SIAP NCAA Announces new football rules: Targeting, Clock Rules
I didn't see it posted anywhere else and since search on here is pointless I'm just going with it didn't get posted. NCAA approved new rules last night.
Targeting: Player no longer needs to leave the game, but can stay on the sidelines.
Not sure why this is a thing. I suppose that player could be coaching up other players in the game, but outside of that, don't see a single reason why this rule needed to be made.
Clock Rules: If the half ends and it's determined, via replay, that a call should be overturned with time left, there needs to be at least 3 seconds on the clock for the replay to be allowed.
This one I'm not following, potentially because I'm not 100% on the rules. If a call is made and then overturned by replay, why would you not be allowed 1 more chance? Does the play clock resume on whistle and the league is assuming there's 0 chance in less than 3 seconds that you can't get the ball in play?
Pre-Game Snafus: Officials have control of the game now 90 minutes before kick off instead of 60.
sounds like an attempt to prevent things like the Spartan Walk problem.
Player Numbers: only 2 players may have the same jersey number and the number 0 is now allowable
pretty self explanatory. It's attempting to make it easier to follow who is 'on the field'. Players with the same number are not allowed to be in play at the same time.
https://www.foxsports.com/midwest/story/ncaa-football-rule-changes-targeting-penalty-jersey-numbers-042120
I realize that this one is confusing because of the wording:
Clock Rules: If the half ends and it's determined, via replay, that a call should be overturned with time left, there needs to be at least 3 seconds on the clock for the replay to be allowed.
First replay should say video replay. Second replay is talking about allowing the players to reattempt the play.
So if the clock-runner takes an extra two seconds to stop the clock after an incomplete pass the offense doesn't get another shot? Why?
I don't think the rule would preclude correcting mistakes by the time keeper.
The rule refers to overturning calls. I guess we need to think about what those could be. For example, not calling a ball carrier down when his knee hit the ground.
I guess the point is like in basketball where you need at least .03 seconds to attempt a shot on an inbounds play. The chances of lining up a running a play within 3 seconds is pretty low. It does seem they should make an exception if the offense has a time out available or if the correct ruling would have led to the clock stopping due to an incomplete pass or a ball carrier going out of bounds.
It won't matter for plays that regularly stop the clock until the ball is snapped again like an incomplete pass. This is limited to plays where the clock would be started upon the officials signal rather than the snap.
I don't understand the change in the targeting rule either. I think this is sending the wrong signal regarding rules designed to protect players' heads.
I don't understand the clock rule either. What's the purpose of the video review if you can't correct the mistake?
I think the 90 minute rule is good even though perhaps unnecessary now that Mork is "retired".
I like the rule limiting numbers because I can find it confusing when two players wear the same number.
MSU just going to move their pregame walk to 10:15am...
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:12 AM ^
Worth noting that the 2018 incident happened around 10 am, which was 2 hours before kickoff. This rule change wouldn't make a difference there.
The timing rule makes no sense. The entire point of electronic clocks synchronized with video replay means we can get the correct timing when someone is down / an incomplete pass touches the ground, etc. down to the exact second. I realize football clocks don't operate in tenths-of-seconds -- but I don't see why the 3 seconds is necessary instead of just 1 second.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:33 AM ^
The only way I can see that making sense is if they were to restart the play clock after the review ends, so the offense has minimum of 3 seconds to snap the ball once the play clock resumes. Makes sense for replays like overturning a 4th down call and making it a first down, or calling the runner's knee down before time expires.
The alternative would, of course, to just not have a running play clock after the end of quarter reset.
Not exactly sure what has motivated the 3 second requirement rule change impinging on running another play based on instant replay causing the dead ball situation and potential added play. This is different than an untimed down at the end of a quarter or half which is based on a penalty enforcement.
This only happens when time has otherwise expired and the dead ball situation was overturned by replay. So, it seems likely the Iron Bowl game situation may have been the cause. This particular rule change wasn't heralded on the proposed list of changes the NCAA oversight committee reviewed in February before acting on in recent days,
This would happen so infrequently that the likelihood is the situation only arose in a pivotal year end contest or bowl game, as did the time jurisdiction for officials based on "pregame shenanigans" in the Belk Bowl, which now requires officials and coaches to be on the field for pregame activities 90 minutes before gametime.
So that's at least one more rule change resulting from something that happened in a Michigan game: "Officials have control of the game now 90 minutes before kick off instead of 60."
Also the uniform number rule might be a result of Michigan's over-generous distribution of #2 and #3 last season.
The jersey number rule is interesting since typically have three to four guys at certain numbers. No more of that.
Be on the look out for Giles Jackson to be the first #0 in Michigan history.
I see no reason why ejected players should be sent to the locker room. What is wrong with their being on the sideline with their team? Nothing. That rule should have been amended twice. The second amendment being that a player is not ejected for the first targeting offense. First offense is 15 yards (make it 20 or more if the people in charge want to deter targeting) and first down. Second offense is the same and THEN eject the player.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:10 AM ^
Not sure I really care whether ejected players should leave the field, or not. But I whole-heartedly agree with your second part. A warning should be assessed on the first targeting call, especially if the video review is questionable. But give it a much worse penalty - 20 or 25 yards and auto-first. The second target call on the player results in unquestioned ejection and 30 yards. Make it hurt, more so than just losing the player.
You want to avoid targeting calls? Then tackle in a fundamentally sound way. Yeah, that means coaches have to put some more emphasis on fundamentally sound football. It's pretty clear, given the continued amount of targeting calls, that the penalty isn't deterring the crime.
I understand that there may be other ways of deterring targets, rather than just stiffer penalties. But I don't know what they are - I'm open to hearing them and balancing between the two. Perhaps more experienced former players or coaches care to weigh in with a more detailed/nuanced description?
But give it a much worse penalty - 20 or 25 yards and auto-first. The second target call on the player results in unquestioned ejection and 30 yards.
I hear what you are saying but the whole point of the ejection part of the penalty is to get the behavior out of the game. Just like head contact in hockey.
Head hunters are still gonna hunt with 25-30 penalty. That penalty is one point in time -- the ejection is more of a deterrent as it lasts longer.
It's pretty clear, given the continued amount of targeting calls, that the penalty isn't deterring the crime.
NCAA reports FBS targeting penalties are down 32%
One thing I find interesting about this is concussions have not dropped since the targeting rule was implemented.
Is there a perfect system? No. Is a player who didn't deserve it going to get ejected. Sure. But I think adding replay to the targeting will help make it a better to administer.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:36 AM ^
I see no reason why ejected players should be sent to the locker room.
My take is that they're not "fully" ejected from the game if they remain on the sidelines. They can still cheer, sit in sideline huddles, etc. That's game participation, in my opinion.
Baseball players are sent to the showers. Same with basketball players. Should be the same with football. You lose the privilege of game participation - even from the sidelines - when you're ejected for an egregious foul. Maybe there's a difference between game ejection and game suspension or something, but as it stands, ejected should be fully ejected.
I'm fine with the targeting change. No reason to force a kid to sit in the locker room by himself for a football play.
i believe the clock rule is a response to what happened at the end of the first half of the Iron Bowl. Auburn got a first down and was tackled. Clock showed 0 so half was over. But upon replay review, they determined when he was down there was 1 second left on the clock. Auburn was out of timeouts but had their FG unit on the field ready to snap it as soon as the ref blew his whistle for play. They were able to kick a FG due to this and Saban had a fit about it after the game.
https://www.al.com/alabamafootball/2019/12/fair-points-sec-clarifies-iron-bowl-confusion.html
EDIT: The clock rule specifically states that it is for plays that would start on the officials signal (clock begins running again after a first down where player was tackled in bounds). Plays like incomplete passes, going out of bounds or turnovers wouldn't be subject to the time rule since clock wouldn't start again until the ball is snapped.
I can see how this fits that situation, but it still doesn't add up to consistency in the game. If a play goes into instant replay, the coaches should be thinking all scenarios and have their team ready for whatever the outcome is. Sitting on your hands and then complaining that you didn't get enough time is BS. I also understand the league will do whatever's in the best interest of Saban, Day/Urban, Sweeney etc...
April 22nd, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
I think it actually helps consistency in the game. Under no "normal" circumstances would Auburn have been able to get off another snap to spike the ball and have time left on the clock to get a possible field goal off. Auburn was able to take advantage and that was good coaching for the rules in place at the time. But it was wholly unfair for them to get an extra play in the circumstances. It makes it so a team doesn't get an unusual benefit from a stoppage due to review.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:02 AM ^
This does seem plausible as to why the clock rule was changed. However, I feel that was just really good coaching on Auburn's part. I don't agree on changing the rule to prevent good coaching from out-performing veteran coaches that are used to getting their way (Saban).
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:16 AM ^
Good coaching, yes, but the fundamental problem was that the only way for Auburn to get that FG was for the officials (or clock operator, I suppose) to make the wrong call and then get it overturned. If they made the right call and stopped the clock at :01 initially, it's physically impossible for Auburn to get into position for that FG.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:30 AM ^
But the point is if they had called it correctly on the field, there is no way Auburn would have been able to snap the ball in one second in a fire drill field goal scenario. The mere existence of a replay should not benefit a team by acting as a timeout/clock stoppage. The rule change fixes that edge case.
The targeting rule was changed so that when a player gets ejected at home, the officials won’t be subjected to the spectacle of the crowd loudly booing while the player walks off and waves to the crowd while playing victim. Oftentimes, he’s not. Consider last season when Wisconsin targeted McCaffrey.
Actually, coaches not officials, sought this change to keep players on the field. In high school, no disqualified or ejected player is ever allowed to go to an offsite area or bus on his or her own without an accompanying adult. They are required to remain in confinement of the playing area. This is a safety and liability concern. In this situation, coaches believed that some targeting calls are worse than others and the penalty doesn't always warrant removal from the field for the foul.
This doesn't change the punishment for it other than field removal. Players who commit other unsportsmanlike or personal misconduct fouls are still subject to ejection and field removal. And if a player commits three or more targeting fouls in a season, he is then hit with a full game's suspension.
Likewise, the dual number change is both a common sense change to the rules but also to recognize the popularity that has emerged in single digit numbers among players, especially assignment of the number zero. Numbers traditionally identify players for easier reporting recognition by officials and opponents based on numbers assigned to position groups on offense and defense. In the past, single digit numbers traditionally were assigned to quarterbacks and running backs. Numbers in the 20's, 30's, 40's, were typically assigned to offensive and defensive players outside the interior LOS. Numbers in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's applied to offensive, defensive line and linebackers. These were always somewhat voluntary and based on number histories on teams based on availability, player choice and team practices.
At Michigan, of course, its Heisman winners have both defied and redefined these number norms. Tom Harmon wore #98, Desmond Howard wore #21 and Charles Woodson #2.
Because most major college teams field 85-man rosters, numeric jersey assignments typically don't present a duplication problem. Because most duplicate number players usually play opposite each other on offense and defense, and only in rare circumstances together on special teams, the reporting issue seems inconvenient at worse. The only time multiply assigned number players ought to raise a reporting concern is when home team rosters expand to more than 100 uniformed players and some guys on the end of the bench with the same number enter the game.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:22 AM ^
What about 00? Asking for Robert Parish.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:38 AM ^
Since 0 = 00, I’ll allow it!
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:55 AM ^
Still waiting for the targeting rule that is designed to protect offensive players from harming themselves or defenders with headfirst slides / leading with their heads when going down.
April 22nd, 2020 at 12:13 PM ^
Ejection from a game is unnecessary unless an action is well beyond the pale (e.g. egregious fighting - which is not always enforced as it is). Forcing a player out of the game for forcible contact that is done within reasonable game context (not to say the contact could not have avoided, but was not indefensible malicious) is absurd. The problem can be addressed by the normal range of in-game punishments available to the officials.