61
NCAA Discussion / Re: Shaw retiring from NCAA - ElvisLives, you're up next
« Last post by dammitbobby on April 14, 2026, 04:15:49 PM »I second the motion
Recent Posts
62
NCAA Discussion / Re: Shaw retiring from NCAA - ElvisLives, you're up next
« Last post by Etref on April 14, 2026, 04:15:24 PM »I nominate, Elvis Lives
Move NCAA headquarters to Lubbock, TX
Move NCAA headquarters to Lubbock, TX
63
NCAA Discussion / Shaw retiring from NCAA - ElvisLives, you're up next
« Last post by Grant - AR on April 14, 2026, 11:54:10 AM »64
NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 14, 2026, 11:13:14 AM »I think they actually intended "if" they are aligned within the tackle box and did not mean that numbering exceptions "must be" aligned in the tackle box.
89 76 14 12 63 52 47(s)
88
49 48
19 (k)
Certainly not arguing, because we just don’t know. But, by Shaw’s interpretations to date, the formation you presented does not qualify as a SKF, because it is not “obvious” that a scrimmage kick will be attempted. I am hoping that the committee is wanting to force Team A to use a tight formation to be able to use numbering exceptions. We’ll just have to wait until we can get somebody to press Shaw for answers to these questions.
65
NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document
« Last post by TxJim on April 14, 2026, 10:21:12 AM »
So, I am hoping this new rule will explicitly REQUIRE that, in addition to all of the current SKF requirements, there must be two linemen on each side of the snapper, in order to qualify as a SKF, and permit numbering exceptions. The snapper and those four linemen would be ineligible by position, even if one of those linemen is positioned on the end of the line. Then by rule, a swinging gate formation would not qualify as a SKF. They may still use a ‘gate’ formation, but they must comply with mandatory numbering, and the snapper doesn’t have any special protection (as he would in a true SKF).
Having two ineligible linemen on each side of the snapper renders a swinging gate formation pretty much useless. But, we’ll probaby still see it, even if we get the rule I am hoping for.
But, we musty stay tuned. I am hearing that some number of NCAA coaches don’t like this SKF proposal. The PROP meets on Wednesday, so, who knows what we’ll end up with.
I think they actually intended "if" they are aligned within the tackle box and did not mean that numbering exceptions "must be" aligned in the tackle box.
89 76 14 12 63 52 47(s)
88
49 48
19 (k)
66
National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch
« Last post by Kalle on April 14, 2026, 05:44:36 AM »Let's take the NCAA mechanics discussion to the NCAA forum.
67
National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 10:04:35 PM »Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.
Any mention of clock and game timing? Start on the kick? When legally touched in the field of play?
Any word?
68
National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 13, 2026, 10:01:53 PM »Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.
Once per career, those 8 can handle it.
69
National Federation Discussion / Re: Free Kick after a fair catch
« Last post by Rob S on April 13, 2026, 09:54:23 PM »I'm just bracing for the dumb mechanics they're going to make us do for this play instead of just taking the R and C and putting them under the upright and keeping everyone else in their normal free kick positions. But that's too simple.
Last week, Shaw mentioned in a clinic that they were leaning towards keeping B&F on goal posts, H&L on pylons, S/C/B on restraining lines, and R giving the kicker the ball then hacking it in.
70
NCAA Discussion / Re: Rules Changes Document
« Last post by dammitbobby on April 13, 2026, 04:53:08 PM »Yes, I meant A
And I am onboard with your proposed change.
And I am onboard with your proposed change.