Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Proposed Rule Changes

  1. #1
    IndyBison's Avatar
    IndyBison is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,633

    Default Proposed Rule Changes

    https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...ting-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

  2. #2
    23Bison's Avatar
    23Bison is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Turtle Mountains
    Posts
    3,239

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Suspending a player for a game after their second targeting call in a season is BS.
    Run the damn ball!! PRO FBS

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    520

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,749

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by 23Bison View Post
    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
    When it's third and ten, you can take the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -Max McGee

    “I really thought you had to run the football to control the game,” Erhardt once said. “You had to throw the football to score but had to run the football to win.” - Ron Erhardt

  5. #5
    IndyBison's Avatar
    IndyBison is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,633

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by westnodak93bison View Post
    Agree. Things happen so fast I still think most targeting fouls are not intentional.

    Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
    I 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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    26,988

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    FCS Title Town
    Posts
    8,671

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by EC8CH View Post
    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.
    The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    Paul Fix
    .

  8. #8
    IndyBison's Avatar
    IndyBison is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,633

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Vet70 View Post
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    FCS Title Town
    Posts
    8,671

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    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.
    The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
    Paul Fix
    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    25,221

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by 23Bison View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •