RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on February 09, 2012, 04:49:24 PM
-
Initial language coming out of the committee meeting:
============================================
The NCAA Football Rules Committee, which met Tuesday-Thursday in Charlotte, N.C., has recommended several rules proposals intended to enhance student-athlete safety for the 2012 season. Even though it is a non-rules change year as part of the two-year cycle process, these rule changes can be proposed for immediate implementation because they directly impact student-athlete safety.
“In all of our proposals, we are continuing the annual effort to find ways to make our game safer where we can,” said Scot Dapp, chair of the committee and athletics director at Moravian College. “Without question, these changes will enhance student-athlete safety and we feel very comfortable based on the data we collected that the impact will be significant.”
The proposed changes include:
Kickoff and Touchback Starting Lines Moved. The committee voted to move the kickoff to the 35-yard line (currently set at the 30-yard line), and to require that kicking team players must be no closer than five yards from the 35 at the kick, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams have during the play. The committee also voted to move the touchback distance on free kicks to the 25-yard line instead of the 20-yard line to encourage more touchbacks. NCAA data indicates injuries during kickoffs occur more often than in other phases of the game.
Loss of Helmet During Play. If a player loses his helmet (other than as the result of a foul by the opponent, like a facemask), it will be treated like an injury. The player must leave the game and is not allowed to participate for the next play. Current injury timeout rules guard against using this rule to gain an advantage from stopping the clock. Additionally, if a player loses his helmet, he must not continue to participate in play to protect him from injury. Data collected during the 2011 season indicated that helmets came off of players more than two times per game.
Blocking Below the Waist. The intent of the changes made last season were to only allow blocking below the waist when the opposing player is likely to be prepared for this contact, but the opposite impact was discovered in some cases. To clarify the intent, the committee approved wording that essentially allows offensive players in the tackle box at the snap that are not in motion to block below the waist legally without restriction. All other players are restricted from blocking below the waist with a few exceptions (e.g. straight ahead blocks).
Shield Blocking Scheme on Punting Plays. The committee reviewed several examples of shield blocking, which has become a popular blocking scheme for punting teams. In several cases, a receiving team player attempts to jump over this type of scheme in the backfield to block a punt. In some cases, these players are contacted and end up flipping in the air and landing on their head or shoulders. The committee is extremely concerned about this type of action and proposed a rule similar to the leaping rule on place kicks that does not allow the receiving team to jump over blockers, unless the player jumps straight up or between two players.
Additional Protection to Kick Returner. Through officiating interpretation, the committee approved a recommendation to provide a kick returner additional protection to complete a catch before allowing contact by the kicking team.
All rules change recommendations must be approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which meets via conference call Feb. 21. The proposals will first be sent to the NCAA membership for comment
-
If you want to prevent a running start for kicking team players wouldn't you want them to be no farther than five yards from the restraining line (after the RFP) as opposed to no closer than five (at the kick)? Perhaps the report is not worded as they discussed at the meeting.
-
It's worded incorrectly. The intent was to do what the NFL does, which is requires non-kickers to be no more than 5 yards from the restraining line, so if the ball is on the 35, at least one foot must be no deeper than the 30 yard line.
-
It's worded incorrectly. The intent was to do what the NFL does, which is requires non-kickers to be no more than 5 yards from the restraining line, so if the ball is on the 35, at least one foot must be no deeper than the 30 yard line.
Mechanically, do they stand on the 35 or the 30? Or U on the 35 and B on the 30 (or vice versa)?
-
I am guessing no player will be allowed to line up further away than the 30 yard line when lining up.
-
I wasn't a huge fan of the kickoff rule in the NFL and I'm not a fan of it coming to NCAA. Hopefully we'll still have a lot of returns instead of the endless parade of touchbacks.
Of course, making the touchback come out to the 25 may have the opposite affect and encourage the kicking team to kick higher to try to pin them behind the 25.
-
The proposed Loss of Helmet rule reads as if it has been expanded beyond just the ball carrier.
Also, I wonder what the consequence will be if a helmetless player does not stop participating.
-
Maybe we should just forget about kickoffs and put it on the 25 and play. ::)
-
Maybe we should just forget about kickoffs and put it on the 25 and play. ::)
That has been suggested, but it eliminates the possibility of the onside kick.
Greg Schiano proposed that the kicking team gets the ball 4th and 10 on their own 30. If they want to go for it, have at it. Otherwise, most would punt.
Of course, he's now in the NFL, so it's not his issue anymore!
As for the new kickoff rule, if it's like the NFL, the ball will be on the 35, and every player must have at least one foot on the 30 or greater. Some teams are going to just blast it into the end zone, others will try the directional sky kick. In the NFL this year, most teams started out trying the sky kick option, and eventually went to just blasting away.
Given that I'm trying to get kickers ready for the NCAA, this is going to make my work dependent on what a given kicker's college coaches are going to want him to do. My summer just got a lot harder!
-
"Additionally, if a player loses his helmet, he must not continue to participate in play to protect him from injury." :thumbup
I had this play in a game two years ago and I just knew this kid was going to get hammered by his teammate. Fortunately, his other teammate took the impact.
See Video here: http://youtu.be/UoLbJiYI1i0
-
I wasn't a huge fan of the kickoff rule in the NFL and I'm not a fan of it coming to NCAA. Hopefully we'll still have a lot of returns instead of the endless parade of touchbacks.
Of course, making the touchback come out to the 25 may have the opposite affect and encourage the kicking team to kick higher to try to pin them behind the 25.
It won't be as egregious as the NFL. The skill level of NCAA kickers is significantly less than NFL kickers, especially below the D1-A level.
Didn't seem that bad when it used to be the NCAA rule six years ago or so...
-
It's worded incorrectly. The intent was to do what the NFL does, which is requires non-kickers to be no more than 5 yards from the restraining line, so if the ball is on the 35, at least one foot must be no deeper than the 30 yard line.
I certainly don't know positively, but not necessarily. Since they reference being there 'at the kick,' perhaps they mean, indeed, the A players must not be beyond the A-30 when the kick is made from the A-35. That would mitigate the running head-start. But, it would also make on-side kicks nearly impossible to recover. This would be tougher to officiate. The U and B would have to be back at the A-30, but they won't be seeing the kick and the players in the same general plane.
But, perhaps they meant to say that A players must not be more than 5-yards behind the restraining line after the ball is made ready and before the kick. Maybe that makes more sense. If so, then mechanics probably wouldn't change - the U and B would just have to make sure A players weren't CLEARLY behind the A-30 during the ready period. They can do that from the A-35.
-
But, perhaps they meant to say that A players must not be more than 5-yards behind the restraining line after the ball is made ready and before the kick. Maybe that makes more sense. If so, then mechanics probably wouldn't change - the U and B would just have to make sure A players weren't CLEARLY behind the A-30 during the ready period. They can do that from the A-35.
Correct. In essence, they adopted the same rule that was used in the NFL this year.
If it were the other way, it wouldn't do anything to reduce the momentum players are building up with long runups. True, they would have to go five more yards, but their momentum would still be just as great, which leads to the same injury factor.
By moving kickoffs up to the 35, and touchbacks out to the 25, they are encouraging teams NOT to return kicks.
-
"Kickoff and Touchback Starting Lines Moved. The committee voted to move the kickoff to the 35-yard line (currently set at the 30-yard line), and to require that kicking team players must be no closer than five yards from the 35 at the kick, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams have during the play. The committee also voted to move the touchback distance on free kicks to the 25-yard line instead of the 20-yard line to encourage more touchbacks. NCAA data indicates injuries during kickoffs occur more often than in other phases of the game."
Looks like TxMike got some bad info. The actual CFO publication has this:
Kickoff and Touchback Starting Lines Moved. The committee voted to move the kickoff to the 35-yard line (currently set at the 30-yard line), and to require that kicking team players must be no further than five yards from the 35 at the kick, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams have during the play. The committee also voted to move the touchback distance on free kicks to the 25-yard line instead of the 20-yard line to encourage more touchbacks. NCAA data indicates injuries during kickoffs occur more often than in other phases of the game.
That pretty well clears it up, except that is must mean they can't be behind their 'rear restraining linel (my term, RRL for short) during the ready-for-play period, or, they commit a foul if they are running when the ball is kicked and they started from behind the RRL. I like the former. Step behind your RRL after thre RFP signal and that's a dead-ball illegal kicking formation foul - 5-yards.
-
I don't read "at the kick" and "after the ready for play" as being the same thing.
-
I don't read "at the kick" and "after the ready for play" as being the same thing.
Absolutely not. At the kick makes no sense, unless there is some language that also makes it a foul to be running at the kick. Under current rules, they are already within 5 yards of their restraining line when the ball is kicked, and running nearly full speed - and often beyond their restraining line (offside). Being at full speed when the ball is kicked is what they are trying to stop. Without some more limitation, A88 could begin running from behind the B-30 and be at the B-34 3/4 when the ball is kicked, and, by the language we have seen so far - and it is WAY too early - he would be legal. I believe it will be OK to begin running from the RRL, but not from behind it. In fact, as I stated, I hope they just make it a dead-ball foul for even stepping behind the RRL after the ball is ready for play. That will be easy to officiate. Like many rules, we'll be able to simply 'talk' players out of a foul in almost all cases.
-
I did not get bad info. I got "raw info". I received what Ty Halipn was putting out but it appears someone edited it either before or after it hit the CFO and NCAA sites.
-
I did not get bad info. I got "raw info". I received what Ty Halipn was putting out but it appears someone edited it either before or after it hit the CFO and NCAA sites.
Wasn't blaming you, TxMike - you got incorrect info and simply passed it on. Not your 'bad.' Just glad it got fixed.
-
Well, the NCAA is now in the 'comment' period for rule changes. Much to my surprise, item C below, which is not in the rule changes press release, would give the receiving team the ability to call for a fair catch, even after the ball has touched the ground (if driven directly into the ground off the tee). That is so extreme, I would have never dreamed it would be seriously considered. Go figure.
Item B - yep - the kicking team has to be within 5 yards of their restraining line after the ready-for-play signal, and before the kick. Appears to be a live-ball foul (so far). This one needs some work.
Here are all the the items:
Kickoffs
A. The kickoff will be at the 35-yard line. The free kick following a safety will remain at the 20-yard line.
B. After the ball has been made ready for play all players on the kicking team except the kicker must be no more than five yards behind their restraining line. If one player is more than five yards behind the restraining line and any other player kicks the ball, it is a foul.
PENALTY—Illegal Formation. Five yards from the previous spot and re-kick, or five yards from the spot where the dead ball belongs to the receiving team.
C. A player of the receiving team who is in position to receive the ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked directly off the tee.
D. If a free kick results in a touchback the ball will belong to the receiving team at its 25-yard line. On all other touchbacks the ball will be placed at the 20-yard line.
Rationale: Data show that injuries occur far more frequently on kickoff returns than on any other play. This change is intended to increase the number of times the ball is kicked into the end zone, increase the number of touchbacks, and reduce the probability that the kicking team players will be at full speed when covering the return. It also provides the kick receiver the same kick-catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or quickly bounced off the ground, most often occurring for on-side kicks.
Blocking Below The Waist
Team A
A. Before a change of team possession any Team A player who is beyond the neutral zone may not block below the waist toward his own goal line, at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line.
B. The following players of Team A are restricted with regard to blocking below the waist:
1. A lineman who at the snap is more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation.
2. A back who at the snap is aligned with the frame of his body completely outside the tackle box or completely outside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the middle lineman of the offensive formation in either direction toward a sideline.
3. A back who is in motion at the snap and had been outside the area in B-2 any time after the ball was ready for play.
All other players are unrestricted. In particular, a player who is in motion at the snap and is never outside the area in B-2 is unrestricted.
C. Inside the area in B-2 a restricted player may not block below the waist against any opponent.
D. Outside this area a restricted player may not block below the waist in a direction away from his adjacent sideline. He may block below the waist along the north-south line or toward his adjacent sideline (subject to the restrictions in Paragraph A).
Team B
Blocking below the waist by players of Team B before a change of team possession is allowed only within the area defined by lines parallel to the goal line five yards beyond and behind the neutral zone extended to the sidelines. Blocking below the waist by players of Team B outside this zone is illegal.
Rationale: This change clarifies the eligibility of players who are allowed to block below the waist. It is also intended to narrow the occurrence of dangerous blind-side blocks, including the peel-back block.
Helmet Comes Off
A. If during the down a player’s helmet comes completely off, other than as the direct result of a foul by an opponent, the player must leave the game for the next down. The game clock will stop at the end of the down. When the helmet coming off is the only reason for stopping the clock the following conditions apply:
1. With one minute or more remaining in either half the game clock will stop and will start on the referee’s signal. The play clock will be set at 25 seconds if the player is on offense and at 40 seconds if the player is on defense.
2. If there is less than one minute in the half the game clock will stop and the opponent has the option of a 10-second runoff. The play clock will be set at 25 seconds and the game clock will start on the referee’s signal. If a timeout is available the 10-second runoff may be avoided by the use of the timeout.
B. If the player is the ball carrier the ball is dead (Rule 4-1-3-q). If it is a player other the ball carrier the ball remains alive but he must not continue to participate in the play beyond the immediate action in which he is engaged. Prolonged participation is a personal foul. Such a player by definition is a player obviously out of the play (Rule 9-1-12).
PENALTY—15 yards plus an automatic first down for fouls by Team B.
C. A player who intentionally removes his helmet during the down commits a foul for unsportsmanlike conduct.
PENALTY---15 yards plus an automatic first down for fouls by Team B.
Rationale: This change is intended to provide the players with incentive to wear properly fitting helmets or lose playing time. The safety of the student-athlete is greatly compromised when he continues to play (e.g., pursuing a ball carrier) without his helmet.
Defensive Team Player Leaping the Shield on a Punt
A Team B player may not attempt to block a punt by jumping over a Team A player behind the neutral zone inside the tackle box. It is not a foul if the player jumps straight up and does not jump over the opponent. It is also not a foul if the player jumps through the gap between two players.
PERSONAL FOUL: 15 yards, previous spot and automatic first down.
Rationale: The popularity of the three-man shield to protect the punter has led to a number of injuries to players who attempt to leap over the shield. The change specifically does not prohibit a player from jumping straight up or leaping through the gap to block the kick.
Interference With The Opportunity to Catch a Kick
The following sentence will be added to Rule 6-4-1 to further protect the receiver of a kick:
Before the receiver touches the ball, if a member of the kicking team enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him, it is a foul.
PENALTY—Same as for current foul.
Rationale: The receiver of a kick is vulnerable to injury by the coverage player who times his approach to arrive just after the receiver touches the ball and is still in a defenseless posture. This change provides a brief but important buffer area to allow the receiver a better opportunity to be prepared for the contact.
-
Isn't the last one a reinstitution of the halo rule (with different dimensions)?
-
Isn't the last one a reinstitution of the halo rule (with different dimensions)?
Very similar, yes. Just a much smaller zone.
-
A. Before a change of team possession any Team A player who is beyond the neutral zone may not block below the waist toward his own goal line, at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line.
So.... More like NFHS?
-
Not a "halo" (as written now) since it is a very small narrow rectangle, i.e. 1 yard by @ 18 inches (width of the shoulders) and is limited to directly in front of the receiver, not circling the body like the "halo". Maybe we can call it "the DMZ".
-
Good thing they are only making major rule changes every two years now.
-
This is the beginning of the end.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559458/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football
-
This is the beginning of the end.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559458/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football
THAT is an eye-opener.
The line that really got my attention was the reference to 40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist. :!#
-
So why are we banning onside kicks, exactly?
-
THAT is an eye-opener.
The line that really got my attention was the reference to 40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist. :!#
I believe that the facts show that statement is incorrect, or at best very misleading. Many, if not most of those "40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist", are in reality just part of the inane merger and spin-off world. In reality most of them are still in business under some other name or in some other form - they still exist. A significant number of them are customers of the company that I've worked for since long before 1983, and are still our customers - just with a different name, logo, or parent company.
And I have no problem with the attention paid to the concussion problem, and the major impact it can have over a lifetime. In my opinion, any rules changes made that help minimize and/or remove the concussion risk only make sense and have to be implemented.
-
"Before a change of team possession any Team A player who is beyond the neutral zone may not block below the waist toward his own goal line, at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line."
So why am I having problems with the wording of this one? What is the precise meaning of "...at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line" which appears to be in addition to "...toward his own goal line"?
Is it the same as saying "at any angle towards the LOS extended"?
-
Draw a line parallel to the GL. Now draw any other line through it other than a straight line towards the opponents GL. Those all form angles to the paralleled line right? Those are now illegal. In simpler terms, only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.
Best regards,
Brad
-
Draw a line parallel to the GL. Now draw any other line through it other than a straight line towards the opponents GL. Those all form angles to the paralleled line right? Those are now illegal. In simpler terms, only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.
straight ahead to the opponents GL? Do you mean towards to that GL extended indefinitely?
Back to basic geometry - imagine a compass with the blocker right in the middle with north being exactly at the top of the compass - which direction degrees wise west or east can he block?
-
..... only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.
Best regards,
Brad
Aren't we interchanging goal lines here? Doesn't the section in question references B's goal line (opponents goal line), not A's goal line? Wouldn't the language be a lot clearer if we stayed with the conventional team A or B terminology?
-
Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.
-
Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.
wow! That's what I'm afraid of - essentially, if true, you can't block low unless you're face to face with your opponent both looking straight ahead and both lined up exactly north-south to each other. Is that right?
In reality there will be hardly any pure legal blocks by A beyond the line, once more a burden on officials - why not just entirely eliminate low blocks by A beyond the line?
-
This is an attempt to eliminate the peelback block. Basically, an offensive player beyond the line can't block low if the direction of the block is back toward Team A's goal line. I believe this verbiage is just inferring that it doesn't matter at what angle contact is made, as long as the direction of the blocker's body is toward Team A's goal line, then it is a foul.
If the direction of the blocker is parallel to or toward Team B's goal line, then restrictions are based on the rest of the BBW rule.
I think.
-
This is an attempt to eliminate the peelback block. Basically, an offensive player beyond the line can't block low if the direction of the block is back toward Team A's goal line. I believe this verbiage is just inferring that it doesn't matter at what angle contact is made, as long as the direction of the blocker's body is toward Team A's goal line, then it is a foul.
If the direction of the blocker is parallel to or toward Team B's goal line, then restrictions are based on the rest of the BBW rule.
I think.
That's what I originally thought but TxSkybolt has a much more restriction interpretation.
-
why not just entirely eliminate low blocks by A beyond the line?
That's the answer I wish they would have proscribed.
-
Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.
If the block is in the direction of B's goal line yes. Again, I believe that the wording is different if the block is in the direction of A's goal line. There's clearly two different sections in the proposed wording changes, one for each direction.
-
Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.
If he blocks straight ahead he would be 90 degrees from the line parallel to the GL......... ???
-
That's the answer I wish they would have proscribed.
^flag
If the Rules Committee and the plurality of Coaches have an ounce of intelligence, they'll vote to ban BBW both behind and beyond the LOS tackle box.
The funny thing about all of these rule change suggestions is that they all seemed to come under the mantra of providing player safety. The possible abolition of BBW is being scorned in some coaching circles as being little more than attempting to "woosify" the game. But what they fail to add to that is "at whose expense?" I'm sure that if you were to interview those unfortunate folks that got taken out by one of those blocks and had their playing careers subsequently ended over it, that they would tell you a far different story than the handful of coaches that want to keep the rule intact. Wouldn't it be far better just to err in the eye of safety than it would be to keep a somewhat violent blocking technique employed in the game just to satisfy those bloodthirsty "oohs and aahs" that emanate from the bleachers upon seeing one of those hits? And added to that that it would ultimately make the job of officiating football, particularly in regard to that aspect of the game, just a little bit easier. z^
-
That comment was a reply to Z99 who said: "Back to basic geometry - imagine a compass with the blocker right in the middle with north being exactly at the top of the compass - which direction degrees wise west or east can he block? "
Best regards,
Brad
-
It seems that slowly but surely we are getting towards an NFHS type restriction on blocking below the waist. I wish they'd quit monkeying with it so much but perhaps we will finally get there in a few years.
Hopefully this will be easier to officiate than it was last year.
-
It seems that slowly but surely we are getting towards an NFHS type restriction on blocking below the waist. I wish they'd quit monkeying with it so much but perhaps we will finally get there in a few years.
Hopefully this will be easier to officiate than it was last year.
This is what Rogers wants. He has to work with the coaches on the rules committee though and they are resistent. It appears he makes a little progress each year.
-
Even though it is a non-rules change year as part of the two-year cycle process
This is just the dumbest thing anyone has done. This make the intentional foul rule in basketball -- intentional doesn't have anything to do with intent -- look like it makes sense. Why the hell do you put in rules for 2 years then amend them every year anyway?