Author Topic: 2018 Rules Committee survey  (Read 1734 times)

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 448
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-5
2018 Rules Committee survey
« on: January 31, 2018, 10:37:00 AM »
I don't know if everyone in CFO gets this survey or if I was randomly selected, but here's what they're thinking about:

A 40-second play clock after touchdowns, and/or after punts and free kicks.

Running the clock (never stopping it) after first downs outside 2:00.

Winding the clock on the RFP after incomplete passes outside 2:00.

Banning hurdling by the ball carrier.

Banning forceful blindside blocks - anything more vicious than a screen block.

Banning all low blocks more than ten yards downfield.

Spot fouls for DPI.

Ten-yard penalties for OPI.

Making IDF a foul "when in question" and making IDF fouls reviewable.

Banning two-man wedges on free kick returns.




Here's what I wrote in the big suggestion box:

Pace of play:

Winding the clock after incomplete passes will speed up the game dramatically. Make this one change, then evaluate whether running the clock after first downs is also necessary. Making both changes at the same time might be too abrupt a change.

Winding the clock [EDIT: I meant using a 40-second play clock, oops, I hope they figure out what I meant assuming they read it at all] after a touchdown is an excellent idea for two reasons: Not only does it speed up the game by a few seconds, but it incentivizes hotshot players to curtail any prolonged, almost-unsportsmanlike celebrations, because the clock is literally ticking.

I would recommend an exception, though: Keep the 25-second play clock when Team B scores a touchdown. Field goal units usually consist of offensive players more than defensive players, so the substitutions after a defensive touchdown will usually take more time. And moreover, the officials have to switch balls after a change of possession. This will almost always take too much time, so the referee will have to stop and pump up the play clock to 25 anyway.

Incidentally, the change of possession is why I don't support the 40-second play clock after kicks.

Fouls based on being N yards downfield:

Imaginary lines 3 and especially 10 yards downfield are difficult to officiate consistently. For ineligibles downfield, at least we have two wing officials and an umpire who are in the vicinity of a three-yard line, so such a rule is doable. So for ineligible receivers I'm not opposed to a when-in-question rule that the foul has occurred, because interior linemen really shouldn't be downfield *at all.*

But the proposed change of banning low blocks beyond ten yards sounds hopeless to me. No official is going to be stationed at ten yards downfield; no official will have a good idea of where that imaginary ten-yard line is.

Most low blocks in this area of the field are already illegal. When the play has turned upfield and a low block is ten yards beyond the line of scrimmage, the block has to be from the front (10-to-2) and it can't be a peelback. These are already strict criteria. It's asking for problems to add a new rule whereby these low blocks are legal at 8 yards, but fifteen-yard personal fouls at 12 yards.

Lastly, here's my opinion on "the catch rule" which has drawn controversy from fans of both college and pro football:

The catch philosophy is ideal the way it is. It needs almost no change. A catch is a process. Going to the ground means that the receiver has to survive the ground. This is best even if the fans don't realize it. Relaxing this philosophy would lead to countless catch rulings that would be, frankly, cheap. Fans don't realize how irritating and dubious it would be to have anyone awarded a catch just because the ball is touching his hands in one video frame. Slow down the video enough and *anything* looks like a catch to the layman. Doesn't mean it actually is or should be.

The one way I would adjust the catch philosophy is by relaxing the requirements for a ball moving slightly in a falling receiver's hands. Even if the ball touches the ground and moves perceptibly in his hands, I think it should still be a catch unless there's actual daylight between the ball and his hands. That is, the ball should have to *bounce* slightly, not just *move*.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 02:27:58 PM by Morningrise »

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 523
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-4
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2018, 03:43:11 PM »
Adjusting the clock rules won't have a huge impact on the game length. Our D3 games are 2:40-2:45 on average and most D1 televised games (the reason for the rules proposals) are 3:30+. The primary reasons for that are replay stoppages and TV time outs. Those are the only differences between those games and our games. We have just as many incomplete passes and first downs.

Offline AFOpie

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2018, 07:35:16 PM »
Adjusting the clock rules won't have a huge impact on the game length. Our D3 games are 2:40-2:45 on average and most D1 televised games (the reason for the rules proposals) are 3:30+. The primary reasons for that are replay stoppages and TV time outs. Those are the only differences between those games and our games. We have just as many incomplete passes and first downs.

They have replay too, but yea our area games are running about the same time. I felt that not stopping the clock after a first down would be the best option as people are use to that with the NFL. Starting it after a incomplete pass I think is too dramatic, maybe give it til the next rules review.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 07:37:10 PM by AFOpie »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • FAN REACTION: +50/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2018, 11:07:06 PM »
As usual, they choose not to address the real reason games are so long, and that is TV.  Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn’t have the clout to force TV to reduce the number/duration of breaks.  Money talks.

Robert

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1299
  • FAN REACTION: +15/-10
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2018, 08:36:43 AM »
anything and everything that will speed the game up I fully endorse.

The most popular game in the world is rarely longer then 2 hours.

Offline carol1995

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 126
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-4
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2018, 09:26:30 AM »
As usual, they choose not to address the real reason games are so long, and that is TV.  Unfortunately, the NCAA doesn’t have the clout to force TV to reduce the number/duration of breaks.  Money talks.

Robert

It looks to me like TV needs to take fewer time outs and increase their prices on each commercial.  They would make the same amount of money per game and the games would be shorter. 

Another way to shorten the games (and, yes, I know it will never happen) is to shorten halftime.  This will have an impact on the bands, but I think there is a compromise that could be agreed to.  Maybe only the home band plays.  Maybe the conference puts together a schedule where sometimes the home band plays and sometimes the visiting band plays.  There are smart guys at the NCAA and conference offices.  Surely they can come up with something.  The band directors won't like it, but most everyone else will. 

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • FAN REACTION: +31/-43
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2018, 12:05:30 PM »
Quote
As usual, they choose not to address the real reason games are so long, and that is TV.

I disagree that TV is a/the REAL problem. NFL has TV and they keep their game times fairly consistent over years. The clock rules as written in the NCAA are the problem and need to be changed. All we really need to change is to wind the clock on ALL readys except those coming out of time outs, changes of possession, and similar situations (beginning of quarters, etc. -- come up with a list) except for under 2 minutes in each half. Do that, and then see if it is sufficient. The passing game in college is what is drawing the games longer -- as the number of passes, and incompletes, increase, so has game times.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 523
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-4
Re: 2018 Rules Committee survey
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2018, 01:49:26 PM »
I disagree that TV is a/the REAL problem. NFL has TV and they keep their game times fairly consistent over years. The clock rules as written in the NCAA are the problem and need to be changed. All we really need to change is to wind the clock on ALL readys except those coming out of time outs, changes of possession, and similar situations (beginning of quarters, etc. -- come up with a list) except for under 2 minutes in each half. Do that, and then see if it is sufficient. The passing game in college is what is drawing the games longer -- as the number of passes, and incompletes, increase, so has game times.
As I mentioned above all you have to do is look at the average length of D3 games to see what the biggest impact is. The only difference is media time outs and replay. We'll never get rid of them though.