(03-03-2019 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 06:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA Football Rules Committee, chaired by Stanford coach David Shaw, has approved two rules changes for 2019. The committee's word is not final, its recommendations will be voted on by the NCAA Oversight Panel on April 17th:

1) The rules for targeting will be tightened up, such that unless all the elements for targeting are present, targeting should not be called. This is supposedly in response to the targeting call that LSU linebacker Devin White received vs Mississippi State, which many thought didn't rise to the level of true targeting.

2) Targeting penalties will be enhanced. If a player is called for targeting a second time during the season, he will then miss the remainder of that game and the entirety of the next game, not just the first half.

3) Regarding OT: From the 5th overtime onwards, OT sessions will consist of single plays from the 2-point conversion line, rather than a series of downs from the other team's 25 yard line. This is to reduce injuries.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/...d92eb.html

That's what happens when a West Coaster heads the changes committee.

I fundamentally disagree with all 3 suggestions.

All they needed to do was change the targeting review determinations and have 2 targeting calls. Incidental targeting which is 15 yards with no ejection. This would be when the normal course of a play neither player intended to target but due to last second physical adjustments helmet to helmet contact occurred.

Then they could retain the 15 yards with ejection for those who hit helmet to helmet and deliberately launch to do so.

Having a full game and the remainder for a 2nd targeting call during a season is ridiculous. Some if it will just happen in the course of 12 games of full contact.

Then the overtime rule is patently absurd. Why wait to 5 OT's? Just make the 2nd OT require a 2pt conversion and the 3rd overtime begins the repetitive attempts.

However I truly they believe they could end most games in 1 OT if the ball was placed at the 50 for the start of the drive. That ends the swapping of field goals and makes a team have to earn their yardage and score.

I hate the idea of ending 4 quarters of equal play on a do it til you make it 2pt conversion war.

All three of these recommended changes are epic fails in my opinion!

The added full game suspension for a 2nd targeting call on a player during the season will leave a wide open door for crooked officials to keep key players out of late season games and in my opinion should be avoided at all costs.

You make several points that are (pun intended) right on target. The very word for the infraction - "targeting" - implies intent. You really can't have accidental or incidental targeting. Either you meant to hit a player in a prohibited place or you didn't. Many times, watching replays where targeting was called (and even upheld) it appeared to me that the defensive player targeted a "safe" body part between the knees and the neck, only to miss his target due to the actions of the offensive player. In slow motion that could appear to be targeting when at real speed it could be seen as accidental.

More often than not, the players being ejected for targeting are defensive backs and linebackers. I would be surprised if some offensive coordinators aren't running some plays specifically designed to put key defenders at risk for ejection. That strategy only has to work once to be a success.

I am especially disturbed when a replay review to determine whether targeting has occurred takes more than a few seconds. If you had to hold up the game for several minutes to make up your mind, the answer should always be "no". It should have to be clearcut and egregious before a player is ejected.

As for OT, I have no problem with allowing some games to end in a tie. Have each team's OT possession start at the 50 yard line and require 2 point conversions after every TD. If a game is still tied after the 2nd OT, then it's a tie. Nobody deserves to lose.

And replay doesn't always overturn bad targeting calls.

(03-02-2019 01:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 01:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2019 12:57 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 08:27 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 06:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Regarding OT: From the 5th overtime onwards, OT sessions will consist of single plays from the 2-point conversion line

This isn’t football. This is a slam dunk competition. Jesus.

I think a better comparison would be that after 2 basketball teams play 4OT, they go to single alternating possessions to decide the game instead of playing another OT period.

That's an interesting idea. Another of course would be to have a 5-man free throw shooting contest or something. Where each team shoots 5 FTs, and if they are even then it is sudden death, like a soccer penalty kicks thing.

Well then maybe college football should adapt the soccer and hockey method. Put your best defender on the goal line while the other team places their best back at the 20 and have a one on one run out instead of shootout. That way after full 4 quarters all losses can be blamed on a single man instead of the coach or team.

It's all B.S. I say go back to having the possibility of a tie and a lot more coaches might play for a win at the end of regulation. Besides after 4 quarters and 3 OT's it ought to be a tie anyway.

I hate overtime.
We functioned perfectly well without it.

Perfect example was Auburn vs Jacksonville State in 2015.
Malzahn was able to kick the PAT with 0:39 left and see what happens come overtime with benefit of having greater depth and talent for the 25 yard each shootout.

Without overtime he has to go for two to win or lose as the #6 team. If the scoring sequence had been reversed, Jacksonville State very plausibly says screw it, I'm an FCS school and I'll accept a tie with the team currently rated #6 in the nation and be willing to go home with a smile on my face.

My thoughts on the proposals.

Replay review having to confirm all elements may not be that big of a deal on the biggest national telecasts when they are using a crap ton of cameras, it could be a big deal in other games.

Escalating penalty. We just made it harder to get a targeting foul, the flip side of it being that if you get one and don't learn your lesson from it, you get a longer penalty. Gets to the basic purpose of the suspension in the first place, poor mechanics sitting you out of a game should motivate you to change what you are doing. If you didn't buy in the first time, maybe this time you will.

Overtime. The shoot out formula is a gimmick, resorting to another gimmick to bring an end to it shouldn't be that offensive to the fan, we already punted purism when we went to OT in the first place.

(03-04-2019 11:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  My thoughts on the proposals.

Replay review having to confirm all elements may not be that big of a deal on the biggest national telecasts when they are using a crap ton of cameras, it could be a big deal in other games.

Escalating penalty. We just made it harder to get a targeting foul, the flip side of it being that if you get one and don't learn your lesson from it, you get a longer penalty. Gets to the basic purpose of the suspension in the first place, poor mechanics sitting you out of a game should motivate you to change what you are doing. If you didn't buy in the first time, maybe this time you will.

Overtime. The shoot out formula is a gimmick, resorting to another gimmick to bring an end to it shouldn't be that offensive to the fan, we already punted purism when we went to OT in the first place.

Did you ever play football? Most of the so called targeting penalties aren't guys who failed to learn their lesson. It is an accident of speed and change of direction. When a DB/LB moves in for a tackle and tries to go low to avoid hitting the ball carrier's helmet the ball carrier dips his upper body in preparation for the blow. Both are thinking independently of each other and a split second ahead of what each other is doing. Most of these calls are mere accidents, and hardly intentional beyond the fact that the DB/LB is indeed intent on tackling the ball carrier which just happens to be an integral part of the damned game!

Those calls need to go away. When a DB launches to hit a receiver high that is intentional. Those were a very small part of the total number of targeting calls the last couple of seasons. When an DL hits a QB very late after a pass that should be targeting. When an DL is bearing down on a QB and the QB sees him and ducks and their helmets collide that isn't targeting. That's a big guy trying to tackle a smaller one and when the QB ducks as the DL is trying to tackle his waist that isn't targeting. But the hyper sensitive interpretation of mere helmet contact led to virtually all of those resulting in a flag.

What it is is an overreaction to a social perception. Guys who stomp a downed player, nail the QB well after a pass, or leap to put a helmet under the chinstrap of a receiver should be ejected. But those are a very small % of the penalties being called for this. The rest is just football and no flag should be thrown.

Last year, in many games, I watched a big hit by a defensive player result in a flag on the field even when no actual criteria for targeting was evident on the replay. While many of those were overturned there were more than a few which were not, even when the video evidence clearly showed the hit was clean, which leads one to wonder if this rule is not a device that could be used to manipulate a game. Since the review official has a judgment call he can justify whatever he wishes. I don't like that.

I can't possibly express just how very much I hate this rule. And giving the zebras the right to suspend a key player for game and a half especially when most of those suspensions would likely happen in the latter half of the season is just begging for corruption.

If you have an obvious dirty player ban them from play period. But let the rest play the game. Dirty plays may be flagged during the game. But let the NCAA or the conferences review those plays after the game and determine suspensions. Don't put that in the hands of officials. Now if a fight breaks out in a game then of course the officials should be able to toss those involved. But things that happen as a result of play are best reviewed after the emotions of the game have cooled both for players and officials.

As to overtime give both teams a possession starting at the 50. That way both have to earn a score and you don't start easily within FG range. Then if they are tied after the first OT call it a tie. Knowing a tie is possible most coaches will go for two rather than risk their job by kicking for 1 only to have the opposition beat them on a 2.

(03-03-2019 06:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 01:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-01-2019 06:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The NCAA Football Rules Committee, chaired by Stanford coach David Shaw, has approved three rules changes for 2019. The committee's word is not final, its recommendations will be voted on by the NCAA Oversight Panel on April 17th:

1) The rules for targeting will be tightened up, such that unless all the elements for targeting are present, targeting should not be called. This is supposedly in response to the targeting call that LSU linebacker Devin White received vs Mississippi State, which many thought didn't rise to the level of true targeting.

2) Targeting penalties will be enhanced. If a player is called for targeting a second time during the season, he will then miss the remainder of that game and the entirety of the next game, not just the first half.

3) Regarding OT: From the 5th overtime onwards, OT sessions will consist of single plays from the 2-point conversion line, rather than a series of downs from the other team's 25 yard line. This is to reduce injuries.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/...d92eb.html

Overtime should be eliminated entirely......Bring back the tie!

Nah ties suck. Ties are a show that both teams failed to beat the other. Instead a game ending as a tie counts as both teams losing.

And you thought it was desperate before lol.

Disagree, teams that are huge underdogs and tie the favorite deserve credit for playing with a superior team for 60 minutes, instead of losing because a team moved 25 yards.

The OT rules of college suck,, at least back them up to the 50, but I have no problem with ties. Penn State would have been ranked a lot lower if tie stood.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

DUMBEST. RULE CHANGES. EVER.

My solution to the tie in football has always been to award half a point as part of the coin toss decisions. Front load the gimmick so that we get 60 minutes of football and no prospect of ties or overtime.