Joe tweeted this earlier today, but I wanted to go ahead and post this because I think there is a lot of good topics for discussion. I'll put my thoughts as a separate comment.
Playing rules panel approves more stringent penalty in football
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Thoughts
I can't edit the post, so here is some additional documentation (and ignore that grammar...clearly I have been in the office for too long):
2013 Rules Changes Provisional
NCAA Football 2011 AND 2012 RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS
First off, like many of you, I thought that players could only wear the same number if they played on the opposite side of the ball. However, if you look at Rule 1-4-2, there is actually no mention of it:
Playersā Numbering
ARTICLE 2. a. All players shall be numbered 1 through 99. Any number preceded by zero (ā0āā) is illegal.
b. No two players of the same team shall participate in the same down wearing identical numbers.
c. Markings in the vicinity of the numbers are not permitted.
PENALTY [a-c]āLive-ball foul. Five yards from the previous spot
d. Numbers shall not be changed during the game to deceive opponents [S27]
All this says is that they cannot be on the field at the same time . I am guessing the "opposite side of the ball" thing is to help prevent this (Not that it stopped ND). I also blame the talking heads at ESPN for feeding this to me.
Secondly, targeting comes with an automatic ejection. Maybe it's me, but half of the time I see a targeting penalty, I completely disagree with it. It made me think of BillDozerVT's Power Hour video and all of the big hits in there. I wonder how many of those would have resulted in a penalty/ejection.
3 seconds as a minimum amount of time to spike the ball? What's the point of having the clock at all, then?
Finally, the rule having to announce that you are changing uniform numbers mid-game? That's because Lane Kiffin is still a big douche.
Q:I wonder how many of those would have resulted in a penalty/e
A: Most of them.
I seriously dislike some of the rules that have been changed in the game in the past 10 years, both pro & college. I understand that the idea is to protect the players. But many of the rules dampen the spirit of the players (ex: celebration penalties), they penalize players for playing hard and fast (ex: this year's "targeting" rule), or they do something totally stupid. (ex: 10 second clock run-offs for penalties) Go back and look at BillDozerVT's highlight videos, or any other highlights from before the mid 2000's. And if you really want to see stuff that's banned, go watch NFL highlights from the 1960's or 70's (especially anything having to do with the Raiders). That was the football I grew up with, and unfortunately the game keeps moving toward flag football. I wonder how great players of the past must view the game today. Jack Tatum, Deacon Jones, Dick Butkus...they probably just shake their heads and think about how the game has deteriorated in so many ways. I remember a photo of Ray Nitschke (ok, if you don't know who he was Google it, youngsters) standing over a player he had just destroyed and it looks like he's daring him to get up. He'd probably get hit for a taunting penalty today, and that's not even counting the hit he must have made to get that result. Classic...just classic football. Oh, and Jim Otto, center for the Oakland Raiders wore number 00. Yeah, you heard me...center!
Well, playing on "the opposite side of the ball"
doesn't matter on special teams play.
Basically the wording of the rule allows JCC and Ekanem to both wear #4, but they can't be on the field at the same time. There is, obviously, no definition of "offensive" and "defensive" players per se. That would preclude the DeAngelo Hall's of the world.
Either way, it's stupid that's its allowed. It just seems so vain to me, that you are saying your number is more important than the team in some way. It's disappointing that we have given in to this.
(From a tactical advantage, would it help to have your #1 and #2 QB's be both the same number? The opposition may not know who is in the game at any given time, and the wording seems to support "no two players on the field at one time" thing. Your top 2 QB's are never on the field at the same time....)
Yeah, I think the whole "opposite side of the ball" thing is more of a convention because it reduces the possibility of both players being on the same field at the same time. The rule change would prevent players at the same position from having the same number.
If our top two QBs had the same number in 2010, the TD pass from Tyrod to Thomas could never happen.
However, one of the examples of it being used in the article posted was South Carolina:
"South Carolina may have used this jersey paradox to the best possible advantage back in 2009 and 2010. During that time, starting QB Stephen Garcia and CB Stephon Gilmore both wore #5 on their uniform. Gilmore was used as a wildcat quarterback for multiple games over that two year stretch. Can you imagine the confusion when thereās a different player taking the snap but heās wearing the same number as the previous playās QB? Confusing, yes. Legal, yes, since at no time were both players on the field together for the same play."
Though you'd think the dreads would give it away...
Re: USCe's #5's
Or that one guy is black.
Is Goodell running NCAAF?
That's a dumb rule. These guys are moving so fast, how are you supposed to change your strike zone when the receiver decides to go down while you're on your way in for the hit? That's where half these penalties come from, they're moving too fast to expect them to change their strike zone.
I agree with you, which is why I like the reviewable part. If there was no review clause then I'd think it's the dumbest rule ever, but the fact that the hits/ejections will be reviewed makes me want to give it a chance. The only thing is, these ejection reviews will have to be judged by common sense and not by the rule book, which is something we haven't seen since the inception of the review process in football. I'm interested to see how this will all play out.
We gotta do something.
You can't have an epidemic of former players with quantifiable brain injuries. Get used to it, it's coming. We must figure out how to maintain the fabric of the sport while making it safer.
I've got two sons under 8 and a wife who loves football. And I can tell you this with all most 100% certainty: Those boys will never play football. It's just not worth it and I can't make the case to my wife that our sons brains are worth bruising so they can play a sport. My oldest plays soccer now and I know that there is a significant head trauma concern with that sport as well. We will have to monitor it.
If taught the proper way to tackle and to hit and with the new helmets that are being developed it will be as safe as other sports to play!
Part of me believes that this will actually lead to less penalties. It seems like you see 1 or 2 of these penalties in every game - however, I highly doubt that we will see that many ejections. No one really wants to eject people from the game unless it's really egregious.
i hope you're right, an ejection is a pretty harsh penalty. if it makes it safer im ok with it, i just dont want to see a player get ejected and completely change the outcome of the game especially if the hit is boarderline legal, even with a review i have a feeling were going to see one of these penalties over and over again on sportscenter because it changed the outcome of a game
Between the ball deflating and the number changing I can see why Monte Kffin left for the Cowboys. His son is a pathetic coach. How the two could be so different is beyond me.
I think we can all agree times have changed
I feel like if they only reserve this for really flagrant, obviously intentional hits to knock out opposing skill position players, it's ok. For instance, in the NFL, you sometimes see defenders hit a qb, knowing that they will draw a 15 yard penalty, but figuring the chance to knock that player out of the game is worth the penalty.
For instance, here's Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie literally attempting to decapitate RGIII last season:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/18/dominique-rodgers-cromartie-rg3...
Cromartie leads with his helmet, and launches himself at RGIIIs head. Had this hit not missed, it could have seriously injured the offensive player, and was clearly intentional. I would have no problem with this type of hit warrenting an ejection.
Now, a bang-bang play, in which a reciever streaking across the middle catches a pass and lowers his head, I think it'd be criminal to start ejecting players. This rule is a fine idea if it's used in moderation. If we see it used as much as once per game, it would be a disaster.
I feel like that last rule was a direct shot at Oregon.
Was it Michigan who had the Yellow-on-White numbers last year? It was terrible. I feel like this rule was put in place to curb that.
Many are following suit
I think this was definately aimed at Oregon, but I can't remember which other football teams did it. I have recognized it has become a trend with some other schools and sponsors. I think Michigan's bball uniforms lately are yellow on yellow? (at least the nameplate)
Oops
Comment retracted. Nevermind.
It would kill our all-blacks from the Boise State game, too.
Speaking of BSU...
"Uniform and field colors. Either the color of the uniform pants or the color of the body of the jersey must clearly contrast with the color of the surface of the field of play."
They got a ruling that it is allowed for BSU.
That's BS...
Anybody could do it then... You can't allow it for one and deny everyone else...
To quote Bender from "The Breakfast Club":
"If one of us gets up, we'll all get up! IT'LL BE ANARCHY!"
Yeah can't bend for one,
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9032290/ncaa-keep-boise-s...