Examining the new NCAA football rules

[JustinTyem]

FARGO – The helmet-to-helmet college football rule that in past years was a 15-yard penalty will have a bigger bite this season. The NCAA is taking a zero-tolerance policy of sorts. http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/408689/

[TbonZach]

FARGO – The helmet-to-helmet college football rule that in past years was a 15-yard penalty will have a bigger bite this season. The NCAA is taking a zero-tolerance policy of sorts. http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/408689/

:facepalm:

I'm all for more safety, but I have a feeling that the slightest touch to the head area will get guys thrown out.

[344Johnson]

:facepalm:

I'm all for more safety, but I have a feeling that the slightest touch to the head area will get guys thrown out.

I fear this as well.

[SDbison]

Quit messing with the game!

[WYOBISONMAN]

This change could really bite the Herd. I am worried that our intense play will be at risk. 15 yard penalties were plenty....

[westnodak93bison]

The article did not address the obvious question. What plays from the last several years would have affected the Bison? Ejection is a little extreme.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

What a bunch of garbage. We are slowly heading to organized flag football. There will be a lot more pass attempts and completions across the middle, that is for sure.

Colten Heagle's game has just changed. Under these rules, I'm not quite sure he should still be playing safety.

Danial Eaves would never have lasted a full game under these rules. Anyone remember the game against SDSU, when Eaves got flagged for a helmet to helmet call, but the replay clearly showed that he hit the SDSU's recievers shoulder pad? Under these rules he would be ejected on a blown call.

If the NCAA wants to start ejecting guys for these type of infractions, then they need to start implementing the instant replay so players don't get ejected for blown calls.

With all the non contact rules being put into place, soon the game won't be worth the price of admission

As far as this applies to our first game of the season, advantage KSU.

[SDbison]

Maybe they should have defenders stop and ask the ball carrier when its ok to hit them? Again, its those not playing the game screwing with it. I understand how the pros want to make the game less physical.........and then collect their millions. All this crap about hitting harder is over inflated (yeah guys that played football prior to 1990 wore panties.........what an insult). Hey, if you don't like all the contact in football play soccer. Another problem with all these rules........it makes subjective calls by the officials even more impactful on the outcome of the game. I totally disagree with the way they are handling this. Do the training.........maybe even add a rule that the refs can review video to determine if a player should be ejected for an especially violent blindside hit to the helmet.

[SDbison]

What a bunch of garbage. We are slowly heading to organized flag football. There will be a lot more pass attempts and completions across the middle, that is for sure.

Colten Heagle's game has just changed. Under these rules, I'm not quite sure he should still be playing safety.

Danial Eaves would never have lasted a full game under these rules. Anyone remember the game against SDSU, when Eaves got flagged for a helmet to helmet call, but the replay clearly showed that he hit the SDSU's recievers shoulder pad? Under these rules he would be ejected on a blown call.

If the NCAA wants to start ejecting guys for these type of infractions, then they need to start implementing the instant replay so players don't get ejected for blown calls.

With all the non contact rules being put into place, soon the game won't be worth the price of admission

As far as this applies to our first game of the season, advantage KSU. Get used to it just like government, mores rules, more intrusion and less freedom. They can justify anything to help make themselves feel more important. Maybe every player should put on those big rubber sumo wrestling outfits so they can hardly move........that would solve the contact problem. What a joke the game of football is becoming. Still can't stand pro football for the stupid kickoff wasted play. Why bother kicking off anymore?

[HerdBot]

The article did not address the obvious question. What plays from the last several years would have affected the Bison? Ejection is a little extreme.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Honestly not that many. The hit at Northern Iowa was the only helmet to helmet I remember. It knocked the guy out cold but it was clearly non intentional. Hopefully they use replay to differentiate between viscous intentions and speed of the game hits

[Tatanka]

http://images.wikia.com/southpark/images/8/88/Sarcastaball13.png

Sent from somewhere using my Win8 phone or something.

[Gully]

Honestly not that many. The hit at Northern Iowa was the only helmet to helmet I remember. It knocked the guy out cold but it was clearly non intentional. Hopefully they use replay to differentiate between viscous intentions and speed of the game hits

The one right in front of the end zone? I honestly thought the hit was to the chest.

[56BISON73]

Yeah I don't like the rule either but this is real easy to fix. TEACH FUNDAMENTAL football technique. The game morphed in to showboat hits-blowups with the obligatory strut I am bad strut bull shit. If you watch any kind of football its very prevalent. Teach the correct way to tackle and you wont have helmet to helmet issues. They will have to change the culture back to fundamentals.

[westnodak93bison]

Yeah I don't like the rule either but this is real easy to fix. TEACH FUNDAMENTAL football technique. The game morphed in to showboat hits-blowups with the obligatory strut I am bad strut bull shit. If you watch any kind of football its very prevalent. Teach the correct way to tackle and you wont have helmet to helmet issues. They will have to change the culture back to fundamentals.

I think some of the old school technique has been replaced by hits designed to jar the ball loose, stand the ball carrier up to strip the ball etc.. all to create turnovers.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[IndyBison]

Yeah I don't like the rule either but this is real easy to fix. TEACH FUNDAMENTAL football technique. The game morphed in to showboat hits-blowups with the obligatory strut I am bad strut bull shit. If you watch any kind of football its very prevalent. Teach the correct way to tackle and you wont have helmet to helmet issues. They will have to change the culture back to fundamentals.

This is exactly what the rules makers are getting at. These unnecessary blindside hits (especially when high) and the targeting at or with the head are unnecessary and dangerous. The concussion issue is very real. Even though more kids get concussions from riding bike or playing soccer (heading the ball), football has a huge perception problem because of the long term effects a brain injury can have.

Please note the RULE didn't change, only the penalty enforcement changed. What will be a foul this year was a foul last year. It will just carry an ejection with it. It should hopefully be enough of an incentive for players to get their heads out of the game. Don't get too hung up on contact being by or with the helmet because they aren't going to nitpick it. If you are hitting high around the shoulders and it's a "blow-up" type hits, the rules committee (made up of coaches not officials) want to get out of the game.

The media doesn't help by glorifying these hits. Kids follow what they see and their invincibility makes them think they can do anything.

If we as fans don't support this, the game we love may go the way of boxing. One of our area youth leagues went from 125 players last year to 75 this year. My church's program went from 6 teams last year to 5 teams this year. Kids and parents are pulling out because they view the sport as too risky for head injuries.

This change though will create a lot of buzz this year and I don't expect it to be positive. I'm just curious to see how negative it will be. There will be less attention on the levels without replay so I'm curious to see how it goes.

[southcliffbison]

FARGO – The helmet-to-helmet college football rule that in past years was a 15-yard penalty will have a bigger bite this season. The NCAA is taking a zero-tolerance policy of sorts. http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/408689/


So begins the pussification of football........ can you imagine what the NFL and college football will be like in 20 to 25 years? I shudder to think.......

[344Johnson]

So begins the pussification of football........ can you imagine what the NFL and college football will be like in 20 to 25 years? I shudder to think.......

Its disgusting. The only way they better be ejecting people is after reviewing it in the booth to see if it was bad or not.

Football already favors the offense wayyy too much. This will only make it worse.

[SDbison]

This is exactly what the rules makers are getting at. These unnecessary blindside hits (especially when high) and the targeting at or with the head are unnecessary and dangerous. The concussion issue is very real. Even though more kids get concussions from riding bike or playing soccer (heading the ball), football has a huge perception problem because of the long term effects a brain injury can have.

Please note the RULE didn't change, only the penalty enforcement changed. What will be a foul this year was a foul last year. It will just carry an ejection with it. It should hopefully be enough of an incentive for players to get their heads out of the game. Don't get too hung up on contact being by or with the helmet because they aren't going to nitpick it. If you are hitting high around the shoulders and it's a "blow-up" type hits, the rules committee (made up of coaches not officials) want to get out of the game.

The media doesn't help by glorifying these hits. Kids follow what they see and their invincibility makes them think they can do anything.

If we as fans don't support this, the game we love may go the way of boxing. One of our area youth leagues went from 125 players last year to 75 this year. My church's program went from 6 teams last year to 5 teams this year. Kids and parents are pulling out because they view the sport as too risky for head injuries.

This change though will create a lot of buzz this year and I don't expect it to be positive. I'm just curious to see how negative it will be. There will be less attention on the levels without replay so I'm curious to see how it goes. Time for the fans and players to tell the rulemaking bureaucrats to quick fucking with the game. Kick thugs out of the game, but making every high hit an ejection is just stupid.

[GOBISON123]

There is a similar rule in Soccer regarding sliding tackle and its a big headache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliding_tackle

I can see this rule in football becoming a pain in the ass like soccer's sliding tackle rule. One solution is to see if the defensive players made any contact with the ball ? If the defensive player did not make any contact with the ball and only did a helmet to helmet then it can be argued that he had no good intentions and ejected. Either way this rule will be a source of lot of controversy.

[bisoningrandforks]

kids are taught the right way to tackle when they are young....its when they get into high school they watch the NFL...show boaters....same with NBA......yes its not a high percentage, but its there...

[Gully]

Yeah I don't like the rule either but this is real easy to fix. TEACH FUNDAMENTAL football technique. The game morphed in to showboat hits-blowups with the obligatory strut I am bad strut bull shit. If you watch any kind of football its very prevalent. Teach the correct way to tackle and you wont have helmet to helmet issues. They will have to change the culture back to fundamentals.

This is a good post. I don't know what they're teaching now, but we were taught to "see what you hit" and get your head and neck in front of the direction the runner was headed. If you see what you hit, you don't lead with the crown of the helmet. Of course, it's a fast game and you can get bumped, the runner can change directions, etc., but at least it keeps you out of injury trouble most of the time.

[A1pigskin]

I think the rule will get abused. Does this rule mean you get ejected for the rest of the game? I think a time penalty would be better like the rest of the quarter for this year, and 2 quarters next year and so on until the 4th year full ejection.

[IndyBison]

I think the rule will get abused. Does this rule mean you get ejected for the rest of the game? I think a time penalty would be better like the rest of the quarter for this year, and 2 quarters next year and so on until the 4th year full ejection.

If it happens in the first half you are out the rest of the game. If it happens in the second half you are out the rest of the game and the first half of the next game.

What do you mean abused? My hope (because I really don't want anyone ejected) is players get under control and TRY (not easy in the heat of battle) to wrap up rather than blow up. My first game isn't until week 3 of the NCAA season so there should be a couple weeks of scrutiny and clarification.

[onbison09]

What's the rationale for the spiking rule?

[IndyBison]

What's the rationale for the spiking rule?

The one that's been around for years? Staying away from excessive celebrations and calling attention to yourself. I'm fine either way but for now the rule makers don't want to allow it.

[bri-dog]

The one that's been around for years? Staying away from excessive celebrations and calling attention to yourself. I'm fine either way but for now the rule makers don't want to allow it.

Aren't they talking about spiking the ball to stop the clock at the end of the first half and end of the game?

[IndyBison]

Aren't they talking about spiking the ball to stop the clock at the end of the first half and end of the game?

Ahh...thanks

The logic was there was too much judgement on whether or not a team had enough time to spike the ball if the clock was stopped for an official's time out (I.e. first down or penalty enforcement) and would start on the ready for play signal. They decided if there were 2 or fewer seconds the half would end if the QB spiked the ball. This way the QB also knows if he has time to spike it.

This does not apply if the clock is stopped and will not start until the snap or the clock is running prior to the ready for play.

EDIT: Corrected time to 2 or fewer seconds. If there are 3 seconds left the team can reasonably snap the ball immediately after the ready-for-play and spike it and still have time for 1 more play.

[onbison09]

Ahh...thanks

The logic was there was too much judgement on whether or not a team had enough time to spike the ball if the clock was stopped for an official's time out (I.e. first down or penalty enforcement) and would start on the ready for play signal. They decided if there were 3 or fewer seconds the half would end if the QB spiked the ball. This way the QB also knows if he has time to spike it.

This does not apply if the clock is stopped and will not start until the snap or the clock is running prior to the ready for play.

Makes so much more sense. Didn't realize the clock could be running. I was just thinking "How is that fair if you stop it with 2 seconds left?"

[IndyBison]

The other rule change that is significant to officials, coaches, and players but less so to fans is the the block below the waist rule. I think this is the 3rd year in a row with a significant change. I know the officials are confused so I have to imagine the players and coaches are confused.

Prior to these changes the rule generally stated blocking below the waist was legal EXCEPT for a list of specific instances (i.e. a receiver 10 yards or more downfield back toward the middle of the field). I don't remember all of them now. The first major change was make blocking below the waist ILLEGAL, except for a list of specific instances. The first year the blocks couldn't be back toward the middle of the field (as defined by a line parallel to the sideline where the ball was snapped). Last year it had more to do with wideouts and ends having to block north-south or toward their adjacent sideline (as defined by their position in relation to the ball when it was snapped). So let's say a receiver started on the right side of the offensive formation but ended up downfield near the other sideline. He could block back toward the middle of the field because it was toward his adjacent sideline. This was very hard to cover because you could see the bloc and think it was illegal because it was away from the sideline. But if you didn't know where he started you didn't know if it was legal or illegal.

This year's change gets rid of the adjacent sideline thing again and introduces a concept of 10 to 2. The idea being a low block is much less dangerous if the defender has a chance to see it coming (thus within 10 to 2 as a clock face in front of him). The 10 to 2 applies if a player is restricted (simplified--outside the tackle or in motion at the snap) or to any player after the ball has left this zone. Side blocks below the waist are OK if done by an unrestricted player (interior lineman or back inside the tackle box) while the ball is still in the zone. A late modification to the rule is a receiver can't block low back toward the original position of the ball (specific point, not a line through the ball) at the snap (aka crackback block). That is over simplifying it but you get the idea. All the terminology is new again and in some case what was legal last year is illegal this year and vice versa.

This will get a lot less attention from the commentators but will be much more likely to happen than helmets popping off or targeting fouls with ejections.

[steelbison]

This is exactly what the rules makers are getting at. These unnecessary blindside hits (especially when high) and the targeting at or with the head are unnecessary and dangerous. The concussion issue is very real. Even though more kids get concussions from riding bike or playing soccer (heading the ball), football has a huge perception problem because of the long term effects a brain injury can have.

Please note the RULE didn't change, only the penalty enforcement changed. What will be a foul this year was a foul last year. It will just carry an ejection with it. It should hopefully be enough of an incentive for players to get their heads out of the game. Don't get too hung up on contact being by or with the helmet because they aren't going to nitpick it. If you are hitting high around the shoulders and it's a "blow-up" type hits, the rules committee (made up of coaches not officials) want to get out of the game.

The media doesn't help by glorifying these hits. Kids follow what they see and their invincibility makes them think they can do anything.

If we as fans don't support this, the game we love may go the way of boxing. One of our area youth leagues went from 125 players last year to 75 this year. My church's program went from 6 teams last year to 5 teams this year. Kids and parents are pulling out because they view the sport as too risky for head injuries.

This change though will create a lot of buzz this year and I don't expect it to be positive. I'm just curious to see how negative it will be. There will be less attention on the levels without replay so I'm curious to see how it goes.

Here's a question for you. I see this all the time. WR catch a pass over the middle the Safety comes up to hit him waste high. The WR sees this and lowers his head to protect himself. they hit helmets. The safety then gets flagged for a 15 yard penalty. What do you expect the safety to do? Seriously, because as I see it they really need to let the guy catch the pass, and run THEN tackle him What happened to separating him from the ball? You as a defender can't play that way.

[SDbison]

Here's a question for you. I see this all the time. WR catch a pass over the middle the Safety comes up to hit him waste high. The WR sees this and lowers his head to protect himself. they hit helmets. The safety then gets flagged for a 15 yard penalty. What do you expect the safety to do? Seriously, because as I see it they really need to let the guy catch the pass, and run THEN tackle him What happened to separating him from the ball? You as a defender can't play that way. Refs make the call and win the game! Go Refs!

[IndyBison]

Here's a question for you. I see this all the time. WR catch a pass over the middle the Safety comes up to hit him waste high. The WR sees this and lowers his head to protect himself. they hit helmets. The safety then gets flagged for a 15 yard penalty. What do you expect the safety to do? Seriously, because as I see it they really need to let the guy catch the pass, and run THEN tackle him What happened to separating him from the ball? You as a defender can't play that way.

What happened to defending the receiver and not letting him catch the pass in the first place? This concept of "separating him from the ball" I think has resulted in defenders becoming lazy in coverage because they would rather blow him up after he catches it than work hard and defend him before the ball gets there. The former gets a highlight on the news or Sportscenter. The latter does not. And there are still plenty of legal ways to separate the ball from the runner without using the crown of your helmet or hitting the receiver high.

The other point you bring up is one I always struggle with. The incidental helmet contact is often caused as much by the runner collapsing as it is the defender. In some instances that defender is still launching with their helmet first so those are easy. It's the standard tackles where helmets just collide. Those are definitely the gray area and sometimes will be called and sometimes will not. It's a gut feel by the calling official as he sees it in real time on the field. That's why they pay us the big bucks. I think ultimately though was the rulesmakers (at all levels want) is more effort by all players to keep the head out of the game. The more they do that the less likely we'll have incidental helmet contact.

A radical proposal has been to remove helmets completely. If that were done you'd see all players act differently. There is a false sense of security thanks to wearing a helmet. Without it the running backs wouldn't lower their heads as much, the receivers wouldn't compress like they do, the defender wouldn't lead with their helmet as much.

My biggest concern is losing the game we all love because parents are too concerned to let their kids play for fear of concussion. It's definitely starting to happen already. I don't know if these rule changes will stop it but I think they are good for future health of the players.

[steelbison]

What happened to defending the receiver and not letting him catch the pass in the first place? This concept of "separating him from the ball" I think has resulted in defenders becoming lazy in coverage because they would rather blow him up after he catches it than work hard and defend him before the ball gets there. The former gets a highlight on the news or Sportscenter. The latter does not. And there are still plenty of legal ways to separate the ball from the runner without using the crown of your helmet or hitting the receiver high.

The other point you bring up is one I always struggle with. The incidental helmet contact is often caused as much by the runner collapsing as it is the defender. In some instances that defender is still launching with their helmet first so those are easy. It's the standard tackles where helmets just collide. Those are definitely the gray area and sometimes will be called and sometimes will not. It's a gut feel by the calling official as he sees it in real time on the field. That's why they pay us the big bucks. I think ultimately though was the rulesmakers (at all levels want) is more effort by all players to keep the head out of the game. The more they do that the less likely we'll have incidental helmet contact.

A radical proposal has been to remove helmets completely. If that were done you'd see all players act differently. There is a false sense of security thanks to wearing a helmet. Without it the running backs wouldn't lower their heads as much, the receivers wouldn't compress like they do, the defender wouldn't lead with their helmet as much.

My biggest concern is losing the game we all love because parents are too concerned to let their kids play for fear of concussion. It's definitely starting to happen already. I don't know if these rule changes will stop it but I think they are good for future health of the players.


A couple of things. A safety coming up like I described is playing zone. When playing man you rarely/never see that type of hit because your trailing the play. Again my point was you can play it the right way and still get called for a penalty. Again the defender is in a no win situation.

As far as youth in football.. http://usafootball.com/news/coaches/football-remains-no-1-among-high-school-participation


Our numbers here locally are up. Show me a report that says numbers are down for football. I haven't seen one.

[CAS4127]

Yeah I don't like the rule either but this is real easy to fix. TEACH FUNDAMENTAL football technique. The game morphed in to showboat hits-blowups with the obligatory strut I am bad strut bull shit. If you watch any kind of football its very prevalent. Teach the correct way to tackle and you wont have helmet to helmet issues. They will have to change the culture back to fundamentals.

Next year they better add that ball carrier can not lower his head just before or when contact is going to occur--gotta stand upright to "protect" yourself from getting a helmet-to-helment hit!! Also, fundamental tackling involves lowering your shoulders to get under the pads of the ball carrier--last time I checked the neck and head are attached to the shoulders, although there appear to be a few on here that are exceptions to that anatomical "rule"!! :biggrin::hide:

[IndyBison]

A couple of things. A safety coming up like I described is playing zone. When playing man you rarely/never see that type of hit because your trailing the play. Again my point was you can play it the right way and still get called for a penalty. Again the defender is in a no win situation.

As far as youth in football.. http://usafootball.com/news/coaches/football-remains-no-1-among-high-school-participation


Our numbers here locally are up. Show me a report that says numbers are down for football. I haven't seen one.

Thanks for sharing the report. I will note the report is 2 years old and for the high school level. This is something that will start from the bottom up. Fewer kids over the next couple years playing football will increase to few middle school players in 3-4 years and fewer high school players in 5-8 years. It won't be immediate but it could happen.

I worked with a youth league this summer training their officials and they went from 125 players last year to 75 this year (40% reduction). Based on the feedback they've received, perceived head injuries was the #1 reason. My church had 6 teams last year in the CYO program and this year they only have 5 teams (17% reduction). We had an officiating summit yesterday and others mentioned they were hearing similar things in their area.

We won't see any officials studies for several months because data would have to be compiled.