Proposed Rule Changes

[IndyBison]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2012/february/committee+recommends+several+football+rules+propos als+to+enhance+safety

These are the proposed rule changes for this year. Nothing has been approved yet. It's a large number considering the plan was to only make rule changes every other year. They are only printing new rule books every other year so these won't be in the book until the 2013-15 book. They can make these changes as they relate to player safety.

Kickoff moved to 35 and touchback moved to the 25
Player must sit out one play if his helmet comes off
Blocking below the waist limited more
Shield blocking by punt teams (3 guys lined up in front of the punter) will limit what the rusher can do
Additional protection for the kick returner

Thoughts?

[Twentysix]

None of them seem like a problem to me. I haven't been infuriated by any recent rule changes. Ill let you know if they bug me after ive seen them enforced in a few games.

[roadwarrior]

I definitely don't understand the helmet one.

[IndyBison]

I definitely don't understand the helmet one.
There has been a significant increase in helmets popping off during normal play. The reason is players don't want to wear helmets properly. If you see a guy pull him helmet off with one hand it's not on tight enough. If you see him take it off without unbuckling the chin strap it's not on tight enough.

The NCAA and NFHS has been looking at this for the past few years and finally came up with a way to address it. Wear your helmet properly and it won't come off during normal play. I bet you see the number of helmet pops drop significantly this year. NFHS approved a similar rule.

All NCAA officials were asked to track the number of helmets that fell off during their games last year so the NCAA has that data. In my games it probably averaged 3-5 per game. I haven't seen the overall numbers.

[VanClubPres]

it is interesting on the helmet rule. I believe that Austin Richards had his helmet removed many time this season, and I always thought that that just meant that there was an excess of hands to the face for that to happen. To "punish" a player for a play because of that may not be the correct decision, but may force equipment teams to ajust the helmet snugness.

[Kermit]

There has been a significant increase in helmets popping off during normal play. The reason is players don't want to wear helmets properly. If you see a guy pull him helmet off with one hand it's not on tight enough. If you see him take it off without unbuckling the chin strap it's not on tight enough.

The NCAA and NFHS has been looking at this for the past few years and finally came up with a way to address it. Wear your helmet properly and it won't come off during normal play. I bet you see the number of helmet pops drop significantly this year. NFHS approved a similar rule.

All NCAA officials were asked to track the number of helmets that fell off during their games last year so the NCAA has that data. In my games it probably averaged 3-5 per game. I haven't seen the overall numbers.

I like this one. The number of helmets coming off as been increasing dramatically. There is no good reason for it, and those players are unnecessarily putting themselves at risk. It is just a matter of time before someone has a very serious head injury after a helmet comes off. Thumbs up on this rule change.

[Gully]

I don't like the first three (although Indy's explanation made the helmet thing make more sense) and I don't understand the last two.

In general, I'm skeptical of rule changes. It's a very mature sport and changes often result in unintended consequences or are otherwise stupid and then changed back (see the rule regarding starting the clock when the kickoff is kicked and halo rule as examples).

[IzzyFlexion]

I definitely don't understand the helmet one.

Similair to the injury rule requiring a player to sit out at least one play.
Safety issue.
Get yer ass to the sideline and have the equipment people examine the cause of the helmet popping off, make the necessary changes and/or adjustments and boom (per Madden) back in the game the following play.

Unless you're this guy on a certain fall evening in Lawrence, Kansas in 2010. In this particular instance the NCAA required all in attendance to bow down in homage to one bad ass play by an NDSU D-Lineman.

http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics31/640/PP/PPURZWKHUBQVUFO.20100906194128.jpg

On edit: Why is there not a 20' X 12' high resolution picture framed in gold of this hanging in the FFD concourse?!?!??!?!?!

[TbonZach]

Kickoff moved to 35 and touchback moved to the 25

This is the only one I have an issue with. When the NFL moved it to the 35 it pretty much eliminated any chance of a return.

Any why move the touchback to the 25? Were they bored and decided they needed to make up another arbitrary rule?

[IndyBison]

This is the only one I have an issue with. When the NFL moved it to the 35 it pretty much eliminated any chance of a return.

Any why move the touchback to the 25? Were they bored and decided they needed to make up another arbitrary rule?
Everyone thought it would eliminate returns but it didn't. Touchbacks did increase (16% to 45%) but they were still a part of the game. The reason for this is the other part of the rule. Just like the NFL, kicking team members must start no further than 5 yards from the free kick line so they will have less of a running start.

Moving the touchback spot to the 25 though will result in more touchbacks at the college level. If the likelihood of me getting back to the 25 instead of the 20 are less I may just take the touchback. The NFL tried to do this as well but stayed at the 20.

The reason for these changes is safety concerns with kick returns. They are very dangerous and result in more injuries than any other play. They are still part of the game because they are exciting but the rule makers obviously want to reduce the injury exposure.

[56BISON73]

I like this one. The number of helmets coming off as been increasing dramatically. There is no good reason for it, and those players are unnecessarily putting themselves at risk. It is just a matter of time before someone has a very serious head injury after a helmet comes off. Thumbs up on this rule change.

I was wondering what was going on. I had never seen so many helmets coming off as this year. And why would you not want to wear it correctly? I hated it when my helmet was loose.

[tjbison]

I was wondering what was going on. I had never seen so many helmets coming off as this year. And why would you not want to wear it correctly? I hated it when my helmet was loose.

Alot of the kids now wear those under armour head liners, They make the helmet slippery on the head. I often wonder with the increase in concussions though that they are not properly fit in their helmets

[IzzyFlexion]

Alot of the kids now wear those under armour head liners, They make the helmet slippery on the head. I often wonder with the increase in concussions though that they are not properly fit in their helmets

Never thought of that.....
Definately makes sense, though.

[IndyBison]

Alot of the kids now wear those under armour head liners, They make the helmet slippery on the head. I often wonder with the increase in concussions though that they are not properly fit in their helmets
That doesn't help but that's not the only reason. They want to wear them loose enough so they can pull their helmets off with one hand or without unsnapping the chin strap. If it's fitted properly you can't do that. Even with the skull caps your helmet should not have helmets popping off. With this rule change I doubt you'll see too many instances of helmets popping off.

[HerdBot]

I like this one. The number of helmets coming off as been increasing dramatically. There is no good reason for it, and those players are unnecessarily putting themselves at risk. It is just a matter of time before someone has a very serious head injury after a helmet comes off. Thumbs up on this rule change.

Agree. Plus we may see a few less concussions if helmets are worn correctly. I would compare it to wearing a seatbelt with no shoulder belt

[NDSU1980]

I don't get the touchback change. A few years ago I thought they were trying to encourage more run backs to make the game more exciting.

[Twentysix]

I don't get the touchback change. A few years ago I thought they were trying to encourage more run backs to make the game more exciting.

They are encouraging less, to make the game more safe. It will just take more finesse on the kickers part.

[westnodak93bison]

Regarding the helmet rule. What if there is some hands to the face stuff that the refs miss and a helmet comes off, the rule punishes the wrong guy. Probably wouldn't be an issue with a properly fitted helmet.

[IndyBison]

Regarding the helmet rule. What if there is some hands to the face stuff that the refs miss and a helmet comes off, the rule punishes the wrong guy. Probably wouldn't be an issue with a properly fitted helmet.
Correct. It will make getting those fouls correct more important. If a helmet is fitted properly though it should take a pretty obvious face mask penalty for the helmet to come off.

[IzzyFlexion]

Correct. It will make getting those fouls correct more important. If a helmet is fitted properly though it should take a pretty obvious face mask penalty for the helmet to come off.

I've belly ached about this before but..............Indy, what is your opinion about aggressive stiff arms to the facemask by an offensive player. Seems like a double standard. When a defender even inadvertantly grabs the facemask it's 15 yards and an automatic 1st down. Most stiff arms to the face/facemask by ball carriers are much more violent, yet it is legal. When this happens, the defenders helmet is often pushed or even "punched" into distortion or ripped off. In your years of officiating meetings, has this ever been considered as a potential rule change to punish an offensive player, given that it may cause a higher risk of injury.
Through the years, the Bison running backs have befefitted from the stiffarm (most recently Roehl and Paschall moreso than McNorton and Ojuri), but I just don't like the double standard.

[IndyBison]

I've belly ached about this before but..............Indy, what is your opinion about aggressive stiff arms to the facemask by an offensive player. Seems like a double standard. When a defender even inadvertantly grabs the facemask it's 15 yards and an automatic 1st down. Most stiff arms to the face/facemask by ball carriers are much more violent, yet it is legal. When this happens, the defenders helmet is often pushed or even "punched" into distortion or ripped off. In your years of officiating meetings, has this ever been considered as a potential rule change to punish an offensive player, given that it may cause a higher risk of injury.
Through the years, the Bison running backs have befefitted from the stiffarm (most recently Roehl and Paschall moreso than McNorton and Ojuri), but I just don't like the double standard.
We talk about this but not often. No less than defensive face mask fouls though either. College eliminated the 5-yard foul a couple years ago so it's only a foul now if you grab AND twist or yank regardless of whether you are offense or defense. Typically what you see on the stiff arm is just contact but no grasping or twisting. I think some stiff arms should be considered illegal hands to the face and maybe we'll see more emphasis on that with the new helmet rule. A helmet still shouldn't come off with a normal stiff arm if the helmet is fitted properly.

[IzzyFlexion]

We talk about this but not often. No less than defensive face mask fouls though either. College eliminated the 5-yard foul a couple years ago so it's only a foul now if you grab AND twist or yank regardless of whether you are offense or defense. Typically what you see on the stiff arm is just contact but no grasping or twisting. I think some stiff arms should be considered illegal hands to the face and maybe we'll see more emphasis on that with the new helmet rule. A helmet still shouldn't come off with a normal stiff arm if the helmet is fitted properly.

I was going to add....but forgot......that at the very least, an offensive ball carrier should be flagged for "Illegal Hands to the Face". This foul is called on offensive lineman from time to time, so I do think that would be an appropriate call.

[td577]

The helmet rule is interesting because I was under the wrong assumption they were popping off because of design. We started seeing it more with the newer style helmet and I thought it was a design issue to lesson the concussions by popping off. The improper wearing makes a lot more sense.

I do think if you really want to make the game concussion friendlier, you take off the helmets and the pads. Part of the violence in today's game is the reduction of pain by having padding. It would be very strange to see today's football game played without pads, but I do think it would reduce injuries. Most guys would be unwilling to dish out the violent contact without the protection, but there will always be some with a lot thicker heads and a higher tolerance for pain that would again make it necessary to put pads on people.

[Hammerhead]

Didn't a few NFL players once wear a small foam pad over the outside of their helmets? It seems to me that a soft layer of foam would reduce the G-forces on the tackler and the ball carrier since the change in velocity would be spread out over more time.

[56BISON73]

Didn't a few NFL players once wear a small foam pad over the outside of their helmets? It seems to me that a soft layer of foam would reduce the G-forces on the tackler and the ball carrier since the change in velocity would be spread out over more time.

I think Thee OSU had that on their helmets along time ago. LB Willie Lanier from the KC Chiefs also. But after awhile they figured it didnt make any difference.

[HerdBot]

I was wondering what was going on. I had never seen so many helmets coming off as this year. And why would you not want to wear it correctly? I hated it when my helmet was loose.

I didnt realize leather helmets had chin straps.

[IndyBison]

I do think if you really want to make the game concussion friendlier, you take off the helmets and the pads. Part of the violence in today's game is the reduction of pain by having padding. It would be very strange to see today's football game played without pads, but I do think it would reduce injuries. Most guys would be unwilling to dish out the violent contact without the protection, but there will always be some with a lot thicker heads and a higher tolerance for pain that would again make it necessary to put pads on people.
I've heard several people make that suggestion. Helmets give players a false sense of security. The rules against illegal helmet contact are meant to protect the hitter as much as the hittee.

[Bison Dan]

If the goal is to increase safety then do away with pads and lets just play flag football.

[Hammerhead]

I still got my butt kicked playing flag football in high school phys ed trying to block people who outweighed me by 50 lbs. :(


If the goal is to increase safety then do away with pads and lets just play flag football.

[SDbison]

Rule changes are not needed. Just like a bunch of politicians somebody is always messing with the rules. As for the helmet thing how about the players start snapping their chin straps with BOTH snaps. That is the problem. Encourage them to do so or risk getting their head split wide open. No rule is needed for that.
Helmets are better than ever, and even the ones back in the late 1970's were pretty good. At least players back then had enough sense to wear them correctly and they stayed on.

[IndyBison]

We received some additional clarification over the weekend on the new blocking rules on kickoffs. If the ball is kicked into the ground and then bounds high, the return players attempting to recover the kick have the same protection as if the ball had been pooched in the air? I assume this protection only applies to the player(s) attempting to recover the ball and not the people around him blocking (although technically still in an area to recover the kick). I also assume this protection disappears when the ball hits the ground a second time. This seems a bit much to me but I guess the return team player is just as succeptible to getting blasted in this situation as if the ball was pooch kicked.

[CAS4127]

Rule changes are not needed. Just like a bunch of politicians somebody is always messing with the rules. As for the helmet thing how about the players start snapping their chin straps with BOTH snaps. That is the problem. Encourage them to do so or risk getting their head split wide open. No rule is needed for that.
Helmets are better than ever, and even the ones back in the late 1970's were pretty good. At least players back then had enough sense to wear them correctly and they stayed on.

What??!! What is the source of PL's mental problems then???!!!

[56BISON73]

Rule changes are not needed. Just like a bunch of politicians somebody is always messing with the rules. As for the helmet thing how about the players start snapping their chin straps with BOTH snaps. That is the problem. Encourage them to do so or risk getting their head split wide open. No rule is needed for that.
Helmets are better than ever, and even the ones back in the late 1970's were pretty good. At least players back then had enough sense to wear them correctly and they stayed on.

As a matter of fact the double chin strap was used at NDSU way before it caught on with the rest of the nation. Izzy was way before his time on that one. It was during the early 70s they came out with the required mouth guard rule also. It was during that time that many schools started to phase out the old suspesion type helmets for the ones used today.

[56BISON73]

What??!! What is the source of PL's mental problems then???!!!

Ive been wondering that for years.

[aces1180]

Kicks will be moved to the 35-yard line.

Also, touchbacks on kickoffs will be moved to the 25-yard line.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/conversations/_/id/7611324/ncaa-moves-kickoffs-30-yard-line-35

I personally don't mind the first, but think the second is stupid...Why would a team want to give the opponent better field position than before? I think kickers should just try to get it to the 1-yard line and let the returner try and make it to the 25.

[NDSUBowler]

http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?27110-Proposed-Rule-Changes

[aces1180]

http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?27110-Proposed-Rule-Changes

Dammit! I missed that thread.

Sorry for the duplicate and no one yell at me please.

[tony]

merged them.

[aces1180]

go start a blog!!



















:d


Nah, my education and work history in journalism and public relations makes me way overqualified.

[ndsubison1]

this is a stupid new rule that clearly did nothing in the nfl.

[CalBison97]

They are encouraging less, to make the game more safe. It will just take more finesse on the kickers part.

The NCAA and the NFL should stop wasting our time and eliminate kickoffs altogether. Waiting for the t.v. timeout to end, kickoff, another t.v. timeout, then the offense trots out, etc. Offenses start with the ball at the 25 or so, just like at the pee-wee level.

[CalBison97]

If the goal is to increase safety then do away with pads and lets just play flag football.

It's probably more realistic than you think. Let's just hope the family of Dave Duerson and the rest of the former NFL players do not win their lawsuits against the NFL. This could be the beginning of the end of football as lawsuits will undoubtedly trickle down to the universities, high schools, and pop warner leagues.

[riceweb]

The NCAA and the NFL should stop wasting our time and eliminate kickoffs altogether. Waiting for the t.v. timeout to end, kickoff, another t.v. timeout, then the offense trots out, etc. Offenses start with the ball at the 25 or so, just like at the pee-wee level.

I agree that it's a huge waste of time right now. The CFL adopted a similar rule (though they have the rouge point, so the motivations are a bit different). At some point, the NCAA/NFL should either excise the remaining components from rugby or align closer with rugby; as it stands, some rules just don't make any sense. Why even have, for instance, a rule about drop kicks?

Anyway, yes, they should eliminate the kickoff and speed up the game.

[Bisonwinagn]

I agree that it's a huge waste of time right now. The CFL adopted a similar rule (though they have the rouge point, so the motivations are a bit different). At some point, the NCAA/NFL should either excise the remaining components from rugby or align closer with rugby; as it stands, some rules just don't make any sense. Why even have, for instance, a rule about drop kicks?

Anyway, yes, they should eliminate the kickoff and speed up the game.

Rule changes will never speed up the game because networks need a certain number of TV timeouts and will find a way to take them.

[IndyBison]

Kicks will be moved to the 35-yard line.

Also, touchbacks on kickoffs will be moved to the 25-yard line.

I personally don't mind the first, but think the second is stupid...Why would a team want to give the opponent better field position than before? I think kickers should just try to get it to the 1-yard line and let the returner try and make it to the 25.
The reason is because it's not that easy to aim the ball to land between the goal line and the 5. Many of the NFL teams tried this unsuccessfully.


this is a stupid new rule that clearly did nothing in the nfl.
It actually had a significant impact on the number of touchbacks. They increased from 16% to 45% in 2011. It didn't eliminate it like many predicted but it did greatly reduce the number of returns. The NFL toyed with changing the succeeding spot for touchbacks to the 25 but kept it at the 20. Once teams realized they could likely get the ball past the 20 on a kick in the end zone, you saw more returners do it. The reason they were able to do this is the kicking team didn't have as much of a head start. The NCAA rule did the same thing. By moving the touchback spot to the 25, they will reduce the number of returns even more because the reward for taking a knee is greater.

[missingnumber7]

It actually had a significant impact on the number of touchbacks. They increased from 16% to 45% in 2011. It didn't eliminate it like many predicted but it did greatly reduce the number of returns. The NFL toyed with changing the succeeding spot for touchbacks to the 25 but kept it at the 20. Once teams realized they could likely get the ball past the 20 on a kick in the end zone, you saw more returners do it. The reason they were able to do this is the kicking team didn't have as much of a head start. The NCAA rule did the same thing. By moving the touchback spot to the 25, they will reduce the number of returns even more because the reward for taking a knee is greater.And it won't punish teams who bring in amazing athletes who can run back kicks by mandating no KO returns. IMHO I see more directional kicking and higher kicks for teams that know how to cover kicks and trust their kickers to not kick the ball out of bounds. Put some air underneath it and let them field it between the 5 and goalline. If your guys get down there to stop them inside the 20 more power to you. Especially against teams with sub par returners.

[IndyBison]

And it won't punish teams who bring in amazing athletes who can run back kicks by mandating no KO returns. IMHO I see more directional kicking and higher kicks for teams that know how to cover kicks and trust their kickers to not kick the ball out of bounds. Put some air underneath it and let them field it between the 5 and goalline. If your guys get down there to stop them inside the 20 more power to you. Especially against teams with sub par returners.
This is what the NFL kickers tried to do early this season and they found it was harder than they thought. I doubt we'll see too many college kickers that can do it better. You may see more high kicks like you describe but they'll have less control over whether it will come down at the 5 or the 20.

[missingnumber7]

This is what the NFL kickers tried to do early this season and they found it was harder than they thought. I doubt we'll see too many college kickers that can do it better. You may see more high kicks like you describe but they'll have less control over whether it will come down at the 5 or the 20.

Jastram would kick from the opposite hash and did several times put it between the 10 and 2-3 yards in the EZ. I know that with the narrow NFL hash marks it doesn't make much difference and returners were bringing balls that were 5-7 yards deep, especially established returners. It really doesn't kill you if your punter or kicker isn't great at kickoffs at this point. Just need air underneath it to give your coverage teams time to get down field.

The one thing I noticed in the NFL this year is the lack of commitment to lane integrity on kick returns. I am wondering if that had something to do with the 5 yard rule.