Proposed Rule Changes

[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.