Proposed Rule Changes

[IndyBison]

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-rules-committee-proposes-modifying-targeting-protocols

These are not approved yet but the rules committee approved them as proposals. The rules committee is made of coaches and administrators so these aren't coming from any officials.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[23Bison]

Suspending a player for a game after their second targeting call in a season is BS.

[Greta Van Herd]

Why wasn't this posted in the "Snowflake Football Rules" thread? It certainly fits. :facepalm:

[westnodak93bison]

Suspending a player for a game after their second targeting call in a season is BS.Agree. Things happen so fast I still think most targeting fouls are not intentional.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Agree. Things happen so fast I still think most targeting fouls are not intentional.

Sent from my SM-G965U using TapatalkI would argue the opposite. There are more hits that have the indicators but aren't fouls (and aren't called) than those incorrectly called. Ultimately what they are trying to do on tackles is to get them to wrap up rather than hit. If you approach the runner with your head or shoulder to hit them rather than just tackle them you are more likely to commit targeting. That behavior doesn't seem to have changed.

The blind side block rule will likely eliminate targeting on blocks because that's when most targeting fouls occur on blocks.

Targeting isn't that common anyway. How many do the Bison have in a season? Maybe 2 or 3 at most? I don't get to watch enough games to know.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[EC8CH]

Need a targeting 1 and 2 rule like technicals in basketball. If contact is due solely to bad form by defender then suspensions. If motion outside of defenders control creates contact then just yardage. My two cents.

[Vet70]

Need a targeting 1 and 2 rule like technicals in basketball. If contact is due solely to bad form by defender then suspensions. If motion outside of defenders control creates contact then just yardage. My two cents.

If a runner lowers his head at the last second and that causes contact I don't think there should even be a penalty.

[IndyBison]

If a runner lowers his head at the last second and that causes contact I don't think there should even be a penalty.It's only a foul if the defender hits him with the crown of his helmet. If the defender initiates with the crown it doesn't matter if he hits the runner in the helmet or the chest or the leg.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Vet70]

It's only a foul if the defender hits him with the crown of his helmet. If the defender initiates with the crown it doesn't matter if he hits the runner in the helmet or the chest or the leg.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Damn your knowledge of the rules. :bow:

[ndsubison1]

Suspending a player for a game after their second targeting call in a season is BS.

It is a bit much and a lot of the penalties are unavoidable to begin with.

Please dont go with the OT proposal.

[IndyBison]

It is a bit much and a lot of the penalties are unavoidable to begin with.

Please dont go with the OT proposal.It's rare for a game to go 5 or more OTs so the impact would be extremely minimal.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[BisonAccountant44]

A full game suspension does seem like a bit much, but the replay requirement to uphold the penalty would also be stronger.

Would the suspension be the rest of the "current" game plus a full game, or would it be a total of 2 halves like now?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[EC8CH]

It's only a foul if the defender hits him with the crown of his helmet. If the defender initiates with the crown it doesn't matter if he hits the runner in the helmet or the chest or the leg.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I thought any forcible impact to an opponent's head or neck could be considered targeting? Didn't think it required using the crown of the helmet to initiate the contact?

[IndyBison]

I thought any forcible impact to an opponent's head or neck could be considered targeting? Didn't think it required using the crown of the helmet to initiate the contact?That requires the opponent to be considered defenseless. Examples include a receiver in the act of completing a catch, a quarterback in the act of throwing or after having thrown a pass or a defender who doesn't see the block coming. The last example will now be a foul for an illegal blind side block whether or not they commit targeting so I think we'll see that even less.

A runner is not considered defenseless unless they are being held up by an opponent or on the ground and can't defend themselves against a hit.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Gully]

It's rare for a game to go 5 or more OTs so the impact would be extremely minimal.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Right, so it's probably not necessary to address it.

[EC8CH]

That requires the opponent to be considered defenseless. Examples include a receiver in the act of completing a catch, a quarterback in the act of throwing or after having thrown a pass or a defender who doesn't see the block coming. The last example will now be a foul for an illegal blind side block whether or not they commit targeting so I think we'll see that even less.

A runner is not considered defenseless unless they are being held up by an opponent or on the ground and can't defend themselves against a hit.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm arguing these defenseless calls would benefit from a two tiered penalty with and without suspension based on if the defender is solely responsible for the illegal contact. These are most of the bang bang plays that happen so fast where a player can find themselves suspended by no real fault of their own other than just trying to make a legal play on the ball.

[IndyBison]

I'm arguing these defenseless calls would benefit from a two tiered penalty with and without suspension based on if the defender is solely responsible for the illegal contact. These are most of the bang bang plays that happen so fast where a player can find themselves suspended by no real fault of their own other than just trying to make a legal play on the ball.That just adds another level of judgement. Rules are almost always better when you can remove judgement rather than add it.

99% of the time if the defender is attempting to wrap up an opponent he won't commit targeting. If he comes flying in just to hit an opponent he is susceptible to committing targeting. That's the behavior that hasn't changed enough and what targeting rules were trying to change.

The joke is the way to get rid of targeting is to take away helmets. You'll see players tackle process change immediately and probably fewer concussions. Rugby players get this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[bisonp]

That just adds another level of judgement. Rules are almost always better when you can remove judgement rather than add it.

99% of the time if the defender is attempting to wrap up an opponent he won't commit targeting. If he comes flying in just to hit an opponent he is susceptible to committing targeting. That's the behavior that hasn't changed enough and what targeting rules were trying to change.

The joke is the way to get rid of targeting is to take away helmets. You'll see players tackle process change immediately and probably fewer concussions. Rugby players get this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Rugby players have a 75% higher rate of catastrophic injuries. They have the same issues with concussions and CTE.

[EC8CH]

That just adds another level of judgement. Rules are almost always better when you can remove judgement rather than add it.

99% of the time if the defender is attempting to wrap up an opponent he won't commit targeting. If he comes flying in just to hit an opponent he is susceptible to committing targeting. That's the behavior that hasn't changed enough and what targeting rules were trying to change.

The joke is the way to get rid of targeting is to take away helmets. You'll see players tackle process change immediately and probably fewer concussions. Rugby players get this.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

When removing a player from a game, a second layer of judgement seems justified, at least to me anyway.

Reading the article I'm not sure exactly what the changes are. Apparently review can now either confirm or overturn a targeting call? Still think there are cases were targeting technically occurs, but ejection isn't warranted due to circumstances outside the offending players control. Doesn't sound like that is addressed by proposed rule changes.

[BadlandsBison]

Rugby players have a 75% higher rate of catastrophic injuries. They have the same issues with concussions and CTE.

Yes, rugby is having its own set of issues with concussions right now.

Here's a suggestion, throw the head coach out of the game along with the player for a flagrant targeting. That way coaches will actually try and teach their players to wrap up.

I'm guessing most head coaches are guys with offensive backgrounds and would rather see the rules help goose the spread offenses in college football these days.

[ndsubison1]

It's rare for a game to go 5 or more OTs so the impact would be extremely minimal.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Why would that excuse it?

[THEsocalledfan]

Ultimately what they are trying to do on tackles is to get them to wrap up rather than hit. If you approach the runner with your head or shoulder to hit them rather than just tackle them you are more likely to commit targeting. That behavior doesn't seem to have changed.k

Hold on there, Indy. Correct tackling technique IS to hit the player with your shoulder, drive through the player, and wrap up. That is a good tackle, not targeting. You cannot wrap someone from the side with your arms and make a tackle......

[IndyBison]

Hold on there, Indy. Correct tackling technique IS to hit the player with your shoulder, drive through the player, and wrap up. That is a good tackle, not targeting. You cannot wrap someone from the side with your arms and make a tackle......90% of targeting fouls on a tackle involve a defender trying to hit or blow up the offensive player mostly with the shoulder. They usually aren't wrapping up. They become a missile or Superman trying to hit someone rather than tackling. That's where the head becomes a force in the hit. What you describe very rarely results in targeting.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Why would that excuse it?It's not a major impact to the game because there might only be 3 or 4 games at all levels per season that get to a fifth OT. In 10 years of college officiating I haven't had 5 OT combined in all my games. This is just a way to shorten those rare games that go that far.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

When removing a player from a game, a second layer of judgement seems justified, at least to me anyway.

Reading the article I'm not sure exactly what the changes are. Apparently review can now either confirm or overturn a targeting call? Still think there are cases were targeting technically occurs, but ejection isn't warranted due to circumstances outside the offending players control. Doesn't sound like that is addressed by proposed rule changes.Today when targeting goes to replay you could have a decision of "stands". That means there wasn't enough information to overturn but it also wasn't enough to confirm. When that happened the player was still ejected and the penalty enforced. Now it's either confirmed of overturned. The "stands" situation will now be an overturn.

The suspension for the second offense in a season I assume will be for the entirety of the next game. It may have already been a half of it happened in the second half, but now it will be for the entire game regardless of when it happened.

NAIA makes it a full game suspension for targeting at any time. A player could lose nearly 2 gates if he's guilty of targeting early on the game.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[EC8CH]

Today when targeting goes to replay you could have a decision of "stands". That means there wasn't enough information to overturn but it also wasn't enough to confirm. When that happened the player was still ejected and the penalty enforced. Now it's either confirmed of overturned. The "stands" situation will now be an overturn.

The suspension for the second offense in a season I assume will be for the entirety of the next game. It may have already been a half of it happened in the second half, but now it will be for the entire game regardless of when it happened.

NAIA makes it a full game suspension for targeting at any time. A player could lose nearly 2 gates if he's guilty of targeting early on the game.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like a little give and take regarding increased review and increased penalties.

[westnodak93bison]

Hold on there, Indy. Correct tackling technique IS to hit the player with your shoulder, drive through the player, and wrap up. That is a good tackle, not targeting. You cannot wrap someone from the side with your arms and make a tackle......Expecting a defensive player to make a perfect form tackle every time is ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Twincitybizon]

90% of targeting fouls on a tackle involve a defender trying to hit or blow up the offensive player mostly with the shoulder. They usually aren't wrapping up. They become a missile or Superman trying to hit someone rather than tackling. That's where the head becomes a force in the hit. What you describe very rarely results in targeting.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

A lot of those type of plays happen farther away from the line of scrimmage. Meaning players are moving much faster. Plus recurves often tuck and lower their body at the last minute which lowers the contact zone. Your version of a perfect wrap up tackle cannot happen at all angles and maximum speeds

[HerdBot]

Suspending a player for a game after their second targeting call in a season is BS.

Wow so lame.

[IndyBison]

Expecting a defensive player to make a perfect form tackle every time is ridiculous.

Sent from my SM-G965U using TapatalkNot a perfect form tackle. Just attempt to make a form tackle. Most targeting involves a defender going on to make a hit rather than a tackle. Not all hits result in targeting but they are asking for trouble.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[ndsubison1]

It's not a major impact to the game because there might only be 3 or 4 games at all levels per season that get to a fifth OT. In 10 years of college officiating I haven't had 5 OT combined in all my games. This is just a way to shorten those rare games that go that far.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

And still dumb. Like baseball adding runners in extra innings after a certain inning

[RonMexico]

Ultimately what they are trying to do on tackles is to get them to wrap up rather than hit. If you approach the runner with your head or shoulder to hit them rather than just tackle them you are more likely to commit targeting. That behavior doesn't seem to have changed.

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckbGl3O5ooM

[TAILG8R]

That is a video of a perfect tackle. If that's targeting we might as well get used to football going the way of basketball. Expect scores to start creeping into the 70s on a regular basis.


If the home teams gets to 100 free fries for everyone in attendance. NDSU used to do something like this at basketball games when I was a kid.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Christopher Moen]

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckbGl3O5ooM

Apparently the second part of the targeting rule was being enforced on that play: https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2015/12/26/10668750/nebraska-ucla-targeting-foster-farms-bowl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vet70]

Apparently the second part of the targeting rule was being enforced on that play: https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2015/12/26/10668750/nebraska-ucla-targeting-foster-farms-bowl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you can't hit the player who catches the ball because he is defenseless and you have to let him run and gain yardage first? :facepalm:

[NDSU1980]

So you can't hit the player who catches the ball because he is defenseless and you have to let him run and gain yardage first? :facepalm:

Well you could ask him first to please just lay down.

[Christopher Moen]

So you can't hit the player who catches the ball because he is defenseless and you have to let him run and gain yardage first? :facepalm:

You would have to ask the officials on the field and those in review booth that question. Also, keep in mind this play happened in 2015. Targeting rules might have changed since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vet70]

You would have to ask the officials on the field and those in review booth that question. Also, keep in mind this play happened in 2015. Targeting rules might have changed since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nope. August 30, 2018:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14): A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

Maybe it is only a couple of steps to establish the player as a ball carrier but it still seems wrong to me.

[IndyBison]

Apparently the second part of the targeting rule was being enforced on that play: https://www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-football/2015/12/26/10668750/nebraska-ucla-targeting-foster-farms-bowl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That article is correctly capturing the portion of the rule that was applied here. That doesn't mean it was correctly applied. 2015 was year 3 of the targeting rule. The rule itself hasn't changed much but philosophy has evolved some over time. I believe by 2015 forceful was a key part of the philosophy, but I don't remember for sure. This is one where technically the defender met the criteria, but I don't think this would be supported either then or now. I vaguely remember this may have been included on a training video the following summer.

IMO this should not be called for targeting and probably shouldn't have been called in 2015 either.

The definition of defenseless in this case correlates to the catch/no catch rule. Once he completes the process of the catch he becomes a runner and is no longer defenseless. If this hit caused the ball to come loose it would have been ruled incomplete so the receiver is considered defenseless. You can definitely still hit him. You just can't target him. In addition to the crown version of targeting, you can't initiate forcible contact to the head or neck area of the receiver with any part of your body (i.e. helmet, shoulder, forearm). He probably could have aimed a little lower, but the helmet contact appears to be incidental because of the wrap up hit.

[Elvis was a Bison]

And you wonder why there is a shortage of people willing to become athletic officials. The "rule makers" have become so much in love with their tweaks to the game that they make it impossible for the average joe to know what is legal and what isn't. Why would anyone want to put themselves under the microscope and be the judge and jury on every fricking tackle made on a receiver or returner. Football is being killed by "over-legislation", and it's just a matter of time before we will be mourning the death of the game we all love.

[IzzyFlexion]

Well you could ask him first to please just lay down.

Or not...……………………….


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOFQkkwqpEE

[southcliffbison]

Nope. August 30, 2018:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14): A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

Maybe it is only a couple of steps to establish the player as a ball carrier but it still seems wrong to me.


That player in the vid is Nate Gerry, Sioux Falls Washington grad who played college at Nebraska and, currently, starting OLB for the Eagles (also has a SB ring). Apparently he has adopted the rules and is having a successful pro career. My point is...…..accept the rules as they are written and move on. I particularly don't agree with some the targeting rule aspects, but they are what they are.

[IndyBison]

Nope. August 30, 2018:
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14): A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

Maybe it is only a couple of steps to establish the player as a ball carrier but it still seems wrong to me.

Correct. The rule hasn't changed much since it was first introduced in 2012. The 2 key rules have always existed:

Initiating with crown of helmet
Forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless player

The forcible part may have been added in year 2 or 3 because there were several instances where any contact to the head or neck of a defenseless player was flagged. Common sense said that was too much. The indiciators (Note 1 in the article) were always part of the philosophy as it was being taught, but they added them specifically to the rule book somewhere along the line. When reviewing video and looking at these in real time you want to determine if any of these indicators happened. If you look at the original Nebraska play, you don't have any of those indicators there.

One thing that has changed over time is the definition of defenseless. Keep in mind this is not the dictionary definition. When the rule book defines a word that definition stays with it any time it's used. A couple years ago passers after a change of possession and kickers through the end of the down are defenseless by definition even if they are pursuing and participating in the play. You can still hit them and block them, but if you initiate forcible contact to their head or neck area it is targeting. The same wouldn't be true if you did this to the guard or wide out (not including blind side hits or hits away from the play). I think it was because a Georgia QB was obliterated by a block that was definitely head hunting but he wasn't out of the play and it wasn't with the crown of the helmet, and he saw the hit coming so it wasn't a foul at the time. The coaches on the rules committee must have decided QBs and Ks needed a little extra protection.

This is probably the first major change in the targeting rule since it started 6 years ago.

[GSUsTALON]

The long-term effect of multiple or even one severe concussion can end a player’s career & even more important the brain damage can affect his school work and affect the players life long term. I received a double concussion, it severely affected my short-term memory & I got to the point it was hard for me to do the most basic of tasks. I waited 5 months before seeing a neurologist. At first, I thought I'd snap out of it, but as time went as I became worse, I just didn't think about it. I'm lucky I went in when I did. The Neurologist said that after 1 year it would be as good as I would get. I took medication to heel the brain, but I still can see it has had a long-term effect on me.

[southcliffbison]

The long-term effect of multiple or even one severe concussion can end a player’s career & even more important the brain damage can affect his school work and affect the players life long term. I received a double concussion, it severely affected my short-term memory & I got to the point it was hard for me to do the most basic of tasks. I waited 5 months before seeing a neurologist. At first, I thought I'd snap out of it, but as time went as I became worse, I just didn't think about it. I'm lucky I went in when I did. The Neurologist said that after 1 year it would be as good as I would get. I took medication to heel the brain, but I still can see it has had a long-term effect on me.

One of the long term effects must be that of posting on a rival's fan board......JK

[GSUsTALON]

One of the long term effects must be that of posting on a rival's fan board......JK

No, it's just you needing guidance. THANK ME LATTER!

By the way, thanks for giving me a thumbs up on a double concussion and recovery. It was an experience that I hope you don't have to have, but I doubt it will hurt your intellect any! ;-)

[southcliffbison]

No, it's just you needing guidance. THANK ME LATTER!

By the way, thanks for giving me a thumbs up on a double concussion and recovery. It was an experience that I hope you don't have to have, but I doubt it will hurt your intellect any! ;-)

Ahhhh, ouch..... got to be careful what I type now...…..if posting on BV helps in your recovery and dealing with lingering issues and inner turmoil, I say GO FOR It, Son !!!! Trying to be helpful here...…...just saying.

[Professor Chaos]

Kind of weird to be thinking about this in the middle of a season but some interesting new OT rules were proposed by the NCAA rules committee for consideration for the 2021 (fall) season: https://www.si.com/college/2021/03/12/ncaa-rules-panel-recommends-shorten-overtime-games

In short they propose that teams are required to go for 2 in the 2nd OT (currently they don't have to until the 3rd OT) and if it's still tied after two OTs it goes to a 2 pt conversion shootout. Not really sure what to make of these proposed OT changes... they seem exciting but also a little XFL-y. But I also didn't realize that currently after 5 OTs they go to 2 pt shootouts.

If they do implement these rules the Bison have more practice at 2 pt conversions than anyone else out there! Of course most of their 2 pt-ers come from an XP personnel grouping which wouldn't really work if these OT changes are adopted.

Also discussed in the article is some proposed changes around players faking injuries, enforcing taunting, uniform violations, and enforcing unsportsmanlike conduct.