Home
i'm an actor, not a reactor

Primary links

  • About
    • $upport (lol)
    • Ethics
    • FAQ
    • Glossary
    • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • MGoStore
    • Hail to Old Blue
  • MGoBoard
    • MGoBoard FAQ
    • Michigan bar locator
    • Moderator Action Sticky
  • Useful Stuff
    • Depth Chart By Class
    • Hoops Depth Chart by Class
    • 2017 Recruiting Board
    • Unofficial Two Deep
    • MGoFlickr
    • Diaries, Windows Live Writer, And You
    • User-Curated HOF
    • Where To Eat In Ann Arbor
  • Schedule/Tix
    • Future Schedules (wiki)
    • Ticket spreadsheet
Home Forums MGoBoard

Navigation

  • Forums
  • Recent posts

User login

  • Create new account
  • Request new password

MGoElsewhere

  • @MGoBlog (Brian)
  • @aceanbender
  • @Misopogon (Seth)
  • @Aeschnepp (Adam)
  • @BISB
  • @EUpchurchPhoto
  • @FullOfTwitt (Fuller)
  • Hail to the Victors 2016
  • MGoFacebook
  • MGoPodcast
  • WTKA
  • Instagram

Michigan Blogs

  • Big House Blog
  • Burgeoning Wolverine Star
  • Genuinely Sarcastic
  • Go Blue Michigan Wolverine
  • Holdin' The Rope
  • MVictors
  • Maize 'n' Blue Nation
  • Maize 'n' Brew
  • Maize And Go Blue
  • Michigan Hockey Net
  • MMMGoBlueBBQ
  • The Blog That Yost Built
  • The Hoover Street Rag
  • The M Zone
  • Touch The Banner
  • UMGoBlog
  • UMHoops
  • UMTailgate
  • Wolverine Liberation Army

M On The Net

  • mgovideo
  • MGoBlue.com
  • Mike DeSimone
  • Recruiting Planet
  • The Wolverine
  • Go Blue Wolverine
  • Winged Helmet
  • UMGoBlue.com
  • MaizeRage.org
  • Puckhead
  • The M Den
  • True Blue Fan Forum

Big Ten Blogs

  • Illinois
    • Illinois Loyalty
    • Illinois Baseball Report
  • Indiana
    • Inside The Hall
    • The Crimson Quarry
  • Iowa
    • Black Heart, Gold Pants
    • Fight For Iowa
  • Michigan State
    • The Only Colors
  • Minnesota
    • GopherHole.com
    • The Daily Gopher
  • Nebraska
    • Corn Nation
    • Husker Max
    • Husker Mike's Blasphemy
    • Husker Gameday
  • Northwestern
    • Sippin' On Purple
    • Lake The Posts
  • Notre Dame
    • The House Rock Built
    • One Foot Down
  • Ohio State
    • Eleven Warriors
    • Buckeye Commentary
    • Men of the Scarlet and Gray
    • Our Honor Defend
    • The Buckeye Nine
  • Penn State
    • Slow States
    • Black Shoe Diaries
    • Happy Valley Hardball
    • Penn State Clips
    • Linebacker U
    • Nittany White Out
  • Purdue
    • Boiled Sports
    • Hammer and Rails
  • Wisconsin
    • Bruce Ciskie

Links of Note

  • Baseball
    • College Baseball Today
    • The College Baseball Blog
  • Basketball
    • Ken Pomeroy
    • Hoop Math
    • John Gasaway
    • Luke Winn/Sports Illustrated
  • College Hockey
    • Chris Heisenberg (Class of 2016)
    • College Hockey Stats
    • Michigan College Hockey
    • Hockey's Future
    • Sioux Sports
    • USCHO
  • Football
    • Smart Football
    • Every Day Should Be Saturday
    • Matt Hinton/Grantland
    • Football Study Hall
    • Football Outsiders
    • Harold Stassen
    • NCAA D-I Stats Page
    • The Wizard Of Odds
    • CFB Stats
  • General
    • Sports Central
  • Local Interest
    • The Ann Arbor Chronicle
    • Arborwiki
    • Arbor Update
    • Ann Arbor Observer
    • Teeter Talk
    • Vacuum
  • Teams Of The D
    • Lions
      • Pride of Detroit
    • Pistons
      • Detroit Bad Boys
      • Need4Sheed
    • Tigers
      • Roar Of The Tigers
      • Bless You Boys
      • The Daily Fungo
      • The Detroit Tigers Weblog
    • Red Wings
      • Winging It In Motown
      • On The Wings
    • Michigan Sports Forum

Beveled Guilt

Site Search

Diaries

  • New
  • Popular
  • Hot
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 3 weeks ago
  • ‹‹
  • 2 of 2
  •  
more
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - April 2008: No Spring Game at the Big House! Hockey loses to ND in the Frozen Four!
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 1,327 views
  • 14 Months Ago: The Fire Beilein Threads.
    stephenrjking - 237 comments
  • This Month in MGoBlog History - April 2008: No Spring Game at the Big House! Hockey loses to ND in the Frozen Four!
    Maize.Blue Wagner - 8 comments

MGoBoard

  • New
  • Recent
  • Hot
  • Rice Commission recommendations to be released today
    9 replies
  • No longer a Michigan fan
    83 replies
  • MBB: Wake Forest grad transfer PG Keyshawn Woods commits to OSU
    9 replies
  • Harmoniously OT: UM Men's Glee Club in AZ
    13 replies
  • Coach B w Andy Katz podcast
    2 replies
  • Michigan Alumni Club Scholarship Golf Tournament featuring Honorary Chair Glen Rice - This Saturday in Miami!
    5 replies
  • Hello? Boring Tuesday POSbang Happy Hour Thread
    113 replies
  • OT: UCL Semi-final First Legs
    14 replies
  • More evidence of awful culture at MSU, volleyball this time
    61 replies
  • OT: Rick Pitino Rumored to be Candidate for Detroit Mercy Job
    79 replies
  • New Jersey DE Aeneas DiCosmo: Prospect we should all want at UM
    55 replies
  • In-state recruiting rankings update
    125 replies
  • A piece of U-M broadcast history ends tonight.
    28 replies
  • Crootin': Joey Velazquez
    78 replies
  • OT: College Football video games coming back
    90 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • No longer a Michigan fan
    83 replies
  • Harmoniously OT: UM Men's Glee Club in AZ
    13 replies
  • Rice Commission recommendations to be released today
    9 replies
  • More evidence of awful culture at MSU, volleyball this time
    61 replies
  • Hello? Boring Tuesday POSbang Happy Hour Thread
    113 replies
  • MBB: Wake Forest grad transfer PG Keyshawn Woods commits to OSU
    9 replies
  • In-state recruiting rankings update
    125 replies
  • Coach B w Andy Katz podcast
    2 replies
  • Michigan Alumni Club Scholarship Golf Tournament featuring Honorary Chair Glen Rice - This Saturday in Miami!
    5 replies
  • OT: Rick Pitino Rumored to be Candidate for Detroit Mercy Job
    79 replies
  • New Jersey DE Aeneas DiCosmo: Prospect we should all want at UM
    55 replies
  • A piece of U-M broadcast history ends tonight.
    28 replies
  • Pep and Partridge Pressers
    11 replies
  • OT: UCL Semi-final First Legs
    14 replies
  • Crootin': Joey Velazquez
    78 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››
  • Belleville coach Jermain Crowell mad at UM again
    244 replies
  • "Being Not-Rich at UM" Guide
    168 replies
  • The Evolution of Commerce - What Industries are Dying, What's Thriving?
    148 replies
  • Pep Hamilton on Shea: Can extend the play, make all the throws, plus other QB's
    129 replies
  • In-state recruiting rankings update
    125 replies
  • OT - Jalen Hurts possibly looking to transfer
    121 replies
  • Notre Dame Spring Game: analysis from M n B, video
    119 replies
  • No additional protest of Shea Patterson appeal by Ole Miss
    113 replies
  • Hello? Boring Tuesday POSbang Happy Hour Thread
    113 replies
  • OT: MSU digs hole deeper, Engler adviser: Nassar survivor's claims of payout 'fake news'
    106 replies
  • Nebraska football
    105 replies
  • OT: Map of college stadiums that sell alcohol
    96 replies
  • Karsen Barnhart - did we cool on him?
    92 replies
  • OT: College Football video games coming back
    90 replies
  • UCF Knights unveil 2017 championship banner
    89 replies
  •  
  • 1 of 6
  • ››

Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

NCAA approves rule ejecting players for targeting

50 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
March 7th, 2013 at 1:36 PM
#1
dnak438
dnak438's picture
Joined: 08/12/2009
MGoPoints: 6956
NCAA approves rule ejecting players for targeting

This is going to be a problem, I think.

From NCAA.org (LINK):

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved a new football rule that requires players who target and contact defenseless players above the shoulders to be ejected, effective for the 2013 season. The change increases the on-field penalty for targeting by adding the automatic ejection to the existing 15-yard penalty.

The new rule in football means that discipline for those players flagged for violations will mirror the penalty for fighting. If the foul occurs in the first half of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game. If the foul occurs in the second half or overtime of a game, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next contest.

In an effort to address concerns when one of these plays is erroneously called on the field, the ejection portion of the penalty will be reviewable through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that a player should not be ejected to overturn the call on the field.

There were also other changes: 

  • the blocking below the waist rule has been simplified
  • jersey and pant colors must be different from the field of play [EDIT: my mistake]
  • a 10-second runoff for injuries with less than a minute in the half 
  • 3 seconds is the minimum amount of time required to spike the ball
  • number changes must be reported to the referee
Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Tags:
  • MGoBoard
  • football
  • NCAA
  • rules

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 7th, 2013 at 1:43 PM
#2
Michael Scarn
Michael Scarn's picture
Joined: 01/21/2011
MGoPoints: 1603
Cynical of me, maybe, but

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:43 PM
#3
Allin4Blue
Allin4Blue's picture
Joined: 02/04/2012
MGoPoints: 1005
So is State not allowed to

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:43 PM
#4
PeterKlima
Joined: 08/24/2008
MGoPoints: 4360
A problem for Narduzzi?

??

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:43 PM
#5
MaizeRage89
MaizeRage89's picture
Joined: 05/04/2009
MGoPoints: 1610
Looks

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:46 PM
#6
JamieH
Joined: 09/05/2009
MGoPoints: 12972
Guarantee

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:46 PM
#7
jtmc33
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 8865
"jersey and pant colors must

"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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:54 PM
(Reply to #7) #8
Soulfire21
Soulfire21's picture
Joined: 03/18/2010
MGoPoints: 14528
Sort of an issue.

Pants and jerseys can't both be green, apparently.

What will Central Arkansas do?  They have a purple/silver alternating field.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:01 PM
(Reply to #14) #9
jtmc33
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 8865
What is this picture supposed

What is this picture supposed to show?   I only see two maroon players and a floating football...

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:07 PM
(Reply to #24) #10
Section 1
Section 1's picture
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 16556
Camouflage!

They don't want schools' uniforms to work as camoufla... D'oh!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:49 PM
#11
TeddyM
Joined: 03/07/2013
MGoPoints: 2
 Today is the last day to

 

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!

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:49 PM
(Reply to #8) #12
scparksDPT
scparksDPT's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 1702
Just a bit outside.

Just a bit outside.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:49 PM
#13
scparksDPT
scparksDPT's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 1702
So if the 15 yard penalty is

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:51 PM
(Reply to #9) #14
HipsterCat
HipsterCat's picture
Joined: 06/28/2011
MGoPoints: 2088
from the op's post

seems like the review can over turn the ejection but not the penalty.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:15 PM
(Reply to #15) #15
scparksDPT
scparksDPT's picture
Joined: 01/06/2011
MGoPoints: 1702
Thanks. Missed the review.

Thanks. Missed the review.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:56 PM
#16
dnak438
dnak438's picture
Joined: 08/12/2009
MGoPoints: 6956
Oops!

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).

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 4:49 PM
(Reply to #10) #17
joeyb
joeyb's picture
Joined: 10/12/2008
MGoPoints: 14048
Also, the rule proposal was

Also, the rule proposal was for either the jersey or the pants to be a different color than the field, not necessarily both. This was to prevent Boise from wearing all blue uniforms on their smurf turf.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:49 PM
#18
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 35030
Hmmm, not sure if I like the

Hmmm, not sure if I like the run off penalties

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:50 PM
#19
HipsterCat
HipsterCat's picture
Joined: 06/28/2011
MGoPoints: 2088
the 3 second spike rule

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:03 PM
(Reply to #13) #20
samdrussBLUE
samdrussBLUE's picture
Joined: 01/21/2012
MGoPoints: 15374
I think the conclusion with

I think the conclusion with the spike rule is that a spike takes 2 seconds (or more than 1).  Thus, in order to get another play in after the spike the clock must show at least 3 seconds when the spike play begins.  This is coming from my memory based on discussion in a previous thread on the board, though.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:08 PM
(Reply to #13) #21
the Glove
the Glove's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 3845
The 3 seconds spike rule is actually similar to

The 3 seconds spike rule is actually similar to the basketball rule stating that there has to be .7 seconds for an actual shot. What it means is you have to have more than 3 seconds after a play to run up to the line and spike the ball.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:53 PM
#22
dnak438
dnak438's picture
Joined: 08/12/2009
MGoPoints: 6956
Uniformz

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:00 PM
(Reply to #16) #23
jtmc33
Joined: 04/15/2009
MGoPoints: 8865
Can UM adopt this rule for

Can UM adopt this rule for its own maize-on-maize basektball jerseys ?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:08 PM
(Reply to #16) #24
jmblue
Joined: 11/07/2008
MGoPoints: 56299
Do they really want Arabic

Do they really want Arabic numerals?

 

Might be confusing for fans and referees.

 

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:53 PM
#25
ReadYourGuard
ReadYourGuard's picture
Joined: 08/21/2008
MGoPoints: 33682
This new rule of ejecting a

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:35 PM
(Reply to #17) #26
Mr Miggle
Mr Miggle's picture
Joined: 10/07/2010
MGoPoints: 31247
Laying big shots to the heads

Laying big shots to the heads of defenseless players should not be part of the game. I'd say the unlucky players have been the ones getting hit. I'm more concerned about our receivers getting taken out by cheap shots than our safeties getting penalized for them.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:57 PM
(Reply to #38) #27
ReadYourGuard
ReadYourGuard's picture
Joined: 08/21/2008
MGoPoints: 33682
I'm addressing questionable

I'm addressing questionable calls that get flagged resulting in an ejection even when video replay shows a shoulder thrown into the mid-section or upper torso.  I don't have faith that the referees will make the correct distinction between a legal big lick and a reckless head hunt.

 

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 3:20 PM
(Reply to #41) #28
dnak438
dnak438's picture
Joined: 08/12/2009
MGoPoints: 6956
There will also be pressure to eject players

when there is an injury, I think.

I agree that a straight ejection is problematic (as opposed, say, to giving a player a warning before ejecting him if he repeats the violation). I would guess that the NCAA's logic is that although the rule will result in some questionable calls and suboptimal results in important (and not-so-important) games, the rule will change the culture of the game in the long run. (To be clear: I'm not saying that I approve of this logic).

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 3:18 PM
(Reply to #38) #29
fleetwoodzback
Joined: 08/28/2008
MGoPoints: 358
and i think a lot of this

and i think a lot of this comes from something that drives me crazy as a football fan. basically once a player with the ball gets beyond the linebackers, tackling is no longer involved. how many times do you see DBs shoulder block a guy catching a ball near him, 90+%? if the guys actually wrapped their arms around and tackled i think just that in itself could take away some of the helmet to face you see so much of

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:56 PM
#30
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 34189
What would that even be?

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?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:29 PM
(Reply to #18) #31
Mr Miggle
Mr Miggle's picture
Joined: 10/07/2010
MGoPoints: 31247
It doesn't have to be based on intent.

The other elements are hitting above the shoulders and a defenseless player. They just need conclusive evidence that one of those is absent to overturn an ejection.  

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 3:24 PM
(Reply to #18) #32
fleetwoodzback
Joined: 08/28/2008
MGoPoints: 358
i think it would have to be

i think it would have to be something along the lines of leaving your feet to launch at the other player would be a good determining factor. that plus leading with your head and aiming directly at the opposing player's face. if they went back to actually tackling instead of trying to make EPSN's highlight reel with a big hit, there would be a lot less ambiguity about the call. it would be harder to call it a hit on a defenseless player if you're wrapping your arms around for a tackle rather than just trying to blow the guy up.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 1:59 PM
#33
M_Jason_M
M_Jason_M's picture
Joined: 01/09/2013
MGoPoints: 466
Spiking the ball

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:10 PM
(Reply to #20) #34
ijohnb
Joined: 09/21/2009
MGoPoints: 51905
In almost all scenarios

that this will have a bearing on, the clock will be starting on the spot and whistle, not the snap.  I have always been suspect of the plausibility of whistle, snap, spike, whistle in 2 seconds.  That is a lot to do in 2 seconds. 

This could eliminate some late game drama, but I think that the rule is in place because the time keeper literally cannot start and stop as rapidly as required.  With that human error involved, 2 seconds actually becomes 4 seconds and a spike is permitted when it really was not in time.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:00 PM
#35
Soulfire21
Soulfire21's picture
Joined: 03/18/2010
MGoPoints: 14528
I don't know if I've ever

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'.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:14 PM
(Reply to #21) #36
ijohnb
Joined: 09/21/2009
MGoPoints: 51905
Not in

college as of last year.  The call is made in the NFL as "targeting a defenseless player."  I have seen it called with barely any contact at all.  That will probably be the call in college as well.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 8:31 PM
#37
M_Jason_M
M_Jason_M's picture
Joined: 01/09/2013
MGoPoints: 466
Uniform colors

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:02 PM
#38
champswest
champswest's picture
Joined: 10/04/2009
MGoPoints: 18416
I couldn't tell by the wording (target) if

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:04 PM
#39
the Glove
the Glove's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 3845
Podcast answers questions

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:09 PM
#40
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 35030
Hope there's more

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:19 PM
(Reply to #32) #41
ChicagoGoBlue
ChicagoGoBlue's picture
Joined: 03/01/2013
MGoPoints: 716
I was just about to post that

So the runoff is 10 seconds for an injury if it occurs in the final minute of a half.  Question - does this only apply to the team with possession of the ball? 

Hypothetical situation:   Imagine we can have a redo of the MSU game from a decade ago.  One of Michigan's players gets hurt with less than 10 seconds to go, causing the runoff.  Michigan wins the game because the Sparties are never allowed to stop the clock with a phantom second on the scoreboard.  Now, instead of UM fans crying foul over a bogus stadium clock, Sparties cry foul over a dumb rule, especially if the UM player's injuries aren't severe.

This rule just seems like it has the potential for abuse if the runoff still applies if a D player gets hurt, if the D team has the lead.  I can totally see teams having a player take a dive to try and burn the clock off.  Or even more than one player, since the runoff takes place with a minute to go in the half, they can have a player get "hurt" on every subsequent play until the clock is at 0.   Am I the only one that sees this potential for shenanigans?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:40 PM
(Reply to #36) #42
FreddieMercuryHayes
Joined: 12/29/2010
MGoPoints: 35030
That's exactly what I was

That's exactly what I was thinking, and why I was hoping for clarification. I would hope it's worded to not allow this, but who really knows?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:14 PM
#43
WolverineInCbus
WolverineInCbus's picture
Joined: 11/26/2012
MGoPoints: 3479
Pretty sure it

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

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 2:42 PM
(Reply to #34) #44
ShockFX
ShockFX's picture
Joined: 07/16/2008
MGoPoints: 4069
No, but it takes 2, which

No, but it takes 2, which means you need at least 3 to have 1 second on the clock for a final play.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 3:24 PM
#45
Sons of Louis Elbel
Joined: 11/21/2011
MGoPoints: 899
I'm sure that someone at

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 3:37 PM
#46
LSAClassOf2000
LSAClassOf2000's picture
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 81401
Attempt At Figures Anyway...

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.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 4:28 PM
#47
Section 1
Section 1's picture
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 16556
Serious question.

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?

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
March 7th, 2013 at 8:20 PM
(Reply to #47) #48
Mr Miggle
Mr Miggle's picture
Joined: 10/07/2010
MGoPoints: 31247
Stephenson was not a defenseless player.

He was running with the ball, so that play wouldn't fall under the new rule.

Top
  • Login or register to post comments
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.