Full story here from the NCAA (h/t Andy Bitter for linking it today):
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-02-11/football-rules-comm...
One thing I know a lot of us have complained about in various forums (here, Twitter, etc) is the targeting rule. It seems unevenly applied and even announcers don't always seem to understand what is and isn't targeting. From the Rules Committee:
After reviewing numerous video examples and receiving strong feedback on its annual rules survey, the committee voted to expand the authority of the instant replay official, requiring them to review all aspects of targeting fouls. Additionally, the instant replay official will be able to stop the game and create a targeting foul in situations where an egregious action has occurred.
These parts stuck out to me:
1. "Review all aspects of targeting fouls" Isn't that what replay is supposed to be doing already?
2. "Create a targeting foul" First reaction: eye roll - awesome, so now we'll have more. But, there were a couple of instances I remember from last year that I thought, in my understanding of the rule, should have been targeting but weren't, so they couldn't be reviewed since there was no foul called on the field. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
In a small number of cases, the committee believed players were incorrectly disqualified from games. The elements of targeting that replay officials will watch for include launching and forcible contact to the head, among other factors
Here, I wonder if "contact to the head" is now becoming more specific, or if we're still going to have that whole "head/neck" becoming "head/neck/shoulder/upper body/some of the chest" nonsense that seems so prevalent.
A few other rule tweaks are noted in the article, but the targeting rules are likely to generate the most discussion. So how does everyone feel? Good thing that replay officials can add fouls, or bad? Is this just another toothless change in a frequently misapplied rule?
Comments
So who is the one determining the review of a non-call? Does the replay official buzz down, does the coach challenge, ...?
Replay buzzes down and says they want to take a look, just like they do now.
I'm happy about it. I think both parts of that are steps in the direction of getting it right, which is what we all want. We want the dangerous hits penalized and the clean hits allowed. To me, it looks like they're getting closer to that, when the past couple years it was pretty infuriating how often a player was ejected because "the call on the field stands." It honestly seemed like the replay official was too much of a coward to overturn what is supposed to be a very conservative call on the field.
Yeah I like the rule. I just think the refs are straight amateurs at applying it sometimes. The ecu game comes to mind as does a few badger games last year. It was down right infuriating
Among others. The guys on the field have to be conservative with it just because of how quickly the game moves. However, it always seems like the replay booth takes the field crew's flag as gospel when the whole point of replay is to allow the field crew to err on the side of caution and let the replay booth balance things out. Too often, the replay booth was equally conservative, and guys were ejected for perfectly clean hits.
I thought they were allowed to overturn the ejection but the penalty always still stood. So the 15 yds stays but the refs reviewed to see whether to enforce the ejection or not. Though I very rarely saw them not eject a guy when it was called even when it was obvious it wasn't an intentional hit.
That was changed before the 2014 season. Since then, an overturn on review eliminates everything.
The downside of this - if you review every targeting call, then ref's are going to be more willing to throw the flag, since their call can be overturned, no problem. We're going to see more flags, hopefully more correct calls, but unfortunately it's going to make games even longer.
More time to soak in the atmosphere when I get a chance to go back!
I agree with you. I just want them to get it right, and since we already invest over three hours to watch a game, and far more to actually attend the game, a few more minutes in the lounger or in the stadium shouldn't appreciably impact us fans. I do admit that long replays can impact the flow of the game, but again, I just want them to get it right.
Now if they can figure out a way to run targeting reviews and media time-outs concurrently ...
"Because this is such a severe penalty, we are instructing replay officials to review plays to ensure that the required elements of targeting exist."
This is weird. So what is it they were reviewing before? What elements of targeting were they not reviewing?
See Hokie in the Wire below. They wanted to err on the side of caution, realized they overdid it and now they want to make sure a kid does something that actually warrants an ejection before they, y'know, eject him.
They admitted they f'ed up. Thats always a good start.
I like the rule and the direction of the changes. It just happens to turn into a catastrophe when we have an ACC officiating crew doing the work.
Giving the replay official authority to stop play if he thinks there was targeting should reduce the number of "I don't know what I just saw some I'll throw a flag to be safe" targeting penalties. If you're going to err on the side of caution (and in this case, we should) then this is a better setup. If the on-field officials aren't sure, they don't throw the flag, knowing the booth will buzz down. As it stands now, if the flag is thrown, there's an obligation to stand behind in in a show of taking head injuries safely, even if review shows it wasn't an ejectionable penalty. With the buzz in, there can ultimately be NO penalty if the replay official doesn't find anything.
I think this was needed. Plus I think the refs need more education on what the NCAA is trying to say what is and what is not targeting. Too many times the WR/RB/whoever would duck their head to embrace a hit leaving the defender with no chance but hitting helmet to helmet. I don't like seeing a kid getting thrown out of a game with it was clear it was unintentional or better yet, not a targeting at all
Maybe someday they'll be as consistent with targeting calls as they are with pass interference. /s