Author Topic: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)  (Read 6210 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« on: March 07, 2013, 06:37:39 PM »
They gave all the changes we heard about the OK, except for requiring uniforms contrast with the field surface color.  Boise State lives for another year!!

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/march/playing+rules+panel+approves+more+stringent+penalty+in+football

PSK

  • Guest
Re: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2013, 07:52:01 PM »
Plus they denied the rule to switch the chains to the other sideline for the first half.

Offline FLBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
Re: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2013, 11:08:19 AM »
Plus they denied the rule to switch the chains to the other sideline for the first half.

Did you mean they won't switch at all because I think that's that last rule change listed. No?

Offline Sonofanump

  • *
  • Posts: 327
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-3
Re: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2013, 12:58:51 PM »
Did you mean they won't switch at all because I think that's that last rule change listed. No?

The following changes were recommended by the Rules Committee but were not approved by PROP.

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 3001
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-59
Re: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2013, 08:39:36 PM »
Plus they denied the rule to switch the chains to the other sideline for the first half.

I never understood why they put this in as a rule change proposal in the first place.  If they want to switch sides, why not make it a mechanics change so they could have skipped the rule change process.   ???

Offline ljudge

  • *
  • Posts: 420
  • FAN REACTION: +19/-2
Re: PROP Approves Everything (Almost)
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2013, 08:23:31 AM »
I never understood why they put this in as a rule change proposal in the first place.  If they want to switch sides, why not make it a mechanics change so they could have skipped the rule change process.   ???

Because it's in the rule book - 1.2.7.