2008 NCAA Football New Rules
by 512 on Aug 27, 2008 1:32 PM CDT
Email
PrintI totally stole this from NCAA's website, but I haven't seen it posted anywhere and highly recommend that you all read it thoroughly before you throw a beer bottle at your television because of such a ludicrous officiating blunder that actually is just yet another rule change.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on these new rules because I certainly think some of them are silly and will cause more harm than good this season for teams and officials.
2008 NCAA Rules ChangesFrom the NCAA
NCAA FOOTBALL RULES COMMITTEE ACTION FOR 2008
Rogers Redding
Secretary-Rules Editor
NCAA Football Rules Committee
Introduction
In making its recommendations for rules changes in 2008, the NCAA Football Rules Committee retained its focus on player safety and consistency of making the ball ready for play. The committee also has slightly expanded the types of plays allowable for instant replay review, broadened the head coach’s ability to challenge a ruling, and made some changes in the administration of the game.
The changes summarized below have been adopted by the NCAA Football Rules Committee and approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP), which has jurisdiction over the rules committees for all sports.
Rules Changes
1. Player Safety.
Helmet Crown and Defenseless Players (Rule 9-1-3). The committee has refined the rules regarding the use of the helmet as a weapon and the targeting of defenseless players. (The Points of Emphasis section of the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations lists a number of examples of defenseless players.) Emphasis on these actions highlights concern about potentially debilitating injuries. It is now a foul when a player targets an opponent and initiates contact with the crown (top) of the helmet. This rule is intended primarily for the safety of the player who initiates the contact. It is also a foul if a player targets a defenseless opponent and initiates contact above the shoulders. Each of these is a personal foul and thus carries a 15-yard penalty.
Chop Block (Rule 2-3-3). The definition of the chop block has been simplified to assist in the understanding of this rule and to encourage more consistent officiating. A chop block is now defined as a high-low or low-high combination block by any two players against an opponent (other than the runner) anywhere on the field, with or without a delay between contacts. The “low” component is at the opponent’s thigh or below. A dangerous action that can lead to serious injury, the chop block is a personal foul that carries a 15-yard penalty.
“Horse-Collar” Tackle (Rule 9-1-2-p). With this new rule, the committee addresses the potential hazard to a ball carrier that is grabbed by the inside collar of the jersey or shoulder pad and quickly jerked down. The rule prohibits all players from grabbing the inside back collar of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling the runner down. This does not apply to a runner who is inside the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket. A key element is the immediacy of the runner being pulled down, because of the risk of injury. The horse-collar tackle is a personal foul and the penalty is 15 yards.
Face-Mask Foul (Rule 9-1-2-q). There is no longer a foul if any player grabs an opponent’s face mask without pulling, twisting, or turning it. The five-yard penalty has been eliminated. This change does not change the safety aspect of this rule. Pulling, twisting, or turning an opponent’s face mask remains a personal foul with a 15-yard penalty.
2. Timing. 40-Second Play Clock (Rule 3-2-4). The 40-second play clock represents a major change in the timing of the game and will impact how the game looks and flows. The purpose of this change is to enhance the consistency of how soon the ball is ready for play once it has become dead. In the past, the play clock was set at 25 seconds and started on the referee’s signal on every play. Now, the play clock will be set to 40 seconds after the ball becomes dead on every play and started immediately. In circumstances when the officials stop the game clock for administrative and other reasons, the play clock will be set to 25 seconds and started on the referee’s signal in the familiar manner. The 25-second clock will be in effect for:
1. Penalty administration.
2. Charged team timeout.
3. Media timeout.
4. Injury timeout.
5. Measurement.
6. Change of possession.
7. Following a kick.
8. Score.
9. Start of each period.
10. Start of a team’s series in extra period.
11. Instant replay review.
12. Other administrative stoppage.
Also, the committee has eliminated the 15-second play clock which was used following television timeouts.
Ball Out Of Bounds (Rule 3-2-5-a-12). When a ball is carried or fumbled out of bounds, the game clock will stop, as always. Beginning in 2008 the game clock will start on the referee’s signal when the ball is ready for play, not on the snap. In the last two minutes of the half, however, the clock will start on the snap as before, preserving the ability of the offensive team to maximize strategic use of the clock.
3. Instant Replay.
Reviewable Plays. The new rules expand the range of plays for which the replay official may stop the game to review. These include certain field goal attempts, plays where the ball carrier is ruled down and a loose ball is immediately recovered, and plays where the ball carrier is ruled out of bounds when he immediately carries the ball across the goal line.
Field Goal Attempts (Rule 12-3-1-a). A field goal attempt may be reviewed only if the ball is ruled below or above the crossbar, or inside or outside the uprights when it is lower than the top of the uprights. If the ball is higher than the top of the uprights, the play may not be reviewed.
Ball Carrier Ruled Down (Rule 12-3-3-b). When a ball carrier is judged down by rule and the ball is fumbled, the play may be reviewed if the recovery of the ball occurs in the immediate action following the fumble and is prior to any official signaling that the ball is dead. However, if the replay official does not have indisputable video evidence as to which player recovers the fumble, the ruling of down-by-rule stands. If the call of down-by-rule is reversed, the ball belongs to the recovering player at the spot of the recovery and no advance is allowed.
Ball Carrier Ruled Down Near The Goal Line (Rule 12-3-3-c). When a ball carrier is ruled out of bounds, the play may be reviewed if his immediate action takes him into the opponent’s end zone and is prior to any official signaling that the ball is dead.
Head Coach’s Challenge (Rule 12-5-1-b). A new rule expands the ability of a head coach to challenge a reviewable ruling on the field. The head coach now retains a challenge if his initial challenge is successful and thus results in a reversal by the replay official. The coach will then still have a single challenge that he may use anytime during the game if his team has not used all its timeouts. Thus a team may have a total of two challenges in the game, but only if the first results in a reversal of the on-field ruling.
4. Game Administration.
Sideline Infraction (Rule 9-1-6). The committee has changed the rule regarding sideline personnel being in the restricted area, which is between the sideline and the coaching box. The former sideline warning has given way to a sideline infraction which carries an immediate yardage penalty. The first two infractions have a five-yard delay of game penalty, and the third and subsequent violations now carry a 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Obtaining Opponent’s Signals (Rule 1-4-9-g). The rules now prohibit any attempt to record, either by video or audio means, the signals given by an opposing player, coach, or other team personnel. Violations should be brought to the attention of the proper disciplinary authority.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here's the link so I'm not stealing anymore... Its completely legit..Right?
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/season_preview_2008_rules_changes.html
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
New Rules
The adoption of the NFL clock rules is definitely the most welcomed change, at least by me. Should help speed the game up a little, too.
Personally, I strongly dislike the extended play clock.
I think it slows the game down too much resulting in less actual play and more standing around.
Do you know if they extended the game time at all? (i.e. 20 min quarters rather than 15 min)
I thought I read something about this somewhere but am probably mistaken. Might just being dreaming about Texas football games that last from 10 am to 10 pm Sunday-Saturday with no commercial breaks.
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
play clock
You underestimate just how long it takes the official to spot the ball after a play and then wind the play clock. Not to be overlooked is the running clock after a play goes out-of-bounds.
There’s a reason NFL games are consistently 3 hours long and College games are anywhere from 3.5 to 4 hours long. And it has nothing to do with added action on the field.
I don't know if the clock's to blame
In the NFL, everyone is running a pro-style offense with the majority leaning slightly more on the running game. Also, due to the distributed talent levels, scores seem to be a lot lower. Scoring slows games down. The college game has more scoring and it has offenses like Texas Tech, which are severely geared towards passing.
it's the clock
Even a team like the Lions last year who threw it twice as much as they ran it and had high-scoring games averaged right around 3 hours a game.
Plus, Tech may throw it a lot, but they’re also completing a high percentage of their passes and using it as a pseudo running game.
But with the clock still stopping on first downs (I assume this is the case, anyway), there will still be lengthy games. We just need to get rid of that rule, too.
Personally, I see no need to slow the game down.
This again is part of the media/advertiser-pushed agenda to fit their timetable, not the natural course of the game. If college games become NFL models, I’ll be watching a lot less football because I watch it precisely because it is college football.
NFL is a commodity period. College football is the outgrowth of another traditional altogether and the broadcast media has only been around the last 40 years. Slowly but surely the TV media has gained the upper hand and are trying to turn college football into a commodity, stripping it of all the cultural artifacts and game day pageantry, which they give lip service to but never show in its entirely. It’s a fucking joke. The broadcast media is much more like real estate brokers; no matter what they say, they just want to turn your little property into a commodity that can earn them more money. They don’t give a shit for your property; it is merely a means to an end. The BCS is the epitome of that logical process.
by whills on Aug 27, 2008 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
well
The new clock will actually speed the game up.
And your diatribe on the media is pretty funny but not all that constructive. Personally, I’m glad that I have the choice of watching many college football games on television. And while it will never replace the experience of attending a game (and how could it), I’m just glad I get to see it.
Of course, how dare the stations that show these games actually get a chance to earn a little money in the process or even maximize their profits?
Plus, I get sick of watching 4-hour games, nor do I have the time for it.
I don't have a problem with their profit
and some games will go nearly four hours regardless of the rule changes.
The problem I have is with the increasing media control of the game, especially the leveraging of their intermediary position. They are a means and they get well paid for it; their profit is not the end product.
Don’t mistake the manipulative end of the process for the process itself.
They probably feel as though questionable field goals above the uprights...
are too questionable to review.
Do they review homerun/foul balls that go over the foul poll?
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
To answer your question
Do they review homerun/foul balls that go over the foul poll?
We won’t really know that until tomorrow (Thursday), since through today there has NEVER been a review like this in baseball.
by Shake on Aug 27, 2008 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sideline infraction
The immediate yardage penalty for such a ticky-tack violation and the resultant possibility of altering a play/drive puts too much – I hate to say it – manipulative power in the hands of the officials. Not that they cannot manipulate a situation with other phantom calls/no-calls, but this rule stinks and the former sideline warning should be reinstated.
I doan't like it either.
It seems intuitively to me that those calls tend to happen when there’s big excitement or big plays happening. So, imho you are correct about the opportunity for game-changing calls and thus some manipulative power.
The nasty problem is this happens all the time, so it becomes much more of a judgment function because the infractions are plentiful and that makes it even more powerful.
After being on the sidelines for a long time as a photographer, during exciting and usually long plays people creep forward trying to see and they don’t even notice they’re moving with the play. Most players are standing up already – defense and special teams could possibly play the next play – and a ready supply of subs and even players looking ready and eager just to be noticed. Football is very physical and the herd instinct is strong; bodies twitch and move with the big play. Everyone rushes forward and that puts pressure on those in front. Pretty soon half the team is on the field, with the coaches farthest out.
If they ball goes on the ground for any length of time, all this is multiplied by the number of seconds it takes to recover said loose oblate spheroid. When it gets to 10 seconds, you got about 80 people on the field.
As soon as the play is over, everyone fades back to the line.
If the ‘get back’ coach is on duty, he’s already yelling.
That’s how bad it is; you have to appoint an authority figure to try to keep it under control. And ironically enough, it’s usually someone everyone ignores within minutes. He can get “free” help from other coaches, who realize his plight and don’t want to draw the black bean themselves.
I can see how they can really enforce this without pissing off a lot of people.
The best ploy would be for the refs to say they can’t enforce that absolutely and thus it is unenforceable. Because they know they’re gonna be caught in the crossfire.
In a certain sense, you actually take away some of their power by eliminating the warning. They could make their concerns immediate but, essentially, pick up the flag. That’s power.
And last, this is a bunch of kids. Big strong fast kids, but, still, most are 21 or less. Excitable kids. And coaches who are doing their life’s worth and being paid to do it and their future is flashing by their eyes every second. These are passionate people; they’re always moving. It’s not a stand-around business. Not for long, anyway.
Most of the time there isn’t a problem. I really want to see how often this occurs. I do not want to see a big play nullified by such a penalty. That could be just tragic if not outright stupid.
These things.
How does this:
Obtaining Opponent’s Signals (Rule 1-4-9-g). The rules now prohibit any attempt to record, either by video or audio means, the signals given by an opposing player, coach, or other team personnel. Violations should be brought to the attention of the proper disciplinary authority.
apply when every team films its games, usually from several camera angles: middle wide shot, middle tight shot, end zone zooms from a high angle. Maybe more. The future of the tech and the game is enough cameras to make a 3-D image you can go inside of and examine everything down to the flying slobber.
By definition just filming the game means you are filming the opposing teams signals to some degree. They could make an exception for zooming in and sustaining. But this whole rule is general, not specific. If teams play each other twice, that could make some sense, but, still, it’s part of the game. You could have a guy with the clip board and a broad understanding of all such signaling (a Coast Guard/Rice hybrid grad, maybe) and do the same thing. You gonna outlaw pencils and bics?
If this means scrimmages and events before the meeting of the two teams, that’s already covered, isn’t it? That’s outright cheating if a team holds closed practices. So, this seems to have a certain ambiguity, and a reflective sense of the dog who didn’t bark.
^^^
Head Coach’s Challenge (Rule 12-5-1-b). A new rule expands the ability of a head coach to challenge a reviewable ruling on the field. The head coach now retains a challenge if his initial challenge is successful and thus results in a reversal by the replay official. The coach will then still have a single challenge that he may use anytime during the game if his team has not used all its timeouts. Thus a team may have a total of two challenges in the game, but only if the first results in a reversal of the on-field ruling.
Why is this double or nothing? Why not just do it, period? Have two each.
The tie to time outs – zero and you can’t use your challenge – is due to some need for punitive judgment.
My problem is that the real question is the play, not some secondary, technical qualifying judgment.
If you’re going to let it happen, be equitable and let it happen. Don’t waste your time with intermediary stupid shit. (Although, I must admit, the rest of the world does this anyway.)
Starting the clock on ready to play wins it.
All of the other rule changes are either minimally important or, in the case of the 40-second clock, backed by legitimate reasoning (it will create consistency between officiating crews, and consistency is always good). You can debate whether you like the other rules or not, but the rule starting the clock after OOB plays has no purpose but to burn clock that would otherwise remain unburned, shortening the action of the game, not just the time from kickoff to 00:00 4. I think it’s pretty clear that nearly every game being televised is a, if not the, major cause of lengthy games.
Go look at the stats on MB-TF.com. It’s pretty easy to see that bowl games tend to take longer, as well as most matchups between a good Texas team and a highly ranked opponent. I think it’s because those games are on big-time TV, meaning that the commercial breaks last longer. It just seems ridiculous that the games are long because of TV, and yet TV wants the games to be shorter, so they steal plays from us instead of cutting out dead time. Don’t give me the sob story about how the networks don’t make any money out of this the way it is, because if they didn’t, ESPN wouldn’t be buying out all the SEC games, the Big Ten wouldn’t have started it’s own network, and Fox wouldn’t have bought the BCS. Say what you will about the 40 second clock, that’s a subjective debate with merits on both sides, this rule is stealing football from us and little else.
Stealing football?
That’s ridiculous. A streamlined game with every drive being important is a much more attractive prospect. You’re right that televised games are longer. But every game is televised, so what’s your point. The nature of the clock in college football as it was makes the games longer than they need to be.
And there’s no reason why running out of bounds should stop the clock, aside from the last two minutes of a game. It’s the end of a play just like every other play. Why should it matter? And teams can still run 5-minute drills by lining up on the ball and snapping when the ref starts the clock.
by Jason Mayer on Aug 28, 2008 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Re:
Every game is televised, true, but the lower profile ones are shorter because of less commercials, that’s my point. No one changed the clock rules for TV for quite some time until commercials started to take over the broadcast, and now they have to shorten the games to show you all the commercials they’ve got lined up. What are we watching? Is it really necessary to have a TV timeout after a score and after the subsequent kickoff?
Running out of bounds to stop the clock adds an element to the game in close situations with short times remaining. Teams will defend the sideline passes more heavily and leave the middle of the field open more underneath, meaning one more decision for the coaches to make and possibly fail spectacularly. Also, the out of bounds rule and incomplete pass rule are the main tools that the offense uses to control the pace of the game. This change waters down that ability quite a bit.
Finally, while I wish they would, I seriously doubt most teams will snap the ball as soon as the whistle blows just so I can watch more football. I think they’re more interested in what’s best for them. Especially the teams who need to read the defense before the snap, get calls from the sidelines, etc. All that clock comes directly out of seconds that we could be watching someone running, tackling, blocking, etc. I’m not sure how you have time to watch a three hour game but not a three hour and forty minute game, nor do I understand why you would want that forty minutes to come partially at the expense of the amount actual play time instead of dead time and extra commercials.
re: Re:
You are all over the place. This has nothing to do with shortening a game to show you commercials. It’s like you’re equating this to some master conspiracy by the TV networks. Give me a break.
And the clock stops when you run out of bounds in the last two minutes of a half, thus allowing for that strategy in “close situations with short times remaining.”
And if you want to run a hurry-up in the last 5 minutes of a half, you can still go out of bounds and line up at the spot and snap the ball as soon as the ref winds the clock, thus saving time.
by Jason Mayer on Aug 28, 2008 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Good points, HB.
Matter of fact, you hit on a simple analysis between times of televised games vs. non-televised.
TV is no longer a passive observer. They have made themselves a key part of the game; they have not just insulated themselves into the game (they need consideration to be able to do what they do, so they say) but have virtually institutionalized themselves within big games. In so doing: they change the value and the flow of the game. Yet they are no more than a means to an end.
And with regard to TV broadcasts, it’s not just football in which they have done this. You never see radio or print interceding in such a manner.
It’s not about the length of the game, it is about control which college presidents and the NCAA are constantly ceding. Turn a trick for TV and get lots of bucks (which you don’t think you’d get otherwise). Same process.
The truth is, with Texas’ bucks and the strength of their Communications program and RTF department, they could do their own games their own way and just provide a feed. Like in all publishing, the monopoly hold is distribution, which is leveraged into control down the line. In the net era, all that will change.
Jason Mayer
I have disagreements with several of your comments above, and I’ll briefly respond here:
Who said every drive isn’t important without these clock rules? If you’re watching the same football I am, then every drive remains important. College football fans were thus irked that the stupid clock rules two years ago surfaced because the media didn’t like the length of the games. You’re talking to fans who may very well tailgate hours before the game and devote their entire Saturdays to college football; when people complain about an extra thirty minutes, these fans tend to question how genuine they are as true fans.
Don’t take this as a charge that you aren’t a true fan; I don’t know you and I’m sure you have your own busy life to attend to. I am merely pointing out the reaction many fans will have and I hope you see their side. If you are sick of seeing four hour games on TV, I guarantee you that the people in the stands want to drop-kick the TV-timeout dude when he’s standing out there both before and after a kickoff. Then we find it utterly laughable that media personalities complain about the length of the games. They are already profiting handsomely from college football; eliminating a commerical break here and there isn’t going to make them beg for food on the street. Because we love college football, we are willing to tolerate it, and we understand their need for profit. What we find amusing is their constant complaining about these four hour games (most games don’t last four; I think most last 3.5), and then they are unwilling to sacrifice something themselves (commercials) but instead charge that it’s college football’s fault.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, eliminate commercials except for between quarters and halftime (something hockey and soccer does, incidentally, and last I checked, international soccer is somewhat successful). Who’s complaining about length then? No one. Game time is only 60 minutes, and if you take in account game events to extend it double, that’s still only two hours. Where is that extra hour and a half or two hours going to? Exactly: Media breaks. Some of them are necessary, such as at halftime. Others surely aren’t. So again, college football fans are a bit amused by this blaming of the clock stuff.
I understand there are busy fans such as you who may have other responsibilities to attend to. That’s perfectly understandable. However, I hope you would understand how others feel on the issue and realize that you’re in the minority. Record the game and fast forward or something, but there are plenty of CFB fans out there that love every minute of the four games (minus the TV breaks, obviously) and they shouldn’t have that taken away from them just because the media dislikes long games.
Now, this is already too long, but I’ll talk briefly about the rules themselves. I don’t have too much of a problem with the new clock rules here; they are certainly better conceived than the one two years ago. Making it more like the NFL isn’t a big deal. However, I will say that they should NOT take away the clock stopping after every first down… or at least, they should keep it in the fourth quarter or something. That is something unique to all below-NFL football and has it’s own strategy that high school and college fans love. That should stay put.
Basically, the new rules aren’t a huge deal, but we all find the reasoning a bit silly. The people complaining about the extra long games are the very ones who caused it, and they are either too blind or too greedy to cut back on their own stuff if they truly feel like the games are too long. For the few fans like you who dislike the long games because you don’t have the time for it, I hope you realize you’re in the minority and that others would rather not have fewer snaps.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 1:46 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
games
I like quicker games, so sue me. And who’s to say I don’t understand where other people are coming from with respect to this issue? That’s certainly not the case.
But constantly bitching about the media’s involvement in football games strikes me a little as a biting the hand that feeds you mentality. We either have games on TV or we don’t. And it just so happens that sports like football and baseball have built-in moments for commercial breaks, unlike soccer or hockey.
I think we can all agree
that there comes a point where advertising and the packaging of the “product” becomes detrimental to the substance/experience of the game. While you may believe that we are not at that point yet, surely you will acknowledge the fact that that point of advertising saturation is out there, looming. Clearly it is not as simple as “we have games on TV or we don’t”, as the very issue being discussed is how much of those games will be constituted of football, and how much of advertising.
We only get 13-14 games a year, and I want every bit of sweet nectar I can get. Rub it on your gums!
by ctex80 on Aug 28, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
at home
While I’m sitting on my couch, watching a game with my family and friends, I welcome the breaks to converse, or grab a Diet Pepsi or ice tea out of the fridge, or fire up the grill.
Then when the commercial is over, I can watch the game again. And with these new clock rules, that block of time will be considerably less while offering me the same amount of enjoyment, thus making the minutes more valuable.
So, no, I don’t agree that there will ever be a time where advertising becomes detrimental to the game. Basically, because I don’t choose to allow it to bother me.
All the time
Or coffee or iced coffee, depending on the weather.
I agree with ctex
It’s a false dichotomy to say that we either have these games on TV or not. Everyone wants them on TV and everyone accepts commercial breaks. People also accept that such advertisement will lengthen games, sometimes considerably. What I and others find a bit goofy is that the same people who want the advertising subsequently try to shorten the games via new clock rules when it was they who lengthened them to these “unreasonable” times in the first place.
I agree that football, baseball, and basketball have more natural moments for TV timeouts than soccer (sometimes, these breaks are useful to go to the bathroom or make a quick run for more Dr. Pepper). My hypothetical scenario was to point out that we can’t just blame the clock rules for four hour games; these media breaks are equally, if not more so, to blame. Also, I also used the comparison to show that it is absolutely false to think that these TV networks are not being rewarded if they don’t advertise at every break they can. Clearly, soccer is a very profitable sport for TV networks around the globe, even without constant advertising.
Again, I don’t have a big problem with these new rules and they are much better than the ridiculously stupid crap they tried two years ago. However, I am not convinced these changes are being done to enhance the experience of college football viewers. I think they’re being done to suit the complaints of TV networks who undoubtedly want extra time for other shows.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 3:14 PM CDT reply actions
clock
I am not employed by a TV network, and I wholeheartedly welcome the change because it will undoubtedly enhance my experience as a college football viewer.
Besides, the new clock rules will result in less frequent commercial breaks anyway. Faster clock, fewer drives, fewer commercial breaks. Seems pretty good to me.
I know you are not
I never said that you were. And I know that for you, this is more preferable. But I think it is safe for me to say that you’re in the minority here. Generally speaking, most college football fans do not want less snaps, even if they would otherwise like to have shorter games.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions
fans
I don’t trust your made-up numbers as to what constitutes a majority or minority of college football fans.
Numbers?
Where did I cite numbers? I’m just speaking from my general experience, which most people on this blog seem to agree with. Of course, you can disagree if you wish, but I made no attempt to put a number on anything. Sorry for pointing this out, but you seem to be getting a bit too defensive in this discussion.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions
numbers
I know it can be difficult to sniff out sarcasm on the internet, but even that post was pretty obvious and innocuous. I mean, I know we’re all serious here on this board all the time…
My apologies then
I’m normally pretty good at it, but even I miss it sometimes.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 29, 2008 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Sponsorship?
Perhaps some advertisers should “sponsor” football games (as they do in the Masters or sometimes on ABC News, &c.) in order to limit commercial interruptions. I like to believe that I am not swayed by advertisements, but I would certainly feel compelled to patronize a business that “sponsored” a football game. Unrealistic? Or genius?
Anyway...
I was meaning to point out, on another topic:
Anyone else notice that without the old facemask rules, we would not have gotten the extra five yards for the first down on VY’s 7 yard completion on our last drive in the Rose Bowl? Of course, Darnell Bing should have been called for the personal foul version anyway because that clearly wasn’t incidental at all, but it’s a bit amusing to think back on it.
But I believe wholeheartedly that even without that call, Vince would have converted that fourth down.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 3:18 PM CDT reply actions
are you saying...
that you think they no longer have the five yard incidental facemask rule?
b/c if you are, I think they mean that it’s no longer JUST a five yard penalty, but it will be treated as the personal foul 15-yard penalty.
by vy til i die on Aug 28, 2008 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the "incidental" is gone
“Face-Mask Foul (Rule 9-1-2-q). There is no longer a foul if any player grabs an opponent’s face mask without pulling, twisting, or turning it. The five-yard penalty has been eliminated. This change does not change the safety aspect of this rule. Pulling, twisting, or turning an opponent’s face mask remains a personal foul with a 15-yard penalty.”
So if your hand incidentally hits the facemask, that’s apparently no longer a penalty. You have to pull or twist it or something to get a flag, which was already a fifteen yarder.
by TheElusiveShadow on Aug 28, 2008 6:27 PM CDT reply actions
oh ok..
..back to the ‘05 game…yeah I thought it should’ve been a 15-yarder anyway
by vy til i die on Aug 28, 2008 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
