2016 Rule Changes

[Bwest]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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".

[Timer]

It could be a difficult year for RO's.

[BrendanP]

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.

[scrounge]

Again, more hyperbolic bleating about the game being ruined, when it's as healthy as ever.

Melodramatic troll is quite melodramatic.

[goodgrr]

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.

[bossman72]

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.

[Kalle]

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.

[ncaaref1]

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.

[BrendanP]

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.

[Fatman325]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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"?

[ncaaref1]

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

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 

[Etref]

Still say we need a troll emoji!

[Grant - AR]

Still say we need a troll emoji!

Will this work?   

[Etref]

 

I like!

No we need to get the man on board.   

[Rulesman]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[fearlessleader]

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]

 . 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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[Blackandwhite]

[/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]

 

For the safety in football.