|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 21, 2007 18:46:38 GMT -6
I just found out that there is an "agreed upon" rule change taking place in our league that prohibits "defensive low-line charge", specifically against the GAM defense. The change was cited as many of the head coaches agreed that it is too difficult to teach their linemen to block low charging DL. Then, it is 'supported' that a low-line charge from the defense is unsafe. Coincidently, there are only two teams that run the GAM in the league. Both teams are dominant powerhouses, who win every year. The rule is looking to make DL be upright and engage at chest level to be legal.  |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Sept 21, 2007 19:25:11 GMT -6
Welcome to the moving target of youth football. ;D
Not so uncommon the rules change every year to help prop up poorly coached teams.
A bit uncommon but not unheard of to change the rules midseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Sept 21, 2007 20:27:03 GMT -6
Its not a bad idea, we also had a "no blitz" from depth rule in our league and the majority of teams played a 62,53 or 44(no GAM). Defenders had to come to the los and show their intentions before the snap. O-line play is probably the most difficult facet of football to teach, rules such as these just give these young linemen some small chance not to be overwhelmed until they learn to play their position. I personally favored playing my interior defenders in head up techs, at least they could learn to hit, escape and pursue to the ball, rather than low crawling thru a gap? I just can't see how this is teaching them anything? Sure, its a way to get a few rookies in the game on the d-line, but there are plenty of other ways!
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 21, 2007 20:45:02 GMT -6
true, but then it comes down to whoever is bigger. Both stand up and push each other out of the way.
"Low-Line-Charge" is something we actually do at Varsity Goal line defenses......
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Sept 21, 2007 21:06:05 GMT -6
Thats somewhat true Broph, but to me the d-line need to start learning those good basic skills early, quick get off, establish leverage, good escape and pursue. You know they could teach us how to submarine on the goalline in about 2 minutes lol, but the other stuff takes a lot more time to get good at and then it also gives the o-line a chance to learn the same skills, fire off on the count, good punch, establish leverage, move your feet and try to maintain contact. Just my own preference, no big deal!
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Sept 22, 2007 4:19:27 GMT -6
All players but bearcrwlers would learn all those techniques.
Bearcrawlers are positions that you put your weakest smallest kids in. They will NEVER play DT if you go by the GAM position descriptions. Facts are studies ( Michigan State) show less than 25% of youth players will ever play HS football, and my guess none of those very weak bearcrawlers are part of that 25%. The BC position is used so you can play weaker kids at lower levels into the game with this defense.
I doubt a 9 year old will suffer any permament damage or be hindered from playing HS football if he is 1 year behind a 10 year old in learning DT tech. My guess is the weaker player will probably benefit more, because at least he's playing instead of riding the pines because weaker kids do just fine as bearcrawlers. As a DT they would get slaughtered, hence they would be riding the bench or quit. Remember, they just want to be part of the team and see the field.
Youth football, playing and getting them in the game is what you are trying to do and put them in a position they can have some success. Unlike HS ball where most of the "Lupus" kids have already quit and are part of the 75% of former youth players that never play HS ball. At the youth level you have many first year or super wek kids that you HAVE to figure a way for them to get onthe field. OR you become one of THOSE guys that just sits them on the bench.
I dont run a GAM, but for my nonselect teams I do employ 2 BC postitions to get those weaker kids playing time on defense. I have plenty of those kinds of kids so I employ a scheme on offense and defense that can accomodate them. Not the scheme I like the best, but what is best to accomplish this goal as well as be reasonably competitive.
We have no rule like you describe of no "no blitz" rules either. I guess if we are trying to "train for the next level" at age 9, maybe we want to train them to pick up blitzes I say sarcasticly.
We have a few special teams rules etc, slaughter rule, but we would NEVER be able to play out of town games or go to tournaments and have any chance at competing if we were hindered by a bunch of special rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Sept 22, 2007 5:12:24 GMT -6
we have no other 'limitation' rules in this youth league, however. Just your birthdate that classifies what team you play on - no weight limits, no position restrictions, no alignment restrictions.......at 10 & under there is a free-kick allowance for punts, but other than that, everything else is fair game.
That is why adding a convenient rule is a little weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Sept 22, 2007 19:35:16 GMT -6
We had quite a few quirky rules in our league here, #1.- no weight limits to play but a weight limit to handle the ball, 110 lbs for 8-10's and 125 for 11-12's, this included scooping up a fumble or INT, etc.. if an overweight guy got possession, the play was dead, #2.- the previously mentioned "No Blitz rule", on the good side, other than that you could play any defense you wanted. (yes, even the GAM)! Same with offense, anything was ok as long as you followed the running weight rules. #3.- We had "no" free kick rule but you did have the option of not punting at all but just taking the standard ball advancement for your age group on 4th down. If you chose to punt, they could rush, try to block it whatever, same with kicking an extra point(all at your own risk) probably why kicking was worth 2 points, didnt happen much, lol! #4.- We played 8 min qtrs with the younger group and 10 minutes with the older kids and usually a 7-8 game season, with a couple more in a tournament we went to the week before thanksgiving every year! So, in the 11-12 age group we could have a 60 pound kid and a 200 pounder on the same team, or worse from a scared mom's point of view, the 200 pounder might be on the other team getting ready to crash the center and kill her son playing qb, lol! Probably where the "no blitz" thing came from? Oh yeah, #5.- we didn't have a minimum play rule in our league, it was up to each coach how to play his players. Generally on a team of 24 players, we'd have nearly equal 1/3rds, 8- good experienced, 8- fair, 8-defenseless rookies or just really little kids but could usually find somewhere on the field for them to have a "starting" job.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachjim on Sept 23, 2007 6:41:08 GMT -6
Man, I totally disagree with "no weight restrictions." Ten year olds at 125 vs. a forty pound 8 year old? Well, you guys are there? Is that safe? The 125lb ten year olds are like sasquatch to the others. My kid's a tall, 115 lb nine year old and near the weight limit, he pummels through the line like a mad jungle boar, but, the ten year old awareness... and immense size to boot? Jesus. We are 8-9 (10's need to be under 85.) We scrimmaged a league with 125 lb 10 year olds. They broke my QB's fingers and most of the other kids spirit to keep playing. Never again, it was a stupid idea imo. Dangerous, uless your kid is the bull. The rest of the little toriadors... get the horns.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Sept 23, 2007 7:23:50 GMT -6
Yeah Jim, it was pretty safe. The 8-10 running weight was 110 pounds, over that they got a strip of "red tape" down the center of their helmet and the play was blown dead if one of these "over weight" kids got control of the ball in a game! In the many years involved with the league, either coaching, officiating, organizing or just spectatoring, never saw or heard of any problems safety wise, other than the minor stuff that often happens when helmets and pads clash with skin and bones? The "running weight" rule kept the really large guys from plowing over the little kids, at least as far as carrying the rock was involved. We were in a rural 3 county league and only had the 2 age groups, depending on the numbers, you might have a couple teams of each age some years, other years just one of each. It wasn't feasible to go by weight classes cause of the smaller total numbers! On a typical 8-10 year old team here, you might have 10-12 kids under the 110 lb's, 4-5 borderline and 4-5 a good bit over. Same with the 11-12 group at the 125 pound limit. Just varied!
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Sept 23, 2007 12:32:59 GMT -6
My first year of coaching "Unlimited Weight" league with ballcarrier weights ( same kids can not play LB, DB or special teams) I thought it would be very dangerous as I had coached in a league that was more of a Pop Warner type weight class deal.
Surpisingly there were no more injuries in the unlimited than the lighter league. Most of the real big kids can not move extrememly fast and the collisions are not "in space" . The big hits are by the studs that are middle sized that have speed and are very aggresive.
BTW at the "Select" unlimited age 8-10, 125 lbs is nothing around here, our runnng back weight is 120 at that age. , I started 5 kids that each weighed over 180 and all but one of them could pull the one year I coaches "select" call.. At age 13-14 unlimited select all the good programs often have entire interior lines of 200 +.
Go to Daytona tournament and see how huge the kids are.
|
|
|
|
Post by los on Sept 23, 2007 13:03:20 GMT -6
Exactly right Dave, the kids that would really hit you were the ones right around the running weight limit, with the coordination and speed to lay some major licks on folks. Even in our little rural league here, it wasn't uncommon for the assorted 11-12 teams to have several "giant" sized kids every season. One season we had "2" 250 pound kids at the same time, one 11 and one 12, played them at DT's. They couldn't move very fast or far but noone ran inside that year, lol! My QB's mom came down on the sideline one season as we were about to run our 1st offensive series of the year, thinking about pulling her son out of the game cause the other team had several big kids on defense and a huge red haired kid, maybe 5'9-5'10 ,180 or so playing mlb and she was worried about his chances of survival, lol! Took some quick negotiating with her to convince her that this giant kid was really a big pansy and wouldn't hurt a fly and that marcus would be fine. In reality the kid could have been a beast, I lied, lol! But we all survived the encounter unscathed, except for the 2 losses they handed us that year, arghhh.
|
|
