RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on February 11, 2016, 11:20:11 AM
-
Committee proposals attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I don't understand why tripping the ball carrier is now a foul... Why take away a way to get him down? Or is it considered to be unsafe if you trip him, but not unsafe if you grab his feet with your hands?
-
I think part of it is that generally people have more dexterity with their hands and arms than they do with their feet and legs. Whereas somebody reaching out with a hand to grab the ball carrier's ankles would have pretty good control of their movement, somebody using a foot to try to trip a ball carrier would more than likely be swinging wildly in hopes of making contact.
But I think the bigger point is that they are trying to apply the rules to everybody rather than have exceptions for ball carriers. I wish they'd do the same thing with the hands to the face rule. I cringe every time I see a defender's head get bent backward by a ball carrier and it's not a foul as long they don't twist, turn, or pull.
Side note: As a TX HS official, I hope they approve the part about DQ'ing a coach for 2 UNS's, but the odds of UIL allowing that in high school have got to be about a billion to one.
-
After sitting in the UIL rules committee meeting the past few years I do not share your cynicism. They routinely say we should be less accepting of bad behavior. That being said.....if a coach is ejected lots of things kick in so you better be sure it was justified. And I don't think I have ever seen a coach get 2 UNS anyway
-
I see why it may across as such, but my comment wasn't really about accepting bad behavior. It was more along the lines of losing an adult on the sidelines. In smaller schools or in subvarsity games, there are sometimes only 2-3 coaches on the sideline. I look at it the same way as the exception for dq'ing players. NCAA says they can't be in sight of the field, but UIL has an exception (presumably) so that you don't lose a coach to go supervise that player. That's why I don't think the UIL would pass it.
-
Great point. There may have to be an exception especially at subvarsity level
-
I don't understand why tripping the ball carrier is now a foul... Why take away a way to get him down? Or is it considered to be unsafe if you trip him, but not unsafe if you grab his feet with your hands?
I think they want to get rid of players getting slide-tackled soccer style. That's really the only time I can think of something like that.
-
I think they want to get rid of players getting slide-tackled soccer style. That's really the only time I can think of something like that.
Have you seen that happen? Not me, and here in Belgium the majority of the players played soccer before they discovered football, or still combine it.
Which of course makes it less of an issue, come to think of it. But still, imagine being blocked to the ground, and seeing the ball carrier in reach of your legs, and then you should just let him go...? It's legal to hold the ball carrier and not the other players, why not get rid of that exception? ;-)
-
Several rugby players have had their legs or ankles broken by being tripped at speed, and the lower leg is one area of the body where football players wear the same amount of padding as they do. When I first encountered NCAA rules I was absolutely shocked that there was a specific exception to allow tripping the runner.
-
And driving your shoulder pads into the ball carrier's knees from "3 or 9 o'clock" doesn't have the same effect?
-
Shoulder pads have more give to them than a shin bone.
-
Have you seen that happen? Not me, and here in Belgium the majority of the players played soccer before they discovered football, or still combine it.
Which of course makes it less of an issue, come to think of it. But still, imagine being blocked to the ground, and seeing the ball carrier in reach of your legs, and then you should just let him go...? It's legal to hold the ball carrier and not the other players, why not get rid of that exception? ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=puLhSu1YUnE
*Player did not make contact, but I think this is what they want to eliminate.
-
I guarantee you there were 10 NCAA and Texas HS players total, if that, who knew they could trip the ball carrier legally. Everyone else thought that was illegal already. Some have even seen it called a foul.
-
I've seen it happen twice. Once was in a peewee game and the wannabe Vince Lombardi who was coaching the 8 year olds at the time was irate that his QB was tripped. We eventually had a ^flag, but it wasn't for tripping. The only other time I've seen a ball carrier tripped was Geno Smith a few years ago in a bowl game.
https://youtu.be/N8bVzRMIQiw?t=7525
If it doesn't load at the right time, it's at 2:05:25.
-
I just don't like it trying to be outlawed.
-
2016 FINAL version is attached. Enjoy!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
With the new targeting IR rules, what percentage do you think will be overturned this year as compared to last year?
I read in some NCAA press release that there were 153 targeting calls across all of college football in 2015, 48 of them overturned by replay. This translates into 31.37% of the calls being reversed, and 68.63% were upheld. How many do you think will be created by IR now that they have the power to do so?
I honestly hope that now with the new IR rules, we'll be focusing on penalizing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3XbhBwxto and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B507BENYheQ and overturning/not flagging ones like this: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html and this: (https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8JlDck2CCFD3B2nXYsft6Y-TOMU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5855097/nebraskatarget.0.gif)
On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing.
-
"On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing."
How did you come to that conclusion? A person DQd in the first half cannot play in the "next" half, so it's equitable for a person DQd in the second half, to sit out the "next half" of a game.
-
With the new targeting IR rules, what percentage do you think will be overturned this year as compared to last year?
I read in some NCAA press release that there were 153 targeting calls across all of college football in 2015, 48 of them overturned by replay. This translates into 31.37% of the calls being reversed, and 68.63% were upheld. How many do you think will be created by IR now that they have the power to do so?
I honestly hope that now with the new IR rules, we'll be focusing on penalizing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA3XbhBwxto and this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B507BENYheQ and overturning/not flagging ones like this: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2015/10/michigan_lb_james_ross_ejected.html and this: (https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/8JlDck2CCFD3B2nXYsft6Y-TOMU=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/5855097/nebraskatarget.0.gif)
On a side note, I really think we should get rid of the "first half of next game" thing.
I'll agree with all of them except for the Michigan one. Other than the fact you are seeing that through Maize and Blue glasses, I'm not sure how that is not targeting. It's a crown of the helmet hit to a defenseless player to the side of the head/under the chin. That's the exact hit the rules makers are trying to get out of the game.
-
I've seen it happen twice. Once was in a peewee game and the wannabe Vince Lombardi who was coaching the 8 year olds at the time was irate that his QB was tripped. We eventually had a ^flag, but it wasn't for tripping. The only other time I've seen a ball carrier tripped was Geno Smith a few years ago in a bowl game.
https://youtu.be/N8bVzRMIQiw?t=7525
If it doesn't load at the right time, it's at 2:05:25.
So, under the new (Proposed?) rule, this would result in offsetting fouls for A-Grounding and B-Tripping? Replay the down?
-
I'll agree with all of them except for the Michigan one. Other than the fact you are seeing that through Maize and Blue glasses, I'm not sure how that is not targeting. It's a crown of the helmet hit to a defenseless player to the side of the head/under the chin. That's the exact hit the rules makers are trying to get out of the game.
Didn't you just get done saying that incidental helmet contact is no longer a foul, because that's what it looks like to me. Calls like that are why I can't figure out for the life of me why you'd want something like that out of the game. The first two I mentioned, absolutely good call. That's where you're looking at breaking your neck or even killing someone. But incidental contact/hit under the chin (which is what I and everybody else in my playing days, which weren't even that long ago were coached to do instead of going for the helmet) that's the gray area I've got a problem with.
Now admittedly it's worse at other levels. In the Arena Football League, jumping offsides twice in a game is a fifteen-yard penalty, and the third is an ejection. Did that reduce the number of offsides penalties? Sure. But can a reasonable person logically conclude that being drawn offsides warrants the walk of shame and sitting in the locker room the rest of the game? (Another reason I think a player DQd for targeting should at least be allowed to remain on the sideline).
I guess it reminds me of checking from behind in NCAA hockey (Sorry, I'm a Canadian, and primarily a hockey guy :D) where the NCAA decided to instruct officials ten years ago that regardless of the written rule, any simple boarding/roughing/interference involving the boards is to be called CFB, five and game. The result: at least two game misconducts a night. Where instead of this (what CFB actually is): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFm33gfacNk , a simple interference is now an ejection, as shown here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKTe2EhsQU
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 strokes, 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.
-
If you don't think that hit by Ross on Michigan is targeting, then it's only because you don't want it to be. There's nothing incidental or accidental about it. Now is it flagrant, with an ejection in HS? Maybe, maybe not. But it's so clearly targeting within the context of the college rule - both in letter AND spirit - that I am at a loss to understand what objection you could possibly have to that call. Other than fanboy, that is. These athletes, esp at the D1/Power 5 level, are much bigger and faster. This hit simply HAS to come out of the game. And in many ways it has. The kill shot - like the Roby one from earlier - is disappearing. And good riddance. It's changing behavior for the better.
This rule may be a blunt instrument - but it's one that must be employed. It certainly isn't going away.
-
Didn't you just get done saying that incidental helmet contact is no longer a foul, because that's what it looks like to me. Calls like that are why I can't figure out for the life of me why you'd want something like that out of the game. The first two I mentioned, absolutely good call. That's where you're looking at breaking your neck or even killing someone. But incidental contact/hit under the chin (which is what I and everybody else in my playing days, which weren't even that long ago were coached to do instead of going for the helmet) that's the gray area I've got a problem with.
Yes, I said that and I see nothing incidental about this play. The ball is well past the intended receiver, the intended receiver is still looking downfield to see where the ball is going, and the Michigan player uses the crown of his helmet to hit the intended receiver in the head/neck area. The Michigan player could have easily let up and not hit the receiver at all, but he chose to take a free shot. This is the type of hit the rules makers (I might remind you that coaches make the rules) want out of the game.
-
If you don't think that hit by Ross on Michigan is targeting, then it's only because you don't want it to be. There's nothing incidental or accidental about it. Now is it flagrant, with an ejection in HS? Maybe, maybe not. But it's so clearly targeting within the context of the college rule - both in letter AND spirit - that I am at a loss to understand what objection you could possibly have to that call. Other than fanboy, that is. These athletes, esp at the D1/Power 5 level, are much bigger and faster. This hit simply HAS to come out of the game. And in many ways it has. The kill shot - like the Roby one from earlier - is disappearing. And good riddance. It's changing behavior for the better.
This rule may be a blunt instrument - but it's one that must be employed. It certainly isn't going away.
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.
-
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
-
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
:thumbup :thumbup
-
yEs:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
Comparing the NFL to the NCAA is comparing apples and oranges.
-
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
-
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
deadhorse:
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
Shoo, troll.
-
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.
deadhorse:
-
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?
-
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.
-
and a fine for the player who committed the foul
how are you doing that real punishment to this kind of foul without money?
-
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. ;)
-
Do not feed him. Any discussion is quite useless ^talk.
We will not change him.
-
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."
-
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.
-
It's not just one call, it's the fact that at least 90% of targeting calls are unwarranted...
Please show your work. cRaZy
-
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.
-
Brendan says the same way "we" did it
Odd I seem to remember one of his first post saying he had never officiated football!
-
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...
-
The NCAA has stated that it's better to incorrectly eject a player for a legal hit than it is to potentially let a borderline hit got unpunished.
As long as that is the mandate, that will be the result.
-
The NCAA has stated that it's better to incorrectly eject a player for a legal hit than it is to potentially let a borderline hit got unpunished.
As long as that is the mandate, that will be the result.
Actually, the specific clarification wording that the NCAA uses directly in the rulebook for possible helmet hit fouls starts off "When in doubt ......" it is a foul. What they actually say is that player safety is paramount and our #1 priority. The message is pretty clear to me that whether deemed intentional or not we need to get the high hits out of the game. And at least one man's opinion - they are not "part of the game".
-
It could be a difficult year for RO's.
-
Actually, the specific clarification wording that the NCAA uses directly in the rulebook for possible helmet hit fouls starts off "When in doubt ......" it is a foul. What they actually say is that player safety is paramount and our #1 priority. The message is pretty clear to me that whether deemed intentional or not we need to get the high hits out of the game. And at least one man's opinion - they are not "part of the game".
I became an official because I love football, but I feel like my beloved sport is being murdered in an attempt to save it. I'll never until the day I die understand why the folks in charge can't see the fact that the targeting rule is ruining football. The logic behind it and that is used to justify it week in and week out doesn't hold up in any context. It's akin to Congress saying,
If we don't reduce the number of car accidents, then everyone will stop driving and the auto industry will go bankrupt. So to stop the inevitable death of the auto industry, the speed limit on every road in America is now 10 mph, zero tolerance enforcement, and an automatic suspension of your driver's license on the first offense. Don't want to lose your license? Leave earlier.
Growing up, football was my love, my mistress in a way. But the quality of the game has been absolutely ravaged by the targeting rule, and I just wish I'd been born earlier to enjoy a few more seasons of real college football. You can call me a troll or whatever you want, but I'm just speaking from the heart.
That being said, I honestly don't know how much longer I can do this job. I've done two years now and I told myself I'd quit as soon as I no longer enjoyed it. I learned the rulebook far better than anybody else I knew and I applied myself to making sure I was fit for the task. I'd like to think it wasn't for nothing, but I just don't know that I can continue.
-
Again, more hyperbolic bleating about the game being ruined, when it's as healthy as ever.
Melodramatic troll is quite melodramatic.
-
Brendan. I assume what you love are big hits. The change won't prevent big hits what they will be is lower. There may be some resentment during the coaching and player adjustments but long term it's what is necessary.
-
I'll never until the day I die understand why the folks in charge can't see the fact that the targeting rule is ruining football.
When you get sued by PLAYERS for a Billion dollars over knowledge about CTE/Concussions and did nothing about it, you can see why they're trying to make the game safer. CTE is a real thing.
-
You can call me a troll or whatever you want, but I'm just speaking from the heart.
I think we all get it - you want football to result in more injuries. Feel free to get off your horse and concentrate on things we can have an effect on - improvement of us as officials. For rule changes talk to the rules committee.
Football has always changed the rules to reduce the number of catastrophic injuries. Even last year, 19 people died from direct football related injuries. I think this number is too high and I welcome all efforts of the rules committees (both NCAA and NF) to take it down to zero.
-
I'll never until the day I die understand why the folks in charge can't see the fact that the targeting rule is ruining football. The logic behind it and that is used to justify it week in and week out doesn't hold up in any context.
I have a couple of questions in regards to the above statement:
1. How is it ruining football? Give some specifics, not generalizations. From my experience on the field, the game I've been officiating hasn't changed much in the past few years with the inclusion of the targeting rule. The game is safer now than in the past, but the game itself hasn't changed much.
2. What do you suggest should be done in order to reduce the number of concussions in the game of football (according to what I read above this should not include any type of rule to penalize players who hit opponents above the shoulders since that is "ruining football")?
I honestly don't know how much longer I can do this job. I've done two years now and I told myself I'd quit as soon as I no longer enjoyed it.
When you are no longer having fun, I would suggest getting out of it. We definitely don't do it for the money so if it isn't rewarding or you aren't having fun, there's not much reason to continue.
-
I have a couple of questions in regards to the above statement:
1. How is it ruining football? Give some specifics, not generalizations. From my experience on the field, the game I've been officiating hasn't changed much in the past few years with the inclusion of the targeting rule. The game is safer now than in the past, but the game itself hasn't changed much.
2. What do you suggest should be done in order to reduce the number of concussions in the game of football (according to what I read above this should not include any type of rule to penalize players who hit opponents above the shoulders since that is "ruining football")?
When you are no longer having fun, I would suggest getting out of it. We definitely don't do it for the money so if it isn't rewarding or you aren't having fun, there's not much reason to continue.
1. Players being kicked out of games for any sort of hitting. That's as specific as it gets. I'm sick of having to worry every play if this is the snap that some idiot is going to throw one of my guys out of the game for hitting too hard. I'm sick of hearing so many people try to defend this rule because of something they heard on Good Morning America. As I've said before, the people making waves about how they'll never let their kids play football are the same people who refuse to vaccinate their kids and demand that no child be allowed to bring a PB&J sandwich to school because of something they read on the Internet. Either that or they're part of the crowd that's always looking for something to be outraged about. This rule has taken the physicality out of the game: players are afraid to even make a wrap-up tackle because of what we saw in the Foster Farms Bowl. To say that I want more injuries is a red herring. I'm just sick and tired of a bad rule resulting in players being taken out of the game. That's what this boils down to. Now I think the concussion thing is way overblown, and that's a good Segway into point number two.
2. We've already done what's necessary on the field: invest in the new helmet technology that absorbs more of the impact. What needs to be done off the field is to start suing the New York Times, that doctor who's been publishing this anti-football bull *crap* for defamation. I honestly believe that the anti-football crusade will be looked back on 20 years from now the same way we look back on the anti-vaccination crusade: a whackjob movement that came right out of left field that gained steam once the media decided it was sensationalist enough to report on.
The scrutiny around football at this point is, in my opinion, nothing more than a media assassination and a bandwagon for people with separate agendas to jump on. I happened to read an op-ed from some "Social Justice Warrior" a couple days ago who claimed football should be banned because "It's a racist form of bondage where black boys and men scramble their brains for the entertainment of privileged whites." When a sport that teaches lifelong values like hard work, perseverance, teamwork, sportsmanship, and above all, class, is compared to slavery, I think we can all agree that the person who makes that statement is not so much against football, but has a different agenda in mind.
-
1. Players being kicked out of games for any sort of hitting. That's as specific as it gets. I'm sick of having to worry every play if this is the snap that some idiot is going to throw one of my guys out of the game for hitting too hard.
2. We've already done what's necessary on the field:
1. If someone makes an error of judgement they are now an idiot? Please send us your schedule so that we can come critique your work.
You have guys that get thrown out of games? Sounds like you are more of a fan and not a neutral observer.
2. You don't get to decide if what has been done with the concussion problem is enough. You have no stake in the game. You are just like the people that watch Good Morning America and make their decisions. There are many people who actually have an investment and an impact on the game who are very intelligent. I will trust them to do their jobs.
-
2. We've already done what's necessary on the field: invest in the new helmet technology that absorbs more of the impact. ...... .
Actually, the "absorb the impact" helmets are part of the problem - not the solution. A significant part of the problem is the whiplash effect that happens when the head (in the "energy absorbent" helmet) snaps back and forth when a defenseless player takes a high hit at speed from a player in his "energy absorbent" helmet who has no qualms using that helmet as a weapon.
If you honestly don't think that we have a problem in football with the idiots (apparently including yourself) that cheer a "great hit" as they are carrying off one or both players on backboards in neck collars then we all know which group of "fans" you're in. We need to be football officials first and foremost. When I hear another Pop Warner coach yell "great hit" after his player has nearly beheaded the ball carrier with a helmet hit as the flags hit the ground I'll be wondering again who can think for one minute that's "part of the game"?
-
1. Players being kicked out of games for any sort of hitting. That's as specific as it gets. I'm sick of having to worry every play if this is the snap that some idiot is going to throw one of my guys out of the game for hitting too hard. I'm sick of hearing so many people try to defend this rule because of something they heard on Good Morning America. As I've said before, the people making waves about how they'll never let their kids play football are the same people who refuse to vaccinate their kids and demand that no child be allowed to bring a PB&J sandwich to school because of something they read on the Internet. Either that or they're part of the crowd that's always looking for something to be outraged about. This rule has taken the physicality out of the game: players are afraid to even make a wrap-up tackle because of what we saw in the Foster Farms Bowl. To say that I want more injuries is a red herring. I'm just sick and tired of a bad rule resulting in players being taken out of the game. That's what this boils down to. Now I think the concussion thing is way overblown, and that's a good Segway into point number two.
So, all hitting should be legal? Interesting point. I wasn't around when the clipping rule was put into effect, but I'm sure there were a few saying that penalizing players for that type of hit was going to ruin the game of football. Every time there's a rule change, there's someone that says it's going to ruin football. I guess we should let them clip, punch, clothesline, etc. If that's what you want, I've heard there's a sport that will give you all of that. Here's a link for you: WWE (http://www.wwe.com/)
Let's keep the discussion to what has been talked about on this board. Unless I've missed it, you are the only one who has brought up Good Morning America, etc. Let's talk about it from the perspective of those of us who have actually been on the field and seen these type of hits. I've seen a kid become paralyzed because of a hit he made. It's scary. That type of hit needs to be taken out of the game, no matter what you (as a fan boy) think. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about when you try to defend these types of hits.
2. We've already done what's necessary on the field: invest in the new helmet technology that absorbs more of the impact. What needs to be done off the field is to start suing the New York Times, that doctor who's been publishing this anti-football bull *crap* for defamation. I honestly believe that the anti-football crusade will be looked back on 20 years from now the same way we look back on the anti-vaccination crusade: a whackjob movement that came right out of left field that gained steam once the media decided it was sensationalist enough to report on.
So, you think a better helmet will solve all problems? I think NVFOA_Ump hit the nail on the head with this one. As a lawyer, I can see why you want to sue everyone...it might make you a buck or two, but freedom of the press and freedom of speech is something you shouldn't take lightly. The definition of defamation based on law.com is:
the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation
The key here is "untrue statements." You are saying these statements are untrue, but there's a lot of debate as to whether or not they are true. Should the energy industry be suing everyone that says global warming is true when a lot of people think it's not? I don't think your lawsuit for defamation would hold water.
The scrutiny around football at this point is, in my opinion, nothing more than a media assassination and a bandwagon for people with separate agendas to jump on. I happened to read an op-ed from some "Social Justice Warrior" a couple days ago who claimed football should be banned because "It's a racist form of bondage where black boys and men scramble their brains for the entertainment of privileged whites." When a sport that teaches lifelong values like hard work, perseverance, teamwork, sportsmanship, and above all, class, is compared to slavery, I think we can all agree that the person who makes that statement is not so much against football, but has a different agenda in mind.
My advice to you would be to quit reading things like you mentioned above. I'm sick of hearing about the upcoming election so I've decided to not watch anything that is talking about it. I don't get nearly as worked up about it now. It's a pretty interesting concept that maybe you should learn.
Also, the diatribe of a personal message you sent me was unnecessary. We should be able to have that conversation on the board for the benefit of everyone. You made the following statement:
the fact that neither the crews on the field, nor instant replay can get it right. It is asinine to be handing out ejections for hitting too hard, because that's what the rule boils down to. Sure the way it's worded doesn't sound too bad, but when stuff like this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ckbGl3O5ooM, and this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j4f0U7xnkiQ don't get overturned, that's where we have a problem.
We have discussed these plays in the past and, I think most agree the first one is one that shouldn't have been called. As the time, IR's guidance gave them almost no leeway to overturn that one since there was helmet to helmet contact. That is changing some this year. As with all other football rules, they evolve. The targeting rule is still evolving and will get better with time. You seem to think that when a new rule is introduced, it should be perfect from day one. That's just not realistic because there are unintended consequences that weren't thought of when it was introduced.
The second play you listed is a late hit by #35 who ducks his head and hits the QB after he is on the ground. Even if you think he couldn't have avoided contact with the QB, there was no reason to duck his head and lead with the crown of his helmet.
This rule makes my blood boil to where I could throw something. It is so unnecessary and such an overreaction to something that that's not even that big a deal. That's why I say that you people have ruined college football. You're throwing players out of the game for clean hits, and even worse, you people can't see how big a disaster this has been.
I'm not sure why you are getting so upset over trying to make a great game a little safer. You say it's not even a big deal. Try telling that to Eric LeGrand, Darryl Stingley, Mike Utley, Devon Gales, Anthony Conner, or any number of other young men whose lives are are now forever changed because of a hit in football. It's not a big deal to you, but I can guarantee it's a big deal to them.
Also, I'm not sure who you think I am, but I don't think I'm nearly as important as it appears you think I am. I haven't made any of the rules in college football. I only enforce them on Saturdays in the fall. I've seen it change the way players hit on the field and that's a good thing. There have been a lot less free shots just to try and take the head off the other player in the past few years because of this rule. That equates to fewer injuries in the game which is also a good thing.
The example I gave about the logic behind it is the best analogy that accurately encompasses this issue. If we don't reduce the number of car accidents, nobody will drive. So the speed limit is now ten miles per hour on every road in America. Don't like it? Leave earlier. In fact be glad we did this, because you're lucky we didn't ban cars altogether.
What the auto industry has done over the past 20-30 years is exactly what football is trying to do. They aren't changing the "speed limit" of the game, they are trying to make it safer to continue to drive at that speed.
Until we get rid of the targeting rule, college football will just keep on getting worse.
You might as well quit watching football because
(http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/files/2015/08/Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg)
-
Still say we need a troll emoji!
-
Still say we need a troll emoji!
Will this work? tR:oLl
-
:thumbup
I like!
No we need to get the man on board.
-
Try telling that to Eric LeGrand, Darryl Stingley, Mike Utley, Devon Gales, Anthony Conner, or any number of other young men whose lives are are now forever changed because of a hit in football. It's not a big deal to you, but I can guarantee it's a big deal to them.
An open message to BrendanP:
Or try telling it to the widow of Ray Jamieson. You probably have never heard of him. Ray played in the late 60s-early 70s at then Memphis State. He was a personal friend. His wife was a bridesmaid in our wedding. He became paralyzed from the NECK DOWN after a violent hit in a pre-season game while playing on special teams with the Raiders - the same kind of hit you so gloriously endorse. The doctors said he would never get out of a wheelchair. Ray proved them wrong, but the lasting effects of that injury ultimately did him in. His wife buried him a year or so ago.
BrendanP, I'm going to be brutally honest with you. You are about on my last nerve. You're on the last nerve of a lot of other folks who lurk around here. Keep this stuff up and your days with RefStripes are numbered. We're here to talk football. You're here to stir the pot. Go to some other board to do that. Then we won't need the troll emoji. The targeting rule is not going to change to your satisfaction - EVER. Get over it.
-
http://www.boston.com/sports/sports-news/2016/05/12/football-player-donnovan-hill-dies (http://www.boston.com/sports/sports-news/2016/05/12/football-player-donnovan-hill-dies)
By CHRISTOPHER WEBER AP, May 12, 2016
Teen football player whose injury raised safety efforts dies
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Donnovan Hill, the California teenager whose paralyzing football injury led to increased safety protections for young players after he sued a youth league, has died, a lawyer for his family said Thursday.
Hill died Wednesday at an Orange County hospital of complications from surgery related to management of his injury, attorney Robert Carey told The Associated Press. He was 18.
Hill was 13 when he fractured his spine during a 2011 Pop Warner championship game in Laguna Hills, south of Los Angeles. It left him with minimal use of his arms and no independent movement below his chest.
Hill and his mother, Crystal Dixon, claimed in a 2014 lawsuit against the youth league that the teen used a dangerous headfirst tackling technique promoted by his coaches.
The suit alleged that Hill was punished when he objected to the technique in practice and that he used it in games with no repercussions. In an interview with ESPN’s “Outside the Lines” in 2013, his coaches offered conflicting accounts on whether they encouraged headfirst tackling.
Head coach Sal Hernandez said he warned Hill against using the technique, but assistant coach Manny Martinez defended its use. The lawsuit revealed the lack of safety protections for Pop Warner players. Founded in 1929, the league promoted a safety-first philosophy and claimed young people played for coaches trained in proper tackling.
But in a deposition, executive director Jon Butler conceded that the national office does not check whether coaches actually receive such training, ESPN reported. The sports network first reported Hill’s death.
Hill reached a seven-figure settlement with Pop Warner in January, though exact details were not disclosed. The case set an important legal precedent that will force national organizations to enforce rules all the way down to the community level, said Carey, the attorney.
“Donnovan’s case will have an impact on young athletes for generations,” he said. “It will help ensure that those in charge of safety – from directors and coaches to whole organizations – will not be allowed to shirk their duties or avoid responsibility.”
Hill is survived by his mother.
His death was announced the same day Pop Warner said it is eliminating kickoffs in its three youngest football divisions, as another safety-focused rules change. The ban will begin this fall. Instead of kickoffs, the ball will be placed at the 35-yard line to start each half and following scores.
-
BrendanP, I'm going to be brutally honest with you. You are about on my last nerve. You're on the last nerve of a lot of other folks who lurk around here. Keep this stuff up and your days with RefStripes are numbered. We're here to talk football. You're here to stir the pot. Go to some other board to do that. Then we won't need the troll emoji. The targeting rule is not going to change to your satisfaction - EVER. Get over it.
[/quote]
pHiNzuP. Well said, Rulesman. I've felt the same way pretty much from the start about him, I just never took the time to say it, say nothing about saying it so eloquently and succinctly as you just did. Thank you, thank you very much.
-
Brandon is passionate -- and that is a good thing in many things, just not in officiating. I love the sport of football. I love the officiating the sport of football. I really am no longer a fan of teams. I like watching a good game, and look for ways to improve my craft.
Brandon, your problem is that you are reacting like a fan, and, in particular, a fan of specific teams. I don't care if a player gets ejected -- I care whether the official enforced the rule properly and used good mechanics and judgment. If you continue in this avocation, I hope that you learn this discernment that comes with experience.
-
[/b]...
BrendanP, I'm going to be brutally honest with you. You are about on my last nerve. You're on the last nerve of a lot of other folks who lurk around here. Keep this stuff up and your days with RefStripes are numbered. We're here to talk football. You're here to stir the pot. Go to some other board to do that. Then we won't need the troll emoji. The targeting rule is not going to change to your satisfaction - EVER. Get over it.
[/quote]
:thumbup
For the safety in football.