Proposed Rule Changes
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 37
  1. #1
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271

    Proposed Rule Changes

    https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...ting-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

  2. #2
    Publisher, TideFans.com &
    Benevolent Dictator
    BamaNation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,290

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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!

  3. #3
    BamaNation Hall of Fame BamaMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    11,624

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

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

  4. #4
    BamaNation Hall of Fame DzynKingRTR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vinings, ga., usa
    Posts
    20,115

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    so they just sat around and thought "how can we make targeting worse?"
    Architects do it with models.

    Roll Tide Roll

  5. #5
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

  6. #6
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Williamson County, TN
    Posts
    262

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.

  7. #7
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayTide View Post
    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

  8. #8
    BamaNation Hall of Fame AlexanderFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    5,557

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    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 heís 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 safetyís helmet is in the backís 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
    "It's not luck, it's random bursts of talent." - Gage Robinson

  9. #9
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexanderFan View Post
    What heís 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 safetyís helmet is in the backís 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

  10. #10
    BamaNation First Team spock*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    365

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by GrayTide View Post
    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. Iíve yet to see the offensive player flagged.
    Logic gets you from A to Z while curiosity takes you everywhere else.

  11. #11
    BamaNation All-American
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,695

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    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

  12. #12
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by JDCrimson View Post
    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

  13. #13
    BamaNation Hall of Fame GrayTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Greenbow, Alabama
    Posts
    15,466

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.
    "My momma always said you got to put the past behind you before you can move on." Forrest Gump

    "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear

2019 NFL Draft Gear