🏈 NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel updates.

[RTB X Bot]

 

[BAMANEWSBOT]

Football Rules Committee approves proposals to enhance player safety

The NCAA Football Rules Committee has approved several proposals to enhance student-athlete safety and allow electronic devices in some areas of stadiums for coaching purposes.

The committee, which wrapped up its four-day meeting today in Orlando, Florida, will distribute all of its proposals for NCAA membership comment next week before forwarding the proposals for consideration by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on March 8. If approved, the changes would be implemented in the 2016 season.

The football committee held its annual meeting in Orlando this year to coincide with the NCAA Sports Science Institute’s football summit. The summit provided an opportunity to share information and ideas about ways to improve the health and safety aspects of the sport.

After reviewing numerous video examples and receiving strong feedback on its annual rules survey, the committee voted to expand the authority of the instant replay official, requiring them to review all aspects of targeting fouls. Additionally, the instant replay official will be able to stop the game and create a targeting foul in situations where an egregious action has occurred.

In a small number of cases, the committee believed players were incorrectly disqualified from games. The elements of targeting that replay officials will watch for include launching and forcible contact to the head, among other factors.

“The targeting rule is serving the game well, and has enhanced player safety,” said Bob Nielson, chair of the committee and head coach at the University of South Dakota. “Because this is such a severe penalty, we are instructing replay officials to review plays to ensure that the required elements of targeting exist. We are also adding the ability for the replay official to stop the game when a potential targeting foul is not detected on the field.”

After a yearlong review of technology items, the committee also voted to allow electronic devices to be used for coaching purposes in the press box and locker room during the game. However, that equipment will still be prohibited on the sideline, in the team area or on the field. The committee will continue monitoring the use of those devices next year in addition to other potential technology enhancements it believes could improve the game.

The rules dealing with ineligible receivers downfield also were discussed at length. Ultimately, the committee decided to instruct officials to stringently enforce the 3-yard limit and adjust officiating mechanics to better officiate those plays.

Three additional adjustments were approved to enhance student-athlete safety:

• First, the rules dealing with low blocks were adjusted to prohibit a player who leaves the tackle box from blocking below the waist toward the initial position of the ball.
• Second, the rules pertaining to a defenseless player will include a ball carrier who has clearly given himself up by sliding feet first.
• Finally, the deliberate tripping of the ball carrier (with the leg) was approved as a foul.

“These rules changes reflect the continuing effort by the committee to simplify rules and better protect student-athletes,” Nielson said.

Football Rules Committee approves proposals to enhance player safety

 

[TerryP]

First, the rules dealing with low blocks were adjusted to prohibit a player who leaves the tackle box from blocking below the waist toward the initial position of the ball.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. "Towards the initial position of the ball?" Is that suppose to mean where the ball was spotted, pre-snap? To me, this reads ambiguously.

Additionally, the instant replay official will be able to stop the game and create a targeting foul in situations where an egregious action has occurred.

I DON'T know how I feel about this one. I'm left wondering if they can stop the game for a missed targeting foul, how long before the replay booth is calling PI penalties? If they allow this for targeting, why not for illegal men downfield?

I'm all for getting the calls correct, but I'm not sure this accomplishes their desired goal.

 

[MacLittle13]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. "Towards the initial position of the ball?" Is that suppose to mean where the ball was spotted, pre-snap? To me, this reads ambiguously.

I think it means that you can't block below the waist toward the football...meaning, if you are on the left side of the line, you cannot block low going right and conversely if you are on the right. I could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

EDIT--

I read it again and had missed the "player who has left the tackle box" part...I agree, it's confusing. To me, it sounds like the are creating a rule for a rule that already exists...clipping.

 

[rammerjammer]

I think what would alleviate some issue here is to go with what the NFL does. Make it a 1 yard rule. Much easier to see/call and will eliminate some of the "misses" on this call illegal man down field.

 

[mhardiman]

Another thing I think they should look at with the targeting/ helmet to helmet rule is that it could go both ways. I've seen a couple times where the ball carrier will lower his head, the defender makes a perfect form tackle but make helmet to helmet contact, officials call the defender on it, and it stands after review. What do you want the defender to do? It wasn't his fault; let the rule go both ways and call it on who's at fault.

 

[TerryP]

I read it again and had missed the "player who has left the tackle box" part...I agree, it's confusing

It was those seven words that threw me as well. I'm trying to picture different scenarios and the more I do, the more clouded the picture becomes.

 

[Che Boludo]

Ultimately, the committee decided to instruct officials to stringently enforce the 3-yard limit and adjust officiating mechanics to better officiate those plays.

At what cost to other fouls/calls?

The Big 12 has been the most active in addressing this issue. They came to the conclusion that another on field ref was needed to ensure the adjusted ref alignment and focus on the 3-yd rule didn't come at the expense of other cues during the play.

It will interesting to watch it play out, but I like the extra ref idea better.

 

[Sgt. Lincoln Osiris]

At what cost to other fouls/calls?

The Big 12 has been the most active in addressing this issue. They came to the conclusion that another on field ref was needed to ensure the adjusted ref alignment and focus on the 3-yd rule didn't come at the expense of other cues during the play.

It will interesting to watch it play out, but I like the extra ref idea better.

The SEC did actually add an extra on-field official this past season...

Sent from my ASUS ZenFone 2E using Tapatalk

 

[Che Boludo]

The SEC did actually add an extra on-field official this past season...

Sent from my ASUS ZenFone 2E using Tapatalk

Really? Not sure how I didn't notice that.

Where did they place him?

 

[TerryP]

Where did they place him?

The title of the new official is Center Judge. He's lined up in the offensive backfield, opposite the referee, and his responsibility was spotting the ball and watching substitutions.

I didn't read over what the Big12 had as its intent with the new official. Steve Shaw said it revolved around the offensive pace of play in the SEC—not a mention about illegal receivers downfield. The official that has the responsibility of the illegal man downfield rule is the Umpire ... a guy that wasn't watching the areas that the new official is responsible for watching.

Personally, I see this "we're going to stringently enforce" mantra as a lot of style but very little substance. It certainly seems to me all they are saying is "the Umpire needs to do his job."

What's interesting to me is the Umpire is supposed to be watching the QB and the line of scrimmage while watching the lineman, while watching for holding calls and illegal blocks ... and if that 'portion' of a sentence didn't leave your head spinning imagine how the Ump's head is "required" to be on a swivel to handle those primary responsibilities. It's my opinion that (calling illegal downfield) needs to be removed from the Ump's duties, or at least shared, with the head linesman or linesman.

 

[Che Boludo]

I didn't read over what the Big12 had as its intent with the new official. Steve Shaw said it revolved around the offensive pace of play in the SEC—not a mention about illegal receivers downfield.

Not sure how I missed the change, but this is an extract of an article last summer from newsok addressing the ineligible receiver rule and a few other rule changes after their media day interview with Big 12 supervisor of officials Walt Anderson.

* All 10 Division I-A conferences will use eight officials per game. The Big 12 pioneered eight officials on an experimental basis

Personally, I see this "we're going to stringently enforce" mantra as a lot of style but very little substance.

Agreed. The same can be deduced from the newsOK article. In spite of having added the extra official, the consensus was that a 1 yd rule was still preferred. As you mentioned, the extra official was borne out of necessity to address the games evolving pace of play. The Big 12 officials had the same idea, but had highlighted the ineligible receiver rule and current tendencies by some teams to use that play as only further complicating reads for on field officials.

As you indicated, the officials eyes are already busy, so without changing the rule to simplify the call, they haven't effectively done anything. As I said, adding focus to this play comes at what cost to other areas as the officials redefine their mechanics and reads.

On further review, it's a headache that even the extra official hasn't alleviated. Again, going back to the Big 12 official who has been addressing the issue longer:

“The difficulty is the umpire has to make the assessment,” Anderson said. “It’s just a tough read for him. We don't want umpires watching quarterbacks. That's the referee’s and the center judge's responsibility. But like defensive holding on receivers, the deep wing officials, they see defensive holding, they're taught to look back to the quarterback. If the ball is in the airway to some other part of the field, it's not a foul. If the quarterback still has the ball, then he's got a flag for defensive holding.

“These are a number of two‑step processes. They're difficult to work. We've got to continue to work to get better at it. You'll see and read about, maybe you've even talked to the coaches, it's a point of emphasis for both sides. Whether or not it gets considered again next year for a rule change or not, there will be a lot of debate about it, rest assured.”

If they won't adjust the call to the NFL standard of 1 yd, maybe the easiest course is to allow it to be a reviewable call. As it stands, like holding, it's just going to be a part of the game with all hoping that the missed calls for and against your team even out in the aggregate with the made calls.

 

[TerryP]

the officials eyes are already busy, so without changing the rule to simplify the call, they haven't effectively done anything.

That's what leaves me shaking my head. After the proposal was tabled in 2015, the rules committee's instructions were "call it more tightly." Now, it's "call it more stringently." What's the difference?

I can understand the confusion that comes with holding after having it explained to me by a guy who used to call SEC games. But, three yards from the line of scrimmage isn't arbitrary. It's not a judgment call.

I'm reminded of the intro to the Six Million Dollar man; "we have the technology." We see the LOS and the 1st down marked imposed over the screen during plays. Considering these replay officials are also looking at TV screens while they are doing their job, it does lead me to believe making it a reviewable call may be an answer. That wouldn't take more than a couple of seconds.

One thing I do find a little amusing is two of the coaches that were vehemently opposed to the change of the rule happened to be Freeze and Malzhan. How much respect do you think they hold now? (Outside of your Cliff Kingsbury's off the collegiate football world.)

 

[UAgrad93]

That's what leaves me shaking my head. After the proposal was tabled in 2015, the rules committee's instructions were "call it more tightly." Now, it's "call it more stringently." What's the difference?

I can understand the confusion that comes with holding after having it explained to me by a guy who used to call SEC games. But, three yards from the line of scrimmage isn't arbitrary. It's not a judgment call.

I'm reminded of the intro to the Six Million Dollar man; "we have the technology." We see the LOS and the 1st down marked imposed over the screen during plays. Considering these replay officials are also looking at TV screens while they are doing their job, it does lead me to believe making it a reviewable call may be an answer. That wouldn't take more than a couple of seconds.

One thing I do find a little amusing is two of the coaches that were vehemently opposed to the change of the rule happened to be Freeze and Malzhan. How much respect do you think they hold now? (Outside of your Cliff Kingsbury's off the collegiate football world.)

Kingsbury even thinks they are D.I.C.K.s!!!

 

[planomateo]

Some interesting changes for the upcoming season. Glad they have agreed to stringently enforce the 3-yd ineligible man downfield.


----------------------------------------------------------

College football: NCAA to expand replay officials' authority on targeting fouls

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved expanding instant replay officials’ authority regarding targeting fouls in football and authorized electronic devices for coaching purposes in some areas of stadiums.

The panel, which met Tuesday via conference call, agreed to allow the instant replay official to stop the game and create a targeting foul in situations where an egregious action occurred and was missed by on-field officials. Instant replay officials also are required to review all aspects of targeting fouls called by an on-field official.

The NCAA Football Rules Committee believes players were incorrectly disqualified from games in a small number of cases last season. The elements of targeting that replay officials will watch for include launching and forcible contact to the head, among other factors.

Panel members also approved the use of electronic devices for coaching purposes in the press box and locker room during the game. However, that equipment will still be prohibited on the sidelines, in the team areas and on the field. Additionally, the home institution is responsible for ensuring identical television capability and identical video and Internet connectivity in the coaches’ booths of both teams.

The Football Rules Committee will continue monitoring the use of those devices in the 2016 season in addition to other potential technology enhancements it believes could improve the game.

Three additional adjustments were approved to enhance student-athlete safety:

• The rules dealing with low blocks were adjusted to prohibit a player who leaves the tackle box from blocking below the waist toward the initial position of the ball.
• The rules pertaining to a defenseless player will include a ball carrier who has clearly given himself up by sliding feet first.
• The deliberate tripping of the ball carrier (with the leg) was approved as a foul.

Additionally, the Football Rules Committee will instruct officials to stringently enforce the 3-yard limit regarding ineligible receivers downfield and adjust officiating mechanics to better officiate plays.

A proposal to allow teams to extend one charged timeout by 30 seconds in each half was tabled by the panel for further discussion. The panel would like to receive comment from the Division I Football Oversight Committee before considering this proposal and will review the proposal in time for the 2016 season.

 

[TerryP]

and adjust officiating mechanics to better officiate plays.

@Che Boludo There's that phrase again ...

 

[94 Grad]

.... this will be interesting if it really get's enforced...

Three additional adjustments were approved to enhance student-athlete safety:

The rules dealing with low blocks were adjusted to prohibit a player who leaves the tackle box from blocking below the waist toward the initial position of the ball.

The rules pertaining to a defenseless player will include a ball carrier who has clearly given himself up by sliding feet first.

The deliberate tripping of the ball carrier (with the leg) was approved as a foul.

Additionally, the Football Rules Committee will instruct officials to stringently enforce the 3-yard limit regarding ineligible receivers downfield and adjust officiating mechanics to better officiate plays.

It will severely hinder teams like alburn that rely on the deception of the Oline blocking downfield... This is one rule I'd love to see enforced strictly... There needs to be some balance between the O and D in field play, and with the quick tempo teams that balance is removed. This would go a long way to bring some balance back.

Also, I see a lot more of the QB's being trained and instructed to slide feet first now... it's really hard to pull up on a hit to the QB when he decides to slide (I don't mean the big bad blow, but the little love taps from falling on the player) and I expect to see some ejections for this type of hit due to this rule going into place.

 

[mrchase]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one. "Towards the initial position of the ball?" Is that suppose to mean where the ball was spotted, pre-snap? To me, this reads ambiguously.

I could be wrong but when I see it, I see it as a situation where....... For example. Take Drakes kickoff return and make it a regular running play. Then take the guy that almost caught him at the end.....and say Mullaney was in position to block him, but instead of blocking high he went for his legs.

Very well could be wrong but that type of play is the only thing I can think of.