Proposed Rule Changes

IndyBison · Mar 2, 2019

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resource...mittee-proposes-modifying-targeting-protocols

These are not approved yet but the rules committee approved them as proposals. The rules committee is made of coaches and administrators so these aren't coming from any officials.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

BamaNation · Mar 2, 2019

Thanks Indy. Here's a quick summary of the rule change proposals:

1) Targeting - progressive penalty for those who receive 2nd targeting foul in same season: player disqualified for the game and suspended for next game, as well.

2) Targeting - instant replay review: replay officials must confirm foul when all elements of targeting are present; must overturn if any element of targeting cannot be confirmed; no longer an option for letting call on field stand.

3) Kickoffs - eliminate 2-man wedge formation on all kickoffs; monitor all aspects of kickoff and consider further adjustments in future seasons

5) OT - if game reaches 5OT, teams run alternating 2-point plays; 2-minute rest after 2nd & 4th OT; only 7 games reached 5OT last year

6) Blind-side blocks - Players won't be allowed to deliver blind-side block with forcible contact; could also be considered targeting if warranted.

I'm still not a fan of the targeting rule even with the instant replay modification. It's so inconsistently applied. This may help but I'll have to be convinced.

I generally like the other rule changes.

Would like to see some better enforcement of some of the rules that spread & RPO offenses take advantage of - even if it impacted us, as well. If not going to enforce rules already on the books, get rid of'em!

BamaMoon · Mar 2, 2019

Probably a good adjustment to the overtime rules. By that point, figure out a way to end the game.

DzynKingRTR · Mar 2, 2019

so they just sat around and thought "how can we make targeting worse?"

GrayTide · Mar 2, 2019

To me the origination of the targeting had solely to do with intent, as it should be. The problem is in most cases of high speed contact intent is extremely difficult to determine. If a runner lowers his head at the same time a tackler lowers his head and there is helmet to helmet contact who is at fault? I do not know the statistics since its implementation, but I would guess that way less than 50% of targeting calls are intended targeting.

Valley View · Mar 2, 2019

The blind side rule is needed. Most of the blind side hits I remember were away from the play and unnessasary. Football is a dangerous sport and intentionally trying to injure someone is overkill.

That being said, we were taught to "target" and lead with our helmets back in the 70's playing in Jr. High and High School.

IndyBison · Mar 2, 2019

GrayTide said:
To me the origination of the targeting had solely to do with intent, as it should be. The problem is in most cases of high speed contact intent is extremely difficult to determine. If a runner lowers his head at the same time a tackler lowers his head and there is helmet to helmet contact who is at fault? I do not know the statistics since its implementation, but I would guess that way less than 50% of targeting calls are intended targeting.

If they aren't wrapping up on a tackle they are intentionally doing something that could result in targeting. Very rarely does a wrap up tackle result in targeting. On a runner the only way you have targeting is using the crown of your helmet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

AlexanderFan · Mar 3, 2019

IndyBison said:
If they aren't wrapping up on a tackle they are intentionally doing something that could result in targeting. Very rarely does a wrap up tackle result in targeting. On a runner the only way you have targeting is using the crown of your helmet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What he’s saying is : safety is coming in hot, mid chest level with his shoulder down and head to the side. The running back, attempting to bowl him over, goes lower a split second before impact and suddenly the top of the safety’s helmet is in the back’s facemask and targeting is called. The offensive players can, and have, drawn targeting calls by lowering their head or dropping down, turning legal tackles into what is considered targeting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IndyBison · Mar 3, 2019

AlexanderFan said:
What he’s saying is : safety is coming in hot, mid chest level with his shoulder down and head to the side. The running back, attempting to bowl him over, goes lower a split second before impact and suddenly the top of the safety’s helmet is in the back’s facemask and targeting is called. The offensive players can, and have, drawn targeting calls by lowering their head or dropping down, turning legal tackles into what is considered targeting.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never seen an example like that but I'll take your word for it. If he's coming in with a normal wrap up tackle with his head up its extremely unlikely to result in targeting. Helmet contact alone is not targeting on this case. There are examples where a receiver is completing the catch and lowers his body in such a way the defender initiates forceful contact with the head rather than the body could result in targeting. Also a sliding QB or other runner being tackled is defenseless so any forcible contact to the head could be targeting. This may be what you are describing.

There is still an element of judgement involved in most targeting calls so two very similar acts could have different results and I understand how that frustrates players, coaches and fans. That's why we try to apply consistent philosophies as much as possible. Levels with replay have the additional benefit of someone else breaking it down on video. They still have to apply judgement and not all calls have 100% agreement.

What I would love to see its actual data of the number of targeting fouls over the life of the rule. It's still a fairly small number but I would love to see if it's actually going down.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

spock* · Mar 3, 2019

GrayTide said:
To me the origination of the targeting had solely to do with intent, as it should be. The problem is in most cases of high speed contact intent is extremely difficult to determine. If a runner lowers his head at the same time a tackler lowers his head and there is helmet to helmet contact who is at fault? I do not know the statistics since its implementation, but I would guess that way less than 50% of targeting calls are intended targeting.

Excellent point. In many instances, the runner uses his helmet to initiate contact. I’ve yet to see the offensive player flagged.

JDCrimson · Mar 3, 2019

Indy, why is spearing not ever called? It seems like this was the same penalty that has been in the books for decades but rarely called but for a similar purpose.

IndyBison said:
I've never seen an example like that but I'll take your word for it. If he's coming in with a normal wrap up tackle with his head up its extremely unlikely to result in targeting. Helmet contact alone is not targeting on this case. There are examples where a receiver is completing the catch and lowers his body in such a way the defender initiates forceful contact with the head rather than the body could result in targeting. Also a sliding QB or other runner being tackled is defenseless so any forcible contact to the head could be targeting. This may be what you are describing.

There is still an element of judgement involved in most targeting calls so two very similar acts could have different results and I understand how that frustrates players, coaches and fans. That's why we try to apply consistent philosophies as much as possible. Levels with replay have the additional benefit of someone else breaking it down on video. They still have to apply judgement and not all calls have 100% agreement.

What I would love to see its actual data of the number of targeting fouls over the life of the rule. It's still a fairly small number but I would love to see if it's actually going down.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

IndyBison · Mar 3, 2019

JDCrimson said:
Indy, why is spearing not ever called? It seems like this was the same penalty that has been in the books for decades but rarely called but for a similar purpose.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Spearing became one portion of targeting (initiating contact with the crown of your helmet) so I would say it's being called more than when it was just spearing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

GrayTide · Mar 3, 2019

Another play I see very often that is, IMO, targeting with the intent to hurt a runner. In most these cases the runner is past the LOS and not in contact with a defender until the defender, usually a safety or cornerback lowers his shoulder and essentially block/tackles the runner at or below the knee to knock him off his feet. There have been quite a few knee injuries from this tackling technique and a case could be made that the defender is attempting to injure the runner. Just like all the other situations, it becomes a matter of opinion.

day-day · Mar 3, 2019

I believe the targeting rules are in play to protect the defensive players as well.

IndyBison · Mar 3, 2019

day-day said:
I believe the targeting rules are in play to protect the defensive players as well.

Definitely, especially the one using the crown. That's more dangerous for the hotter than the hittee. Same with the blocker on offense that uses his crown. I think there is a valid argument for runners using the crown to punish not getting called enough.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

BamaInMo1 · Mar 3, 2019

No offense intended Indy, but if you're gonna say you haven't seen running backs/receivers duck their heads in attempts to draw penalties then you just haven't watched enough football. Running backs and receivers lower their heads all the time. It's as bad as running backs and receivers stiff arming defensive backs and grabbing then by the face mask and never getting a penalty called. If you're gonna call it on the defense you gotta call it on the offense, too.

IndyBison · Mar 4, 2019

BamaInMo1 said:
No offense intended Indy, but if you're gonna say you haven't seen running backs/receivers duck their heads in attempts to draw penalties then you just haven't watched enough football. Running backs and receivers lower their heads all the time. It's as bad as running backs and receivers stiff arming defensive backs and grabbing then by the face mask and never getting a penalty called. If you're gonna call it on the defense you gotta call it on the offense, too.

No offense taken. You have a valid opinion/observation. I see a runner lower his head to initiate contact into a defender (sometimes initiated with the shoulder) to gain additional yardage. If it's a punishing hit it should be a foul for targeting but probably isn't called enough. He's not doing it to draw a targeting foul from a defender. I don't remember ever seeing a targeting foul where the runner lowers his helmet so his face mask makes contact with the crown of the defender's helmet who is attempting a wrap up tackle and it results in a targeting foul. I can't say that's never happened though.

B1GTide · Mar 4, 2019

IndyBison said:
No offense taken. You have a valid opinion/observation. I see a runner lower his head to initiate contact into a defender (sometimes initiated with the shoulder) to gain additional yardage. If it's a punishing hit it should be a foul for targeting but probably isn't called enough. He's not doing it to draw a targeting foul from a defender. I don't remember ever seeing a targeting foul where the runner lowers his helmet so his face mask makes contact with the crown of the defender's helmet who is attempting a wrap up tackle and it results in a targeting foul. I can't say that's never happened though.

Agreed - RBs do this to create an offensive advantage - they are trying to run over defenders. If it is illegal for defenders to use their helmet as a weapon, the same should be applied to offensive players.

As for receivers ducking their heads - this is a defensive mechanism that is hard wired into our brains. It is a "duck and cover" instinct that is designed to protect our brains when we face a collision. Defenders have to learn that the receiver is going to do this and plan accordingly, and refs need to give the defender a break if the receivers attempt to "duck" is responsible for helmet to helmet contact in an otherwise legitimate attempt to tackle a player (see here - player extends arms in an attempt to wrap up the player and does not lower his helmet).

However, if a defender lowers his head before contact and launches in an obvious attempt to "punish" the offensive player, he should be penalized every time, even if the hit misses the offensive player. It is dangerous (to both players) and that kind of play needs to be removed from the game.

IndyBison · Mar 4, 2019

B1GTide said:
Agreed - RBs do this to create an offensive advantage - they are trying to run over defenders. If it is illegal for defenders to use their helmet as a weapon, the same should be applied to offensive players.

As for receivers ducking their heads - this is a defensive mechanism that is hard wired into our brains. It is a "duck and cover" instinct that is designed to protect our brains when we face a collision. Defenders have to learn that the receiver is going to do this and plan accordingly, and refs need to give the defender a break if the receivers attempt to "duck" is responsible for helmet to helmet contact in an otherwise legitimate attempt to tackle a player (see here - player extends arms in an attempt to wrap up the player and does not lower his helmet).

However, if a defender lowers his head before contact and launches in an obvious attempt to "punish" the offensive player, he should be penalized every time, even if the hit misses the offensive player. It is dangerous (to both players) and that kind of play needs to be removed from the game.

Agree 100%. The argument I hear from coaches though is they need to do that to try to separate the ball from the receiver. I argue you either need to play better defense before the ball arrives or hit them hard by wrapping up. I've seen the latter result in incomplete passes too.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

crimsonaudio · Mar 4, 2019

BamaNation said:
1) Targeting - progressive penalty for those who receive 2nd targeting foul in same season: player disqualified for the game and suspended for next game, as well.

Okay.

2) Targeting - instant replay review: replay officials must confirm foul when all elements of targeting are present; must overturn if any element of targeting cannot be confirmed; no longer an option for letting call on field stand.

Okay.

3) Kickoffs - eliminate 2-man wedge formation on all kickoffs; monitor all aspects of kickoff and consider further adjustments in future seasons

Silly-ish, but okay.

5) OT - if game reaches 5OT, teams run alternating 2-point plays; 2-minute rest after 2nd & 4th OT; only 7 games reached 5OT last year

Literally couldn't care less, but okay.

6) Blind-side blocks - Players won't be allowed to deliver blind-side block with forcible contact; could also be considered targeting if warranted.

Weak.

I'm not one of the whiners who claim that anything done in order to prevent injuries is killing the game, or that we're *this* close to flag football, but at some point we have to acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport, and eliminating 'blind side blocks' and 'two man wedges' is just stupid, imo. If you play football, you're gonna get hit - keep your head on a swivel and watch what you're doing.

I've long been a proponent for player safety, but if that becomes the singular driving force behind rule changes (which has seemingly been the case now for some time) it will ruin the game. No, we don't need the vicious shots to the head, etc - but cleaning a LBs clock who is in pursuit without looking at where he's going (insert other crack-back block scenarios at will) has long been part of the sport. It's going to be pathetic and infuriating watching a blocker have to side-step someone in pursuit since they were focused on the ball-carrier and not where they were running.

SMH

Proposed Rule Changes

1st Team

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

3rd Team

1st Team

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Suspended

Hall of Fame

1st Team

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

1st Team

All-American

1st Team

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Administrator

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!