2016 Rule Changes

[Rulesman]

Perhaps Brendan you may wish to find another hobby and leave football officiating to those who understand the game and can enforce the rules as provided!


Just my $.02

[Blackandwhite]

 

[ncaaref1]

Because simply put, that is not a foul, nor a kill shot. A kill shot is the the examples I gave earlier, where there was clearly excessive intent in a dangerous manner. Anything outside of that should not ever be flagged. None of this "well he just caught the pass so he's defenseless and any contact is targeting" crap should ever be called IMO, and that is the problem I have with the disqualification. How the rules makers can't see that this is ruining the game escapes me. Unless they take some kind of strange pleasure from seeing players ejected over non-violent, non-dangerous tackles, I see no logic in its application or institution. It's gotten so bad that I almost can't watch anymore, especially now that replay can now stop a game and throw a player out when there was no call on the field. Sure they say that's only for egregious situations, but with every rule change like this in the past, you give them an inch and they take not just a mile, but a marathon.

I miss the days when referees weren't tasked with treating grown adults like schoolchildren, wiping touchdowns off the board for high-stepping into the end zone or throwing them out for hitting too hard. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

I'm with Etref.  I don't think you understand the rule here or how to apply it.  The Michigan hit is targeting, plain and simple.  It is completely unnecessary and above the shoulders.  I'm not sure what else you are looking for other than trying to justify an illegal hit by your home team.

This type of hit should and will be called every time. 

Also, here is a quote of yours from above - "I miss the days when referees weren't tasked with treating grown adults like schoolchildren, wiping touchdowns off the board for high-stepping into the end zone"

What do you suggest?  Just let them continue to act in an unsportsmanlike manner?  How do you propose to stop it?  The NFL has a system where they can fine players.  The NCAA doesn't.  Maybe you think it should be a free-for-all like the old XFL. 

[goodgrr]

Because simply put, that is not a foul, nor a kill shot. A kill shot is the the examples I gave earlier, where there was clearly excessive intent in a dangerous manner. Anything outside of that should not ever be flagged. None of this "well he just caught the pass so he's defenseless and any contact is targeting" crap should ever be called IMO, and that is the problem I have with the disqualification. How the rules makers can't see that this is ruining the game escapes me.

Ignoring the "way it has always been" argument.... If the league doesn't stamp down on activity that is by its nature very dangerous, there will be no football in the future.  We need to take the dangerous head hits out of the game, if we catch a few that shouldn't be in the net that has to be part of the necessary collateral damage.

[Kalle]

I miss the days when referees weren't tasked with treating grown adults like schoolchildren, wiping touchdowns off the board for high-stepping into the end zone or throwing them out for hitting too hard. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

Feel free to vent here as much as you like, but as said before, it is the coaches and the administrators who make the rules, not the officials. If you want the rules changed, try to cozy up on a rules committee member.

[BrendanP]

What do you suggest?  Just let them continue to act in an unsportsmanlike manner?  How do you propose to stop it?  The NFL has a system where they can fine players.  The NCAA doesn't.  Maybe you think it should be a free-for-all like the old XFL.

Nah, how about we just enforce it on the kickoff. I honestly like Mr. Anderson of the NFL's analogy for what's unsportsmanlike and what isn't. He was asked about the proverbial line that screaming coaches must not cross, and where said line is, and his response summed up my views:

"It's like the definition of pornography; it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it."

[Rulesman]

Comparing the NFL to the NCAA is comparing apples and oranges.

[BrendanP]

Here's a very well-written article about why the rules folks really need to look at the targeting rule objectively, and not through their rosy glasses: http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raiders-football/2015-11-01/worst-rule-college-football-why-have-targeting-calls-gotten#.VwxsQPD3aK1

[Rulesman]

Here's a very well-written article about why the rules folks really need to look at the targeting rule objectively, and not through their rosy glasses: http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raiders-football/2015-11-01/worst-rule-college-football-why-have-targeting-calls-gotten#.VwxsQPD3aK1

[Osric Pureheart]

Yeah, it's not as though people might have access to any data that might tell them how many targeting calls are being made correctly and how many are being honked, from a brutally in-depth video review process applied to every game, or anything like that

oh

oh wait a minute

Naw, I'll still take the word of LubbockOnline.com over them

[Magician]

Here's a very well-written article about why the rules folks really need to look at the targeting rule objectively, and not through their rosy glasses: http://lubbockonline.com/sports-red-raiders-football/2015-11-01/worst-rule-college-football-why-have-targeting-calls-gotten#.VwxsQPD3aK1

So one arguably bad targeting call and the rule needs to be changed? Are there these kinds of screams when there is an incorrect DPI call? Get rid of the rule because one guy got it wrong?

[BrendanP]

It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted, and as evidenced in every one of those cases, replay has proven to be utterly useless. Even they can't get the call right. Yes it truly has been a disaster, and coaches, players, administrators, and yes, referees, need to stand up and say enough is enough.

[Osric Pureheart]

Shoo, troll.

[Rulesman]

It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted, and as evidenced in every one of those cases, replay has proven to be utterly useless.

In your opinion only. And on an island by yourself.

 

[goodgrr]

It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted, and as evidenced in every one of those cases, replay has proven to be utterly useless. Even they can't get the call right. Yes it truly has been a disaster, and coaches, players, administrators, and yes, referees, need to stand up and say enough is enough.

Do you believe that there was a need to introduce a rule to help prevent concussion and neck injury?

[BrendanP]

Do you believe that there was a need to introduce a rule to help prevent concussion and neck injury?

Sure, but this isn't the way to do it. Quite honestly, I think the way the NFL is handling it is a much better solution: penalty is 15 yards, no ejection, and fighting back in the PR war against football.

[dvasques]

and a fine for the player who committed the foul

how are you doing that real punishment to this kind of foul without money?

[BrendanP]

The same way we did it from 2005-2012. If it warrants a suspension (which most didn't) it got one. This rule is absolutely ruining college football, and before someone says "well football will disappear," I say bull. Football is as American as baseball, apple pie, and General Motors and despite what a few soccer moms think, there's no shortage and there never will be of boys and men of all ages and competition levels lined up around the block to play football.

I'd venture that most of the anti-football crusaders you see on the news/internet are either members of the politically correct crowd who are always looking for something to be outraged about, or the same sort people who believe everything they read on the Internet and refuse to vaccinate their kids or think that something called "chemtrails" are poisoning them.

In short, it's in our best interest to fight the smears in the PR arena instead of ruining the game of football altogether. The NFL should start with a defamation lawsuit against the New York Times over the smear campaign they've been running since 2009. Give me a few years to finish school and pass the bar exam, and I'd be absolutely delighted to take on that case.

[Blackandwhite]

Do not feed him. Any discussion is quite useless  .
We will not change him.

[Rulesman]

Back to the real news about rule changes, this was released yesterday:

"The NCAA has announced a delay until the 2017 season in the implementation of football technology-related rules that were approved previously by the Football Rules Committee and the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP) with an effective date of the 2016 season. This decision for the delay is in response to concerns raised by some conferences that indicated a desire for additional time to develop more specific guidelines. During a recent conference call, PROP approved the request from the Football Rules Committee to delay these rules until 2017.

Therefore, for the 2016 football season, Rule 1-4-11 as it appears in the 2015 rule book remains in effect."

[Fatman325]

Brendan
Once you pass the bar I am sure that you will be able to convince everyone that Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy were innocent.
As you progress with your officiating career you will find that you are not always the smartest guy in the room. All of the coaches, administrators, and officials who have gone before you may have more knowledge than you about the history of the game and have a big stake in protecting it.
Targeting is here to stay, adapt or become extinct.

[ncaaref1]

It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted...

Please show your work. 

[scrounge]

It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted, and as evidenced in every one of those cases, replay has proven to be utterly useless. Even they can't get the call right. Yes it truly has been a disaster, and coaches, players, administrators, and yes, referees, need to stand up and say enough is enough.

And you're going to be a lawyer?

Yes, 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted, 63% of the time. When the ambient air temperature is between 37.1 degrees and 43.6 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale. CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER. REVOLUTION!!!

This is an embarrassing tilting at windmills.

[Etref]

Brendan says the same way "we" did it

Odd I seem to remember one of his first post saying he had never officiated football!

[BlindZebra]

http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html

So where does it leave us? I honestly think it boils down to a debate of whether we're to be more of referees or babysitters. I tend to think/want my job to be more of judging complete vs incomplete, touchdown vs out of bounds, rather than whether or not a celebration was excessive or telling a kid to watch his language. I want to have as minimal an impact on the outcome as possible. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing, "My job is to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat. Nobody goes to a ballgame to see the umpire." Just as it should be in the legal world, it should be on the field. But I do feel that we're being asked to take more and more of a cause of the outcome of the game as time goes on.

Can we go back to this hit because I see Brendan's frustration.  As this might look like a blow to the chest as the initial contact (clean hit), where is the forcible contact to meet the requirements of TGT?  To the neck area.  Not to mention the thrust/launch component.  Very classic TGT and good confirmation by replay.

Now where does this leave us you ask?  Quite good position I must say.  The target zone of players has gone from higher hits to lower resulting in a positive trend over the years since the rule was implemented.  The thing you must understand, though, is that we as officials are not disqualifying the player...he disqualified himself.  All he had to do was make a conventional tackle (wrapup, head up, to the numbers) and he would still be able to play.  But because he decided to lead with his head or shoulder in an upward thrust to the defenseless receiver's head/nect (like the one in the Michigan play), he disqualified himself.  No where is it trying to get rid of the hard tackle that everyone wants to see and what makes the game exciting, just do it properly!  That is one of the purposes of the rule.

No one goes to a ball game to see the officials, totally agree.  The best games I've had are the ones that people say I didn't even notice you were there.  But we have got to keep the game under control at the same time.  I don't want to have to interject myself on a beautiful run by a back or great catch by a receiver who decided to highsetp into the end zone, but if he does it I must call it.  There is no room in the game for these type of actions.

Sorry to add my licks to the horse so late...