I will let y'all read and comment...
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-com...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
I will let y'all read and comment...
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-com...
Comments
I have no problems with either of these changes.
If a review determines that no penalty occurred on a targeting foul, then of course there shouldn't be a 15 yard penalty on a play that had no penalty.
As for substitutions, fine by me. Everyone knows that teams try to prevent substitutions to wear down the defense. But that also makes them more susceptible to injuries (real or imagined - I won't go down that road). So to make it safer you actually have to out-execute and out-smart the defense, not just outpace them.
Rule change 1- yay!
Rule change 2- boo!
I like the Air Force coach's PC answer involving the phrase "a rare missed call"
Not sure what officiating he has been watching (in college or the NFL level) lately
Rule change to the targeting penalty is a year too late IMO.
The defensive substitution doesn't make as much sense to me. There hasn't been any proved correlation (much less causation) between fast paced offenses and increased injuries on the defense or the offense. Emphasize conditioning over size to combat faster paced play (doesn't work at every position obviously). The way for defenses to combat a fast-paced offense is the get a stop on one play. One negative play can easily deride the entire offensive series, thus getting the defense's team the ball back faster, while making the opposing defense come back out on the field quickly after a short (one that takes little time) series.
The targeting rule change is fine, something I have argued for in a long time. Either a penalty occurred or did not. Removing the ejection but enforcing the penalty was just a BS face-saving measure when the officials got it wrong.
I don't feel strongly either way about the defensive substitution rule. I just find it hilarious that a team that snaps the ball too quickly can be assessed a delay of game penalty.
Yeah, they need to come up with a better way to word that penalty. How can you be delaying the game if you snap the ball too quickly.....? Even still, I'm not a fan of that. They said that rarely do fast paced offenses snap the ball in less than 10 seconds, but it still happens. There shouldn't be a penalty for being good at getting lined up and having your play set up. However, it's good to see some rule changes that don't hinder the defense though.
It's the same reason that a D-Lineman gets a delay of game penalty for simulating snap counts, it's something illegal that you're doing in an attempt to get the other team to commit a penalty. It "delays the game" in the sense that it creates unnecessary penalties. Or at least that's the rationale I tell myself.
Very true, the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. You're doing something to interfere with the other team, so it's a delay penalty. My first reaction was just to laugh at the thought of "move to fast and get called for delay."
Yeah, the subtle irony isn't lost on me either.
If I were going to change the targeting penalty, it would be to make it an equivalent penalty to targeting if an offensive player drops their head in a way that leads to a helmet to helmet hit.
Sounds like a charging foul. But those little half-circles all over the field would really screw with the viewing aesthetics.
I don't like the new rule for defensive substitutions. I guess I'm okay with giving the defense time to make a substitution. What I don't like is that the offense could be penalized for being good at what they do. It seems silly to have a 40 second play clock if you can't play for the first 10 seconds. At that point we should just leave the responsibility to the refs to start a 30 second play clock 10 seconds after setting the ball and chains.
I would be interested to see how they conducted the study to determine this...
This seems like sort of fishy lawyer speak to me...what are they considering rarely? What if a no huddle team is playing with a lead late in a game...they could run 10 or 15 plays on a couple of long methodical drives to try closing out a game....all of those plays may use up the entire play clock..by design. At that point, it doesn't matter if the entire first half they ran 50% of their plays with more than 30 seconds on the clock...because if you averaged it out it wouldn't look like they ran ANY plays with more than 30 seconds still left on the clock...I think this is an easy stat to skew based on how you want to make the argument...I don't trust the research without seeing it
Somehow I get the feeling that some OCs somewhere are really unhappy with the rule. Maybe it's "rare" over the course of a game, or a season, but having the ability to run 2 plays in quick succession factors into the strategy of the game.
Reading through this brings up an interesting point I hadn't considered. What happens towards the end of the game when time is running out and you have no time outs? What if a team completes a play that puts them in FG range, but there's 0:09 left? Normally, the team would run up to the line and spike the ball. Since less than 00:10 have elapsed on the play clock once the ball is set, is this now a penalty?
Exactly my thought. That part of the rule under those conditions means the game is pretty much over with 9 seconds left (if you don't have a TO left). That to me is bogus! I think they need to tweak that part of it. Way to many great game endings hinge on those last 9 seconds...
This situation would never happen.
Ah, missed that. Thanks!
edit: oh...put back in my place..thanks
OK, Thanks. Does that mean in the last 2 minutes that the offense can start a play within the 1st 10 seconds of the play clock? That isn't clear here with that distinction.
Yes, it seems that if it's the last 2 minutes of each half, the offense can snap the ball at any point once they are set on the LoS. But if the offense subs, they still have to give the defense an opportunity to sub as well, regardless of where the play clock is at any point in the game.
OK, that clarifies a lot. Thanks. Its the devil in the details. I retract my concern.
Moving On... To more pie!
Interesting #2 rule change: Offenses not allowed to snap the ball until the 40 second play clock has gotten to 29 seconds or less in order to allow defenses to substitute.
My initial thought was 'this may have kept Auburn out of the Nat'l Champ game.'
However, I looked at teamrankings.com and Auburn was #62 in plays per game-at 73.8, VT #58 at 74.1!
Top 6 were Texas Tech (8-5) 90.3, BYU (8-5) 89.9, Cal (1-11) 88.7, Fresno St. (11-2) 85.4, Baylor (11-2) 85.2, uva (2-10) 84.0.
So clearly, # plays/game does not equal wins.
The argument given by the NCAA is to 'enhance the safety of student athletes' but the counter argument is that there has not been any data to suggest increased player injury with difficulty with substitutions.
I think, for VT, it may give Bud Foster a slightly larger window to evaluate offensive personnel and get the right players/package in, which I like.
I don't see it affecting VT's offense.
This^^^ Call me a snob, but I only care what may or may not affect VT. I think this gives us a slight advantage.
I agree. It's not like VT runs an up-tempo offense.
And heck, I love defensive football. Let's get these games low scoring again.
That's not being a snob, that's being a fan. +1 sir.
That almost looks like some of some of the trick-plays we ran against LOLUVa
I like it. Football has been trending more and more for the offense over recent years at the expense of defenses. Schools like Oregon and West Virginia put together title runs by just simply not allowing the defense to substitute players over the course of the game, which essentially made the defensive side of the ball meaningless.
Football is at its best when you see a good even balance between offense and defense. Allow both sides to have their best units on the field at all times. Line em up and play, and may the best team win. These no-huddle hurry up offenses always seemed gimmicky to me and an exploit of a loophole in the rules. I see this as an attempt by the NCAA to close that loophole.
Good Point. +1 sir.
ehhh...I guess you have a point..scores seem to be higher now than they were 30-40 years ago...it could probably be argued that there are other factors contributing to that other than offensive advantages based on rules..I've always been in the group thinking that if the defense wants to get off the field they better stop the offense.
Hell, scores are higher now than they were 15 years ago. We led the nation in scoring offense in 1999 with 41.4 ppg. In 2013, 7 teams put up more points per game, led by Baylor with 52.4.
I guess I'm in the minority, but I don't like the overturning of the targeting foul flag. It should never have been penalized with an ejection either.
I hate inconsistency, and now theres really no argument to not review all fouls.
we should be national champs... &@(%in USC
If this change goes through I'm sure in a couple years a change to allow coaches to challenge penalties will probably be brought up since the whole argument was that you can't review or retract a penalty.
Rule #2 - When Saban speaks, the NCAA listens and abides.