https://www.ncaa.org/news/2022/3/4/media-center-appeals-process-proposed-for-football-players-called-for-targeting-in-second-half.aspx
All rule proposals must be approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which is scheduled to discuss football rules recommendations April 20. If approved, these changes would take effect in the 2022 season.
- In games that have instant replay, when a targeting foul occurs in the second half, the carryover penalty (of sitting out the first half of that player's next game) will be eligible for further appeal.
- To address teams that are awarded an injury timeout through deceptive actions, the committee proposed a reporting and investigation process.
- Allow blocking below the waist only by linemen and stationary backs inside the tackle box. Outside the tackle box on scrimmage plays, blocking below the waist would be prohibited.
- If a ball carrier simulates a feet-first slide, officials would declare the runner down at that spot.
- An adjustment to the uniform policy: the sock/leg covering would have to cover the entire area from the shoe to the bottom of the pants.
- Defensive holding would remain a 10-yard penalty but would always carry an automatic first down.
1. Yay!
2. Yay!
3. Yay!
4. Yay!
5. Boo...
6. Indifferent.
I thought #3 was already in place. Salisbury who runs Flexbone formation and Triple majority of the time were called for illegal blocking outside the tackle box. I remember it vividly as the coach argued it was allowed and the ref was not having it saying that the WR/RB could cut outside tackle box.
A rule that needs to be put into place is the lineman down field, need to be like NFL. Lineman should not be able to go 3 to 5 yards down field on RPOs.
With #2, what do they plan on doing with an investigation??? I say if a player goes down, requires a stoppage of play, he should be out at minimum the rest of the drive, at worst the rest of that half. Make that player that is so injured that he can't get off the field spend some time in the locker room with the "rest of the half" side of it.
For #1, I wish they would not make it an automatic removal from the game in games where there is no way to review it in live time. I understand the want for player safety but that is a stiff penalty for something that may be incorrect.
Why not just eliminate intentional blocking below the waist entirely? I hate seeing the blocking back diving at guys knees on passing plays
Quote from: crufootball on March 08, 2022, 03:04:45 PM
For #1, I wish they would not make it an automatic removal from the game in games where there is no way to review it in live time. I understand the want for player safety but that is a stiff penalty for something that may be incorrect.
If the real intent is to protect players, there also needs to be a "targeting" type penalty of offensive players that lower their heads while running with the ball. Running backs use their heads as battering rams while running the ball.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on March 08, 2022, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: crufootball on March 08, 2022, 03:04:45 PM
For #1, I wish they would not make it an automatic removal from the game in games where there is no way to review it in live time. I understand the want for player safety but that is a stiff penalty for something that may be incorrect.
If the real intent is to protect players, there also needs to be a "targeting" type penalty of offensive players that lower their heads while running with the ball. Running backs use their heads as battering rams while running the ball.
I saw it called maybe once or twice since the rule has been put into place, but it is definitely missed along with offensive facemask, which is infuriating as a defensive minded individual.
The Sock rule is dumb.
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on March 09, 2022, 08:35:16 AM
The Sock rule is dumb.
Does seem like an odd thing to regulate, does anyone know the current policy?
Personal opinion:
I hate, hate, hate, that defensive holding is an automatic first down, and it bails a team out on 3rd and forever on a ticky tack call on some receiver crossing the field nowhere near the sticks. Heck, I could care less if it's 5 yards or 10 at that point. Unless it's the end of a half/game situation, the first down itself is much more valuable than the yards.
I'd much rather see it be a straight penalty with yards attached, but replaying the down.
For blocking below the waist, doesn't it seem that the injuries caused by blocking below the waist happen inside the box rather than outside the box? By not allowing cutting outside the box, don't you have more head on head contact?
I coach HS ball in MA, and we recently moved from NCAA rules to Federation rules. One of the federation rules is that there is no automatic first down on any penalty, just yardage (I know that is the case for PI and D holding calls anyway).
What is the purpose of the sock rule?
I think more knee injuries are caused by the turf than outside the box contact. Why don't they address that??!
This sock rule had to come from the guy we all know that has to add his voice to everything. All he could come up with was a stupid sock rule.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on March 09, 2022, 06:40:55 PM
This sock rule had to come from the guy we all know that has to add his voice to everything. All he could come up with was a stupid sock rule.
The NCAA story says "
Similar to the National Football League rules, the sock/leg covering would have to cover the entire area from the shoe to the bottom of the pants." WGAF about NFL uniform rules?
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 11, 2022, 08:02:52 AM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on March 09, 2022, 06:40:55 PM
This sock rule had to come from the guy we all know that has to add his voice to everything. All he could come up with was a stupid sock rule.
The NCAA story says "Similar to the National Football League rules, the sock/leg covering would have to cover the entire area from the shoe to the bottom of the pants." WGAF about NFL uniform rules?
If that's the case, just do everything the NFL does...
Quote from: FANOFD3 on March 11, 2022, 09:23:25 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 11, 2022, 08:02:52 AM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on March 09, 2022, 06:40:55 PM
This sock rule had to come from the guy we all know that has to add his voice to everything. All he could come up with was a stupid sock rule.
The NCAA story says "Similar to the National Football League rules, the sock/leg covering would have to cover the entire area from the shoe to the bottom of the pants." WGAF about NFL uniform rules?
If that's the case, just do everything the NFL does...
God no, Please God NO...