Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Proposed Rule Changes

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    West Fargo
    Posts
    12,632

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by NDSU1980 View Post
    Well you could ask him first to please just lay down.
    Or not...……………………….


  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,507

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Vet70 View Post
    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.

    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.

  3. #43
    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
    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.
    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.

  4. #44
    GSUsTALON's Avatar
    GSUsTALON is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Saint Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    1,059

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.
    Georgia Southern Spread Option Football - Out weighed but seldom out played! Of course, GSU doesn’t run the Spread anymore – but still!

    If I want your opinion I’ll tell you what it should be! wwwGSUFANS.com (TALON TALK) Go Bison

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,507

    Talking Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by GSUsTALON View Post
    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

  6. #46
    GSUsTALON's Avatar
    GSUsTALON is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Saint Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    1,059

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by southcliffbison View Post
    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! ;-)
    Georgia Southern Spread Option Football - Out weighed but seldom out played! Of course, GSU doesn’t run the Spread anymore – but still!

    If I want your opinion I’ll tell you what it should be! wwwGSUFANS.com (TALON TALK) Go Bison

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,507

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by GSUsTALON View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    8,532

    Default Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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/2021/03/1...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.

Posting Permissions

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