Author Topic: 1st Look at Rule Changes  (Read 42753 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
1st Look at Rule Changes
« on: February 13, 2013, 01:32:36 PM »
http://www.doubleazone.com/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players

Football Rules Committee recommends ejection for targeting defenseless players

By Ty Halpin
 NCAA.org

The NCAA Football Rules Committee took steps to further protect student-athletes by proposing a rule to eject players who target and contact defenseless players above the shoulders.

The committee, which met Monday-Wednesday, unanimously voted to increase the on-field penalty for targeting. The penalty, if approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, will be a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player. The Panel meets on March 6 to review the proposals and membership comment.

“Student-athlete safety will always be one of our primary concerns,” said Troy Calhoun, chair of the committee and head coach at the United States Air Force Academy. “We all have a role to embrace when making a positive impact on our game. Taking measures to remove targeting, or above the shoulder hits on defenseless players, will improve our great sport.”

The action by the committee continues a progression to address dangerous contact through its rules. Targeting, which was initially approved by the committee as a separate foul in 2008, has been generally successful in terms of officiating application, which made the committee feel comfortable in adding to the penalty.

“The general consensus is that the officials on the field make this call properly the vast majority of the time and know what the committee is looking for with this foul,” said Rogers Redding, secretary-editor of the rules committee and national coordinator of officials for College Football Officiating, LLC. “This move is being made to directly change player behavior and impact player safety.”

The proposed rule will mirror the penalty for fighting. If the foul occurs in the first half of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game. If the foul occurs in the second half or overtime of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next contest.

The committee has also decided, in an effort to address concerns when one of these plays is erroneously called, to make the ejection portion of the penalty reviewable through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that a player should not be ejected to overturn the call on the field. Additionally, a post-game conference review remains part of the rule and conferences always have the ability to add to a sanction.

Another area the committee has discussed in recent years deals with blocking below the waist. The past two years, the committee has adjusted rules governing these blocks in an attempt to remove some potentially dangerous plays from the game. The result has been a confusing and uneven rule that has not had the intended impact.

The proposed rule will focus on the block itself and allow these blocks in typical line play.

“What we’re trying to do is write the rule to protect the player that will need to take on this block,” said Calhoun. “So, the blocks from the front of this type in your typical line play are legal and anything that is from the side or back are not.”

Previously, the position of the player at the snap changed whether or not the player could block below the waist legally.

“This rule was hard to teach to officials, hard to teach to coaches and really difficult to understand overall,” said Redding. “That obviously wasn’t the intent and we believe our new proposal will clear up a lot of confusion and keep the positive safety elements of the rule in place.”

The committee also made several other proposals to improve the game. The committee proposed:
 •To add a 10-second runoff with less than a minute remaining in either half when the sole reason for the clock to stop is an injury.
•To establish three seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock. If one or two seconds remain on the clock, there is only time for the offense to run one more play.
•To require a player that changes numbers during the game to report this to the referee, who will announce this.
•To only allow one player number to be worn by the same team and participate at the same position (e.g., two quarterbacks on the same team are not allowed to have the same number).
•To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.
•To allow the use of electronic communication by the on-field officiating crew after successful experimentation by the Southeastern Conference. This is not a required piece of equipment but will allow officiating crews to use this tool.
•To allow the Big 12 Conference to experiment with using an eighth official on the field in conference games. This official would be placed in the backfield opposite the referee.
•To allow instant replay to adjust the clock at the end of each quarter. Previously this provision was only in place for the end of each half.

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 2423
  • FAN REACTION: +88/-29
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2013, 02:55:23 PM »
So I wonder what exactly the new BBW will be.
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-13
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2013, 02:55:39 PM »
oh, 8-men crews   

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 625
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-8
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2013, 03:20:36 PM »
The rule that ejects players for targeting ought to make clear that, if video review nullifies the ejection, that is not a "reversal" of an incorrect call, but rather a separate "severity determination" or something along those lines. No, coach, the replay official didn't conclude that the call was wrong, just that the personal foul was not ejection-caliber. Otherwise, why aren't we also nullifying the 15-yard penalty? We should not create a precedent for video review of all conduct judgment calls. Already this proposed rule is "breaking the seal" on that, a little bit. I want headshots out of the game as much as anyone, but if the committee is this concerned about "false positives" since the penalty is so severe, perhaps that's a sign the penalty is *too* severe.

Offline FLBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2013, 03:27:13 PM »
What's the penalty if you try to spike with <3 seconds? Game over? Hope the clock guy knows that (and let's it run out...). Will it be a foul? What if the clock is running?

Was this an issue last year? Did I miss some games where someone spiked and the clock guy was slow/fast?

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 625
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-8
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2013, 03:32:12 PM »
I think 0:02 is plenty of time to receive a snap and throw it down immediately. If a hard-and-fast rule is actually necessary, the cutoff should be <= 0:01, not 0:02.

In games with video replay, is this rule needed at all? The replay official can just check the clock at the moment when the pass bounces; either it's 0:00 or it's not.

In games WITHOUT video replay, this rule just replaces one judgment call (whether the spike was incomplete at 0:01 or 0:00) with another (whether the snap occurred at 0:03 or 0:02). I don't think the latter is any easier to officiate, nor do I think it makes the game any more fair.

What if the spike happens, the clock stops at 0:01, but the SJ runs in and swears that it ticked from 0:03 to 0:02 just before the snap? Although, if the rule were changed to 0:01 instead, that scenario would be a lot less likely to happen.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2013, 04:29:01 PM »
As always, the devil is in the details so we have to wait and see the actual wording of these things.   But on the targeting ejection, I don't get it as stated.  If the review determins there was no targeting, then how can there be a penalty at all?  (Unless contact above the shoulders, even if unintentional, will now be a foul but intentional would result in an ejection)   Wonder if making the penalty so severe might actually result in fewer flags as guys will want to be REALLLY SURE before throwing the flag and "causing" a DQ?

As for blocking below the waist, seems that ,maybe we are going to be at the point where all low blocking from the side or rear (clipping ) is a foul regardless of where it happens and the status of the player who threw the block (restricted vs unrestricted). That would certainly make things easier to officiate.  I doubt the Academies are going to be happy with that.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2013, 04:46:09 PM »
I think the intent of the 3-second rule will be for it to apply to a stopped clock that will wind on the ready.  When the clock is stopped for a first down they will know in advance whether they have time to spike or not.

Just speculating.

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2013, 05:13:06 PM »
is it really fair to punish a team with 10 secs for having a player injured at the end of the game?

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2013, 05:15:07 PM »
Speculating on the wording of the BBW rule

Think it will only be allowed if from the front and within the extended neutral zone?

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2013, 07:39:28 AM »
is it really fair to punish a team with 10 secs for having a player injured at the end of the game?

Is it fair for a player to deliberately fake an injury in order to conserve time?

Does the NFL rule allow for the "injured" team to buy back the 10-sec runoff with a time out?

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2013, 11:47:38 AM »
I think the NFL rule works the other way round; it automatically charges timeouts until there's none left, and then it becomes a runoff.

Offline justaLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 69
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-0
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2013, 08:53:22 PM »
Another summary, with some more details than the NCAA article.  Fun times ahead for wing guys with #14...

2013: BRIEF SUMMARY OF CHANGES
1.  ​Targeting fouls (9-1-3 and 9-1-4): Automatic disqualification. Penalty mimics fighting rule.
​--Instant Replay to evaluate ejection portion of penalty
 
2.​Blocking below the waist: greatly simplified
 
3.​10-second runoff option for injury inside one minute of a half (mimics helmet rule).
 
4.​Minimum time to spike the ball and still be able to run a play:  3 seconds.
 
5.​Expand the definition of UNS to include “unsporting” personal fouls.
 
6.​Remove “push” and “charge into” for assisting the ball carrier
 
7.​Player numbering:
​(a) Two players playing the same position may not wear the same number during the game;
​(b) when a player enters the game after changing his jersey number he reports to the referee who makes the announcement.
 
8.​Jersey numerals: must be a single color clearly contrasting the jersey color, irrespective of any border around the numerals.
 
9.​Either jersey or pants must contrast with field color.
 
10.​Towels must be between 4”X12” and 6”X12”
 
11.​Helmet off: player may remain in the game via a charged team timeout.
 
12.​Pylons may bear the same markings as the goal-post padding: manufacturer’s ​logo, team logo, conference logo.
 
13.​Microphones may be worn by officials for an intra-crew communication ​system.
 
14.​Switch chain/down box at half: 1st on PB side, 2nd opposite the press box. HL/SJ and LJ/FJ switch also.
 
15.​Clock status may be reviewed at the end of each quarter (not just in each ​half).
 
16.​Experiment:  Big 12 may experiment using an eighth official.
 
17.​Experiment: PAC-12, Big 12 and SEC: electronic tracking device on players.

Offline mishatx

  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
  • Free Agent
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2013, 10:24:36 PM »

17.​Experiment: PAC-12, Big 12 and SEC: electronic tracking device on players.


?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2013, 04:38:50 AM »
Or this maybe ?

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 3196
  • FAN REACTION: +126/-29
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2013, 05:48:23 AM »
Quote
14.​Switch chain/down box at half: 1st on PB side, 2nd opposite the press box. HL/SJ and LJ/FJ switch also.

Anyone know the rationale for this?

Offline James

  • *
  • Posts: 692
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-6
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2013, 06:04:54 AM »
I think they did this in NFL Europe.
The only rationale I can think of is to give both team's coaches a chance to complain to all the officials on the sideline...
Otherwise, it seems it just adds confusion.

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2013, 06:56:41 AM »
Anyone know the rationale for this?
If they were smart they'd switch sides in the second half rather than the first so they wouldn't have to change the pregame duties.

Offline TampaSteve

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
  • FAN REACTION: +24/-13
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2013, 07:34:16 AM »
Considering they are technically changing positions, will S/F and H/L each need to change shirts at halftime too?   ;)

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2013, 09:27:51 AM »
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2013, 09:43:11 AM »
What's the lowest level that routinely uses an alternate line-to-gain stick and down box, out of interest?

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 625
  • FAN REACTION: +25/-8
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2013, 12:06:22 PM »
6.​Remove “push” and “charge into” for assisting the ball carrier

Nice. The rule language more closely reflecting how the game is played, officiated, and accepted.

7.​Player numbering:
​(a) Two players playing the same position may not wear the same number during the game;
​(b) when a player enters the game after changing his jersey number he reports to the referee who makes the announcement.

What if the opponent is running a hurry-up offense? U of Oregon likes to snap the ball every thirteen seconds. Can a tired Oregon State defense just send in a guy with a new number, causing the R to stop everything for an announcement? Surely this would not be tolerated if it were routine. But they could at least save it for one crucial occasion.

And what if there are four seconds left in the half and the clock is running? Does the clock stop for the announcement? If so, a convenient number switch by Team A could be a free timeout. If not, Team B could pull the same stunt and prevent the last snap. The rule would have to call for the clock to stop when Team B, but not Team A, changes numbers.

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2013, 05:58:51 PM »
Nice. The rule language more closely reflecting how the game is played, officiated, and accepted.

The thought occurs that there was a very good reason why mass-momentum plays were banned in the first place.  Are they really sure that they want to loosen the rules up in this area when player safety is more of a hot-button issue than it's ever been?  It's a wider topic than just "concussions are serious business, yo".

Offline zebra99

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2013, 12:34:45 PM »
Nice. The rule language more closely reflecting how the game is played, officiated, and accepted.

What if the opponent is running a hurry-up offense? U of Oregon likes to snap the ball every thirteen seconds. Can a tired Oregon State defense just send in a guy with a new number, causing the R to stop everything for an announcement? Surely this would not be tolerated if it were routine. But they could at least save it for one crucial occasion.

And what if there are four seconds left in the half and the clock is running? Does the clock stop for the announcement? If so, a convenient number switch by Team A could be a free timeout. If not, Team B could pull the same stunt and prevent the last snap. The rule would have to call for the clock to stop when Team B, but not Team A, changes numbers.

Last year in our conference we did announce number changes - very, very few - and we simply turned on the mic without stopping the game.  It never happened to me in a hurry up situation so don't have answers to that other than I doubt very much that they'll have us actually stop the game for the announcement.

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 2423
  • FAN REACTION: +88/-29
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: 1st Look at Rule Changes
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2013, 05:15:30 PM »
Likely in a hurry up situation, they will not have time to "report in" as a different person with the same number.

" I don't make the rules coach!"