defensive players hurry on to the field with 10 seconds running, up by 4, and their opponent is on the 10-yard line?

I'm guessing 'sufficient oppertunity' means a set number of seconds, and if the defense is lollygagging, he'll just let the offense go, saying the defense had a sufficient oppertunity to make substitutions, and they didn't use that oppertunity properly.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So the ref can theoretically stand over the ball while the clock runs down? Why would defensive players hurry on to the field with 10 seconds running, up by 4, and their opponent is on the 10-yard line?

You aren't reading it right. Theoretically this situation applies when the offense would, say, send off a TE and a FB and bring in 2 WR. You can still take the same 11 to the line and snap it whenever you want.

[Galaril]

I see nothing wrong with this from the standpoint of the rule change. The no commissioner probably decided after watching a couple teams exploit this. This bring in subs and hiking the ball immediately is like the guys that play Madden and try to guess the other person's play's from the screen.

[rowech]

This whole thing is going exactly like it did in the late 80s when the Bengals introduced this offense. If you remember, this was what happened and the rule was enforced to allow defenses time to sub in. Then in the playoffs, the Seahawks DT faked injury after EVERY 2nd down play to allow Seattle to get their subs in. It was shameful. That followed by the league basically telling Cincy they couldn't run that offense against the Bills in the AFC championship game.

[KevinNU7]

IMO this rule change is in line with the rule that you can't have more than 11 guys in the huddle anymore. I'm 100% ok with this rule. It won't effect the real 2 minute offense only the midgame hurry up.

[Pumpy Tudors]

If they're just enforcing a rule that's already in the books, I'm fine with it. I just feel that changing or adding a rule in midseason is just wrong.

[Tekneek]

The clock shouldn't start until the defense has made these substitutions then. If they have to be allowed time, it shouldn't count against the offense. This is one of the few "clarifications" the league has made that I am totally against.

If the defense can't keep up with the offense, then you lose. Survival of the fittest and most prepared, IMO.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The clock shouldn't start until the defense has made these substitutions then. If they have to be allowed time, it shouldn't count against the offense. This is one of the few "clarifications" the league has made that I am totally against.

If the defense can't keep up with the offense, then you lose. Survival of the fittest and most prepared, IMO.

The only reason it's "counting against the offense" is because the offense made the substitution in the first place. If you don't want the clock to run, don't make the subs. The defense deserves the right to respond to a change that the offense makes.

[firebirds]

IMHO, today's NFL offenses and defenses have become so sophistaced that rather than figuring out what the rules say they can do they are looking for things that the rule book doesn't say they can't do. The quick substitution no huddle offense is not violating the rules at all. I don't think that the actions taken by the NFL is changing or adding any rules midseason, rather they are handling a situation that is not clearly addressed by the rules which certainly puts the defense at a disadvantage. And they are doing it using the rules that are in place right now, basically the play can not start until the official blows his whistle. There is a rule in American Softball Association's rule book that says something along the lines that the umpire has the last say on any ruling or play that is not specifically addressed in the rules that affects the integrity of the game and/or spirit of fair play. I definitely think the defense is a victim of their own doing in this situation, with sophisticated defensive sets and situational substitution, but that is what is required to keep up with the offense. Yet I have always liked the ASA's rule and I believe what the NFL is trying to do is keep the spirit of fair play and the integrity of the NFL game intact by addressing the situation the way they are. I would seriously think that it will be clearly handled in the off season.