NCAA approves rule ejecting players for targeting

Cynical of me, maybe, but probably a move by the NCAA to protect themselves from concussion lawsuits.  

So is State not allowed to wear Green jerseys or pants anymore?

??

Like Boise State can hide on the smurf turf anymore when coaches are trying to watch game film

I guarantee the ejection rule is going to cause problems.  NCAA officials aren't good enough to enforce this rule properly.  Heck, NFL officials aren't either for that matter.

"jersey and pant colors must be different from the field of play"

So, no one can wear green anymore?   (Or blue for Boise St.)

This is odd.   I never knew there was a "camouflage" problem in football

Today is the last day to Vote for Denard!

http://www.facebook.com/questions/10151454940472280/

http://www.facebook.com/easportsncaafootball

Denard was winning by a lot and now he's only up by 9,000 votes. Come on people we can't lose this in the final day!

So if the 15 yard penalty is assessed the ejection is automatic? No instances where it is just the penalty? Ouch, man.

My mistake: 

In other action, the oversight panel denied the Football Rules Committee’s proposal to require an institution’s jersey or pant color to be different from the field of play, citing concerns that it did not enhance the image of the game.

I was working quickly and I knew that the rule had been proposed, but I missed the keyword (denied).

Hmmm, not sure if I like the run off penalties

so the refs will automatically take off 3 seconds for a spike even if it takes less time? seems to reduce the effectiveness but will hopefully end those clockgate-esque situations at the end of games.

I think the ejection rule will cause some big issues, especially if it occurs in the 2nd half of a minor game and the player is out a half for a big game the next week. I don't know if this would have affected us any last year but i know if it happens this year i'll be super pissed about it. I can see what they are going for with the rule, emphasizing player saftey and all that, but it seems like it is going to cause more pissed off fans since many of those defenseless reciever calls are "bang bang plays" and even with review some ref is gonna screw it up because he is human and its going to be a shit show for whoever gets screwed by the rule.

Also: “Jerseys must have clearly visible, permanent Arabic numerals measuring at least 8 and 10 inches in height front and back, respectively, and be of one solid color that itself is clearly in distinct contrast with the color of the jersey, irrespective of any border around the number.”

Would this have affected our Outback bowl unis, I wonder? That would be OK with me.

This new rule of ejecting a player for "targeting" is going to factor in to a few games this Fall.  Refs are going to throw the flag on any big lick from a DB.  Then they'll go to review and they'll error on the side of caution because that's what they do, and the kid will get ejected.  And if the unlucky player gets flagged in the 2nd half, he'll be suspended for the following game.

Can you imagine one of our safeties getting flagged in the 2nd half of the Iowa game, then having to sit out the OSU game too?

I don't like this.  I don't like it at all.

The replay official must have conclusive evidence that a player should not be ejected to overturn the call on the field. 

We're talking about intent.  What is "conclusive evidence" of intent?

...this uniform rule was adopted:

To clarify uniform rules as follows: “Jerseys must have clearly visible, permanent Arabic numerals measuring at least 8 and 10 inches in height front and back, respectively, and be of one solid color that itself is clearly in distinct contrast with the color of the jersey, irrespective of any border around the number.” This rule goes into effect for Football Bowl Subdivision teams in 2013. Football Championship Subdivision, Division II and Division III teams will have until 2014 before the rule becomes effective.

So, no football versions of Michigan's basketball "All Yellows" (purposeful usage) are allowed.

Edit: Dnak made a similar comment while I was creating mine, so kudos to him.

I think two seconds left at the snap is enough time to spike the ball. Three seems like a little much.

I don't know if I've ever actually seen targeting called.  Do they announce targeting, or just "personal foul"?  I (obviously) recall hearing "Personal foul - facemask" or "Roughing the passer", etc. but I can't ever recall hearing 'targeting'.

The rule is that either the pants or jerseys must clearly contrast from the field of play.
Edit: Nevermind. I didn't realize they shot down that rule.

this implys intent (or does it apply to any hit to the head regardless if the player intended to do it or not).  Seems like it would be hard sometimes, to determin if it was intentional or not.

If you have the ESPN Radio app or go on to the ESPN website, check out Ivan Maisel podcast from 2 weeks ago ( it's the only 1). He had the coach of Navy on who was the head of the Oversight Committee. They discuss all of the rule changes, including uniforms and targeting. The podcast change my opinion on the rules, I agree with majority of them now.

Hope there's more clarification on that injury run off rule. I'd hate to see a team screwed because an opponent uses it to their advantage. There's not much clarification in the link.

Doesn't take 3 seconds to spike the ball........

I'm sure that someone at Adidas is pissed that they can't break out Roman numerals. Talk about throwbacks...



Also, I wonder if the football 'targeting' reviews will become as useless/toothless as the BB ones.

I thought this might be worth sharing only because it is the only attempt I can find readily available that attempts to give this the context of how many times we could expect to see this.

In an article from last month, when this was still a proposal, ESPN talked to Troy Calhoun at Air Force (LINK) and here's what he had to say:

"Last season, Calhoun said, there were 99 targeting penalties called in the Football Bowl Subdivision that, under the proposed rule, would have called for an ejection. He said the player on the receiving end of the hit in many cases sustained a concussion or other type of injury that caused him to miss significant playing time. "

I have not yet been able to find a reliable source of penalties by type (I'll place it here if I do), but if that is correct, then it probably has the potential to affect key games somewhere down the line. It's rough math, but if you assumed for a second that there was one such targeting call in 99 separate games, then given the whole of the FBS, you're talking about 5-6% of the games played in regular seasons alone (doing this on my fingers basically, so I could be off), which doesn't seem entirely insignificant.

Would the epic 1997 hit involving Daydrion Taylor and Bob Stephenson have called for an ejection?  It was of course moot in the case of both players, who never played again.  But under the new rules, and not knowing that Taylor would be physically incapable of returning to the game, would the referees have called a penalty on Taylor and ejected him?  And if he had been "ejected," would Taylor be forever branded and condemned as having committed a dirty hit on Stephenson?

now we see why Gholston is really leaving msu.