The NCAA takes a shot at shot taking.

Keep in mind that the devil is in the details when you see proposals like this:

The NCAA Football Rules Committee took steps to further protect student-athletes by proposing a rule to eject players who target and contact defenseless players above the shoulders.

The committee, which met Monday-Wednesday, unanimously voted to increase the on-field penalty for targeting. The penalty, if approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, will be a 15-yard penalty and automatic ejection of the player. The Panel meets on March 6 to review the proposals and membership comment.

More at stake means more pressure on the officials.  Not that we should worry about that.  Rogers Redding knows we shouldn’t sweat it.

“The general consensus is that the officials on the field make this call properly the vast majority of the time and know what the committee is looking for with this foul,” said Rogers Redding, secretary-editor of the rules committee and national coordinator of officials for College Football Officiating, LLC. “This move is being made to directly change player behavior and impact player safety.”

Yes, if there’s one thing this past SEC season showed us, it’s that there’s a general consensus about making the right call.

Redding is a funny man.

One other proposed change isn’t going to be good for the genius’ blood pressure.

Another area the committee has discussed in recent years deals with blocking below the waist. The past two years, the committee has adjusted rules governing these blocks in an attempt to remove some potentially dangerous plays from the game. The result has been a confusing and uneven rule that has not had the intended impact.

The proposed rule will focus on the block itself and allow these blocks in typical line play.

“What we’re trying to do is write the rule to protect the player that will need to take on this block,” said Calhoun. “So, the blocks from the front of this type in your typical line play are legal and anything that is from the side or back are not.”

Previously, the position of the player at the snap changed whether or not the player could block below the waist legally.

Basically that sounds like a lineman gets one shot at a cut block and if he loses straight ahead positioning, that’s all she wrote.  That, in all honesty, should be easier for officials to follow.  Expect to hear some whining from Johnson about this one if they start flagging it more.

About these ads

30 Comments

Filed under The NCAA

30 responses to “The NCAA takes a shot at shot taking.

  1. ChilliDswg

    Oh boy… Wait till Penny Wagers gets a hold of this one!

  2. Dog in Fla

    CPJ thinks the limited chop-block rule is a conspiracy against him led by a Georgia Tech alum

  3. Hogbody Spradlin

    Do the once in a while head shots really matter that much? Do the Thomas Davis hits really matter that much? Isn’t the elephant in the room the years of repetitive collision injuries?

    • Hogbody Spradlin

      Or should I say: “the effects from years of repetitive collisions”

      • Skeptic Dawg

        I think that the major issue is attempting to limit the 1st concussion. A player that has already received one concussion, is at a greater risk in the future. I know, what about high school or pop warner football?

  4. Mayor of Dawgtown

    The automatic ejection addition to the targeting penalty will give the SEC refs yet another way to control the outcome of games. Penn Wagers and Marc Curles are both beside themselves with glee. In a related development, the NCAA has now worked out an arrangement with the US Government where the referees can now send players and coaches to Federal prison without an indictment or trial simply by throwing a flag. There should be no problem as the general consensus is that the officials will make these calls properly.

  5. JG Shellnutt

    I heard that AJ Green actually targeted a DB from LSU a few years ago, but they did not eject him…hence the need for the rule change.

    • Bulldog Joe

      The SEC announced LSU will receive compensation through the implementation of this rule against against any UGA receiver of its choosing at any time during the 2013 regular season game. Georgia announced it will self-impose this penalty by suspending all of its receivers for the game.

  6. 69Dawg

    Well at least they said the ejection could be reviewed on replay but it could only be overturned if the video clearly showed no illegal shot. Given that the average age of the video replay officials is older than dirt, I’m sure they will do there usual find job of never overturning anything.

  7. Harry Balzack...

    So let’s have a team’s season ruined by a subjective penalty.

    • Cojones

      Can it be more subjective than the “celebration rule” ? Most of the rules applied in any football game are subjective and will vary from official to official. There are many more subjective rules that are egregious when compared to one that also involves a significant reason for believing it will promote measurable player safety. Just think of the “lost helmet” rule for a minute and this new rule change will grow more insignificant.

      The correct question is “Will it change the field play such that it reduces the excitement level (therefore the reason for watching) of CFB” ? That is the only measure that this rule can be held to and my answer now is “No”. Let’s see how it plays out in the arena.

  8. SouthGaDawg

    Maybe coaches will go back to the fundamentals of teaching the correct open field tackle. Head up. lead with the shoulder, wrap your arms, & run your legs through the tackle. Rep it over and over. The kids would realize this works better than taking a “kill shot” because they would miss fewer tackles too.

  9. Rebar

    Damn, half of the Florida defense would have been thrown out of the bowl game for the celebration of a tackle 30 yards downfield.

  10. gastr1

    I personally am taking too much enjoyment from the cut-block rule change to be worried about the other one. hashtag FU CPJ

  11. Aus

    “Expect to hear some whining from Johnson…” I’m sorry, was there more to that sentence?

  12. Uglydawg

    This plays right into the PJ’s hands. Now he has an excuse…”The rule change took away my offensive scheme just as I had GT on the verge of offensive perfection”. He’s got an “out”…and he will exploit it. It will take him three years to overhaul his offense to the spread…and now he has Kennesaw State to deal with on the recruiting trail. Poor little Pj.

  13. DawgPhan

    I doubt we see many people tossed out of games….just like I have yet to see a taunting penalty enforced in the field of play and bring back a touchdown.

  14. FisheriesDawg

    I get the point of having some serious rules for targeting, but I don’t like the idea of having it result in an ejection on a whim (even if it is reviewed on replay). They ought to leave it as a flag, and then let it be up to the conference/NCAA/whatever to decide after the game whether that player is suspended for the following game. I can already picture incredibly angry FisheriesDawg after one of our starting safeties is thrown out of the Auburn game for a relatively inconsequential hit. Besides, if you just eject them in-game, there isn’t a whole lot of penalty to target in the fourth quarter.

    • Gravidy

      Regarding your last sentence… isn’t there already a rule about a player being ejected late in a game being ineligible for some or all of the next game?

  15. WarD Eagle

    I think we’ll see more injured DBs from this. DBs will drop their heads to make lower tackles and have a higher incidence of neck, shoulder injuries.