Proposed Rule Changes

[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?

[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?

Apparently the second part of the targeting rule was being enforced on that play: https://www.sbnation.com/platform/am...ter-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/am...ter-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?

[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?

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?

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-foo...-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/am...ter-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.