NCAA Rules Committee Proposals for 2014 Season

[Rulesman]

Link to Committee Proposals

[younggun]

I dont know about this defense sub one.

[TNofficial]

I really like the substitution rule.  Too often you see defensive players too tired to even stand near the end of a fast drive putting them at a great risk of injury.  Giving them a brief window in order to substitute without a concern that the offense will snap the ball can only help make sure the defensive players stay safe.  It is also easy to officiate as there is no subjectivity to when they are allowed to snap the ball.

However, it does seem to defeat the reason behind adding an 8th official in the Big 12 last year as the main purpose was to assist with spotting the ball faster.

[Etref]

If the offense rarely snaps the ball before thirty seconds left o. The play clock, why have a special rule to allow a def. sub in the first ten seconds?

[TXMike]

If the offense rarely snaps the ball before thirty seconds left o. The play clock, why have a special rule to allow a def. sub in the first ten seconds?

That was my thinking as well.  I watch lots of video and it is rare for a team to snap that fast.  Even in a hurry up situation where they are not even calling a play at the line, just lining up and snapping, it usually takes more than 10 seconds from previous dead ball to pull it of. 

I assume , like always, the devil is in the details because there has to be something written in there that would prevent this:

Team A needs a score to tie or win the game and there are 15 seconds left in the game. They have no timeouts left.  , Team A's 2d down play ends inbounds with 10 seconds left on game clock (running)and they are hustling to get to line to either spike it or run another play.  Team B starts subbing so A is prevented from snapping and clock runs out.  We can't have that.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

I'd say I'm against the defensive sub rule, but I'm glad to see the revision to the targeting rule. I think another thing to keep in mind on that subject would be to consider the situations like the Notre Dame/Pitt incident where the ball carrier was equally at fault for the helmet-to-helmet contact, where the QB ducked his head forward in the direction of the ND player.

I'm still against the ejection, but at least this rule change fixes the major bug, where even in the case of the Navy/Middle Tennessee, where even though it was clearly a clean hit (Even though in that game it somehow wasn't overturned), at least the offensive team won't be getting a cheap 15 yards.

[jg-me]

Mike, pretty certain the proposal reads that the new defensive sub rule would not be in effect during the last two minutes of each half.

[RedTD]

I know this is all conjecture until the change becomes "official" BUT I am trying to see how -  "This part of the rule will remain in place in scenarios where the play clock starts at 25 seconds" - comes into play. Surely it can't mean that the offense cannot snap the ball until 13 seconds on the play clock! Maybe I am a little slow this morning.

[jg-me]

Red, judging from that statement's placement in the release, I believe they were referring to the old rule that says if the offense is subbing then the D gets an opportunity to sub if they desire and act promptly. I could be wrong but think they are simply emphasizing that the existing rule stays in place if the play clock is set to 25.

[FLBJ]

In games where instant replay is not in use, the committee recommended an option to permit on-field officials to review targeting calls during halftime that were made during the first half. This is a permissive rule by conference policy or mutual consent of the teams and is the responsibility of the home team to provide the parameters for the use of video. The review must be conducted by the referee in the officials’ locker room.

Well, if you're on ESPN3 (or similar) you might have some looks. If not, are you dependent on the home team's video? If the visiting team member is the one removed, will the home team do it's 'best' to provide you with video to review?

Methinks I hear a can opener...

[TampaSteve]

B Subs.
Maybe I'm missing something.
A cannot snap the ball until 29 sec remain on the play clock. - ok.
A particular team out west wearing green & yellow gets the ball snapped quicker than anyone I'm aware of - and it takes them like 16 sec to get it snapped.
Am I missing something?

[TNofficial]

I think the reason behind having the 10 second period for defensive substitution is that while most snaps occur after that period, many teams at least line up their offense before that period and since the defense cannot rely on the fact that they will not snap the ball before 29 on the play clock they don't feel they can substitute.  This is especially for those big boys up front.  If most snaps occur after 29 on the clock then this change shouldn't be too much of a problem for most teams and might protect some exhausted defensive lineman from getting rolled up and hurt when he can barely stand much less rush the passer. 

[Andrew McCarthy]

I would hope the existing rule is still always in effect.  If Team A subs later in the play clock, Team B still should have an opportunity to match up.  The new rule should be an additional restriction on Team A.

[Rulesman]

A particular team out west wearing green & yellow gets the ball snapped quicker than anyone I'm aware of - and it takes them like 16 sec to get it snapped.
Am I missing something?

The NFL has the tuck rule. Maybe the NCAA should dub this the duck rule. 

[TXMike]

Some more on the rule:  ( there is an exception in last 2 minutes)

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/bielema-saban-supported-slow-down-rule-proposal1-021314

[BankerRef]

I for one do not see how this is a player safety issue. 

[jg-me]

As TNofficial pointed out earlier, the safety issue is the ability to replace an exhausted defender as that player may be more prone to incurring an injury. This may or may not be a legitimate argument. I'm quite confident that the true motivation for those coaches supporting it is their concern that the exhausted player won't be able to defend as well as the fresh legs they want to send in as subs.

[RedTD]

Red, judging from that statement's placement in the release, I believe they were referring to the old rule that says if the offense is subbing then the D gets an opportunity to sub if they desire and act promptly. I could be wrong but think they are simply emphasizing that the existing rule stays in place if the play clock is set to 25.

Jeff, That does make sense!

[BankerRef]

As TNofficial pointed out earlier, the safety issue is the ability to replace an exhausted defender as that player may be more prone to incurring an injury. This may or may not be a legitimate argument. I'm quite confident that the true motivation for those coaches supporting it is their concern that the exhausted player won't be able to defend as well as the fresh legs they want to send in as subs.

I don't buy into the belief that an exhausted player is more likely to be injured so I don't see exhaustion as a safety issue.  Exhaustion is a player effectiveness issue.  To wear out and wear down your opponent is part of the game and why some teams train harder than others.  I have no problem with allowing the defense to match up when offensive substitutions are made but this is just an attempt to take away a tactical advantage that some teams are able to use in short bursts.  I say shorts bursts because no team that I have seen is capable of snapping it with more than 29 on the play clock on a consistent basis for more than a few plays in a row.  Also, if it is about exhaustion or even safety then why are they proposing to apply it in the first 2 minutes of the game but not the last 2 minutes?

[Diablo]

I know this is all conjecture until the change becomes "official" BUT I am trying to see how -  "This part of the rule will remain in place in scenarios where the play clock starts at 25 seconds" - comes into play. Surely it can't mean that the offense cannot snap the ball until 13 seconds on the play clock! Maybe I am a little slow this morning.

I don't think the proposed rule is intended to be used with a 25 sec. play clock.  The 25 sec. clock is used after "administrative stoppages", e.g. time outs, kicks, measurements, change of possession, processing fouls, etc.  There is usually plenty of time prior to the R marking the ball RFP in these situations.  The defense should easily be able to sub before the 25 sec. clock starts. 

[JasonTX]

I don't buy into the belief that an exhausted player is more likely to be injured so I don't see exhaustion as a safety issue.  Exhaustion is a player effectiveness issue.  To wear out and wear down your opponent is part of the game and why some teams train harder than others.  I have no problem with allowing the defense to match up when offensive substitutions are made but this is just an attempt to take away a tactical advantage that some teams are able to use in short bursts.  I say shorts bursts because no team that I have seen is capable of snapping it with more than 29 on the play clock on a consistent basis for more than a few plays in a row.  Also, if it is about exhaustion or even safety then why are they proposing to apply it in the first 2 minutes of the game but not the last 2 minutes?

Next rule to come will be to require Team A to sub whenever B subs during that 10 secs.  We wouldn't want to A to be more exhausted than the Team B players who just subbed in.

Is the Referee going to blow his whistle so Team A will know that ball is ready for play after the 10 secs?

[Rulesman]

Is the Referee going to blow his whistle so Team A will know that ball is ready for play after the 10 secs?

With the 40 second clock running, the ball is actually RFP as soon as it is set down. It just can't be snapped for those first 10 seconds. Go figure.

[Etref]

Stupid rule change!!!!   

[Johnponz]

It's about time that there is a rule change that favors B.  We have been swinging in the favor of A for a long time now.  It does make the game harder to officiate, but that is really not a consideration.

[TXMike]

The opponents of the change seem to be taking 2 tacks to approach this:

1 - The rule really does not affect safety and therefore should not have been allowed to be made in an "off year" since only safety-related changes are "supposed to be made" in off- years (yeah, right)

2 - The change was made because of the undue influence of a "legend" coach and that is not how the committee is supposed to work

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/02/13/Putting-the-Brakes-on-the-Blur?utm_source=contentsharing&utm_medium=linkexchange&utm_term=postion5&utm_content=Putting-the-Brakes-on-the-Blur&utm_campaign=foxnews