forums

The idiot rule makers at it again

Advertisement
OMFG

An ejection for a ******* hit?! Unless it's a deadball, blatant-late hit this is absolutely ridiculous.
 
The rule would allow for the ejection portion of the penalty to be reviewed through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that the penalized player didn't intentionally target a defenseless player in order to overturn the call on the field. Calhoun said the 15-yard portion of the penalty would not be reviewable.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...3/ncaa-rule-change-ejection.ap/#ixzz2Ksyg5DrQ
Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll take into a receiver who lowers his head as the defender is coming towards him. I feel like this is almost never taken into account. What's a defender to do when he's gonna hit a receiver in the chest but then the receiver lowers his head into the strike zone and now we have personal foul? It's bull****.
 
Georgia Tech is going to have a hard time following the low block rule on the line of scrimmage...
 
Advertisement
dycane said:
Looks like we may not be able to wear all green again -- unless we play at Boise. Btw, as the NCAA follows the NFL's lead and progresses into the era of touch football, I think running quarterbacks (e.g., our newest commit) will be much more valuable. Times are a-changin'

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...13/ncaa-rule-change-ejection.ap/?sct=uk_t2_a3
Click to expand...

I dont think we will see the green with golden here. but yeah these rules are pure nonsense. every player will be dipping their head to try and get a high hit. which will ***** teams by losing a player and prolly get some one more hurt by dipping down to get that high hit.
 
Here's the part that frosts my ***.
The rule would allow for the ejection portion of the penalty to be reviewed through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that the penalized player didn't intentionally target a defenseless player in order to overturn the call on the field. Calhoun said the 15-yard portion of the penalty would not be reviewable.
Click to expand...

Conclusive evidence of lack of intent? WTF?


​
 
RiDLer80 said:
The rule would allow for the ejection portion of the penalty to be reviewed through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that the penalized player didn't intentionally target a defenseless player in order to overturn the call on the field. Calhoun said the 15-yard portion of the penalty would not be reviewable.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...3/ncaa-rule-change-ejection.ap/#ixzz2Ksyg5DrQ
Click to expand...

I wonder if they'll take into a receiver who lowers his head as the defender is coming towards him. I feel like this is almost never taken into account. What's a defender to do when he's gonna hit a receiver in the chest but then the receiver lowers his head into the strike zone and now we have personal foul? It's bull****.
Click to expand...

Exactly. While I have no problem with a clear case of spearing or aiming for the head resulting in ejection, all too often a defender gets penalized when the ball carrier had ducked his head right into the hit.
 
Advertisement
I actually dont mind the rule where you cant wear all Blue if you have a blue field.

Dont be stupid and think it means teams cant wear green anymore. Is Baylor going to have to change school colors?
 
Miami04 said:
I actually dont mind the rule where you cant wear all Blue if you have a blue field.

Dont be stupid and think it means teams cant wear green anymore. Is Baylor going to have to change school colors?
Click to expand...

"The Broncos like to wear all-blue uniforms while playing on their blue home turf. The rule would prevent players from being "camouflaged," Calhoun said. Opposing coaches have complained that the Broncos' all-blue uniforms make it difficult to prepare for games at Boise because it's hard to differentiate Broncos' players against the blue backdrop.

The rule, of course, also would apply to teams that wear all green uniforms on green turf or, in Eastern Washington's case, all red on its red turf."
 
Advertisement
• Establishing 3 seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock.

WTF
 
bes628 said:
Sounds like Calhoun is on his period with all that ****ing
Click to expand...

Every year there's an asshat on this committee, like Calhoun, that thinks we have a 'huge problem' with something that needs to be rectified with a rule change that further damages the game. Like when they thought 'taunting' was a huge problem and came up with that rule that a TD could be called back for unsportsman-like before crossing the goal line. With this rule, you know some teams are going to wind up having their best defensive players ejected due to some BS call, and it could wind up costing them a game.

Guys like Calhoun will eventually succeed in destroying the game, on all levels. In many ways these rules committees make these idiotic proposals in an attempt to justify their existence.
 
Last edited:
with ACC officials we are guaranteed to have the most ejections in the conf next year. mark it down.
 
Advertisement
BigPoopaCane said:
• Establishing 3 seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock.

WTF
Click to expand...

That's really fcked up and a nonsense rule. So 3 seconds = no time left on clock now? When will they change it to 5 seconds? How about 10?
 
FoggU said:
Georgia Tech is going to have a hard time following the low block rule on the line of scrimmage...
Click to expand...

I am far more pessimistic and think that their WRs will just have an easier time of blocking down field.
 
FSU's in DEEP **** NOW!

• Adding a 10-second runoff with less than a minute remaining in either half when the sole reason for the clock to stop is an injury. Calhoun said the intent is to prevent players from faking injuries to stop the clock.
Click to expand...
 
Advertisement
Back
Top