Targeting Rule May Change, While Game Clock to Remain the Same

[Steven A]

Recommendation, if a player targets in the second half, they may have the ability to appeal before the next game.  Oversight committee to decide in April.

 

NCAA football rules committee recommends targeting appeal

WWW.OREGONLIVE.COM

---

The committee also recommended penalizing all open-field blocks below the waist and creating an investigation process for...

 

[David Marsh]

Being able to appeal is a move in the right direction... But it doesn't solve the biggest problems with the targeting rule during the game.

 

What about accidental helmet to helmet contact?

 

What about offensive players lowering their heads and effectively initiating helmt to helmet with a defensive player who can't change their angle in time? 

 

Both of those could certainly be appealed and overturned... But outside of the immediate contact and concussion concern, which should be looking at ALL players involved in the contact ... It really just continues to punish defensive accidental contact. 

 

Better than nothing but won't solve the problems with the rule. 

[Jon Joseph]

Don't know why football cannot follow CBB and distinguish between intentional and unintentional 'flagrant fouls?' Especially when replay is available for 3rd party review?

 

Something regarding the timing rules needs to happen to limit the number of plays and contact in a game and to fit the game into the allotted broadcast windows. This is not 'three yards and a cloud of dust' football. We routinely see games with 60+ pass attempts. Start the clock when the ball is ready for play and not when the ball is snapped would definitely shorten today's game.

 

And what is wrong with games ending in ties in regular season?

[David Marsh]

On 3/5/2022 at 10:13 AM, Jon Joseph said:

And what is wrong with games ending in ties in regular season?

In the past I would have said that games ending in ties would not be satisfying... and I still kinda feel that way.

 

But after sooooooo many Oregon games were delayed or shuffled to some backwater ESPN channel this last year so that the previous game can finish their multiple overtimes... Yeah.... I feel ties would be just fine.

 

The biggest problem with a tie that I can see is that the "tie breaker" game between teams that tied a game for a conference championship with equal records don't have a real way to determine who should represent their division. But the brokenness of Conference Championships based on a divisional break down is also dumb and is another discussion.

[Jon Joseph]

On 3/5/2022 at 9:00 PM, David Marsh said:

In the past I would have said that games ending in ties would not be satisfying... and I still kinda feel that way.

 

But after sooooooo many Oregon games were delayed or shuffled to some backwater ESPN channel this last year so that the previous game can finish their multiple overtimes... Yeah.... I feel ties would be just fine.

 

The biggest problem with a tie that I can see is that the "tie breaker" game between teams that tied a game for a conference championship with equal records don't have a real way to determine who should represent their division. But the brokenness of Conference Championships based on a divisional break down is also dumb and is another discussion.

David, great response regarding ties and conference tie breakers. I'm certain that once upon a time back in the day that conference ties happened and the title was judged on agreed upon criteria.

 

But it happened infrequently prior to having to play OT after a game finishing in a tie.

 

THE GAME, Notre Dame vs Michigan State back in the day, 1966 as I recall, ended in a tie. That MI ST team ended up losing to UCLA in an amazing Rose Bowl game, the game where UCLA's Stiles was knocked out twice and came back to make a game saving tackle for the Bruins. Fortunately, no guy dinged once let alone twice today, is allowed to return to the field of play.

 

Notre Dame declined to play in a bowl game that season and yet, finished No. 1 in the AP/UPI poll.

 

 

 

 

[Steven A]

On 3/4/2022 at 8:17 PM, David Marsh said:

Both of those could certainly be appealed and overturned...

How about a review during the game by a set of officials that aren't involved on the field.  The review could take place during the game and if upheld, the player stays out.  If the review overturns the call, the player goes back in.  No stoppage unless it is brief to get the player back on the field.

[OhioDuck]

I'm not that upset with the rule as it stands, just how it is enforced. Maybe just one simple rule for offensive and defensive players alike. You lead on a hit with the crown of the helmet, it a penalty. You do it on a player in a defenseless position it's flagrant. You do it launching at another players head it's targeting, you're out of the game.

 

Wait, that is pretty much what it is now, except for the first part.

In this case if offensive and defensive players both lower their heads to make a hit, they both get a penalty. 

 

The first attempts at trying to bring these kinds of hits under control were when I was in Jr. High (yes it was long enough ago to call it Jr. High). We were told the rule change was that you couldn't lead with the crown of your helmet. 

 

Why? Because players were breaking their necks doing that, it was to protect the hitter as much as the hittee. For an example of this see Marc Bouniconti. 

 

Now we know a lot of players end up with concussions and multiple concussions leave some players brains damaged for life. We need to take that seriously. 

 

Maybe a soccer type of yellow card, red card system. You get a penalty and a warning the first time. The second time, even in a later game it's a penalty and expulsion for a full game, even if that extends into the next game. A third time, let's call it a season.

 

I know that sounds tough, but when the alternative is players with dementia at +or- 30 years of age, maybe it should be tough.