Will UIL change the ejection penalty

[Joe Stack]

For the targeting rule, ejection will be a penalty in at least some cases, but without replay there is no review. Of course, that's true in some college games anyway, and the rule makes a reference to that. Who thinks the UIL have an exception for that?

[TXMike]

Normally any safety- related rule would not be excepted.  But, this one has some issues .  If I had a vote I would vote to except this rule.  Leave it the way it was. If we deem it flagrant, we eject.  If not flagrant, just the 15 yard penalty.  As for what the UIL will do....? ? ?

[Etref]

But like you say it is a safety issue. If they relax a safety related issue in any way, the potential for lawsuits is out there.

[TXMike]

#1 I don't think it could be termed "relaxing a safety issue".  The fouling player is still going to be penalized. 

But since we do not have the ability, like the FBS has, to review on the spot and get the DQ part correct, I doubt there could be any fault placed on UIL for not using the auto eject.  They have an exception to the fighting rule that eliminates the follow on punishment for a player who is ejected for fighting.  This seems similar. 

[williebe]

To my knowledge we have always had an option to eject a player if we feel the play was flagrant. This rule has been around. It is now specific to TARGETING a player above the shoulders area.

[TXMike]

By rule, if you ever deemed a foul to be flagrant, the player HAD TO BE disqualified.  Was it always done?  I doubt it.  But we always had the option to call a foul flagrant or not.  The new targeting penalty removes that option.  Now, all targteting fouls are, apparently be definition, flagrant, and the offender MUST BE disqualified.  Only a small minority of the games played under NCAA rules will have the ability to at least review and remove the disqualification if the act is deemed not to be targting.  The rest do not have that option.