| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheGoldenChild
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 2059
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:51 pm Post subject: Proposed Rule: Helmet-to-helmet hit = Automatic ejection |
 |
|
|
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=24070797&nid=294
| Quote: | | The NCAA has announced that the Football Rules Committee has voted unanimously to start enforcing a stricter penalty for intentional above-the-shoulder hits. It is already a 15-yard penalty and now it would include an automatic ejection. |
| Quote: | | The new rule would include a video replay that would decide whether or not to enforce the ejection, depending on whether or not they deem it was intentional. The ejection would be for the current game if the penalty occurs in the first half. If the penalty happened in the second half or overtime it would carry through to the first half of the next game. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Oregon Ducks
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 12741
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Woah...
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ICE13
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 2935
Location: PA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If somebody is spearing (Taylor Mays style, that is) then I absolutely support them getting throw out.
That being said, there have been some hits that would've gotten someone thrown out that I really don't think are necessary for them to get throw out.
_________________
I'm a closet Vanderbilt fan.
"As always, criminal justice proceedings, if any, take precedence over any NCAA actions" - Mark Emmert, 1982 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malibuspeedrace
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 12201
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Simply terrible.
If they want...Have it reviewed AFTER THE game..And if it is deemed warranted...Then take action....
But I don't trust these bafoons to get an offsides call or holding call correct...now they get the opportunity to boot a player while having a poor angle on the play...
NO THANKS.
_________________
| candyman93 wrote: | | I love Pnies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mgoblue44
Joined: 23 Oct 2008
Posts: 2754
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Intentional above the shoulder hits is key for me. As long as they can prove on replay that a particular hit was intentional, then I have no problem with the rule
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBando
Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 5866
Location: Tampa Bay
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Lets just play flag football.
_________________
| simonwayne wrote: | | I don't recall blaming the officials for any other Thunder loss this season. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
disaacs
Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 19982
Location: Brownbackistan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I have absolutely no problem with the rule. If there were no video replay involved, then yes, there would be a problem. But, in this case, there will have to be confirmation.
_________________
Thx to Uncle Buck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zelbell
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 2969
Location: NW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mgoblue44 wrote: | | Intentional above the shoulder hits is key for me. As long as they can prove on replay that a particular hit was intentional, then I have no problem with the rule |
Pretty much my thinking on this
Don't know how hard it is to tell if something was intentional though |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nfldraftguru1
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 8039
Location: eau claire, wi
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| mgoblue44 wrote: | | Intentional above the shoulder hits is key for me. As long as they can prove on replay that a particular hit was intentional, then I have no problem with the rule |
Exactly. I'd even support suspending players multiple games if intent is clear.
_________________
packer backer forever-ker
Packerbacker87's work
| Quote: | | Just like anything, the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. |
Follow me @rcon14 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
plan9misfit
Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 18012
Location: RIP: B2TB, T14, & S.A. We miss you.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
While I think the rule is unnecessary, the key will be how it's enforced. I don't agree with the idea of a carryover suspension, and I think the people reviewing the hits will be sensitive to that. I'd find it hard to believe that reviewers will continually suspend every player for a helmet-to-helmet hit, especially when teams are playing in conference title games. It would be a travesty of justice to suspend a guy for the first half of a bowl game because of a questionable hit, especially if he's going to be playing in a BCS game.
_________________
Co-Founder: DCRA - No McQuistan, No Super Bowl
| The_Slamman wrote: | | It's like we are in a win now mentality with lose now personnel. |
Last edited by plan9misfit on Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cp0k2
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BBando wrote: | | Lets just play flag football. |
Hooray for just reading the headline and throwing out recycled cliches as an overreaction. Next you'll find some way to blame Roger Goodell and suggest someone should be fired.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RollEagles
Joined: 10 Jan 2012
Posts: 3184
Location: Washington, DC
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm actually ok with this. Also wouldn't be upset if it was expanded to other unnecessary roughness penalties.
_________________
Phillies: 21-24
Eagles: Offseason
#1 Alabama: National Champions
Maple Leafs: Offseason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ark23
Joined: 04 Dec 2012
Posts: 1278
Location: Columbus, Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| zelbell wrote: | | mgoblue44 wrote: | | Intentional above the shoulder hits is key for me. As long as they can prove on replay that a particular hit was intentional, then I have no problem with the rule |
Pretty much my thinking on this
Don't know how hard it is to tell if something was intentional though |
That's my question. I honestly don't think it's all that easy to tell at times. Certainly there are instances where it's clear, but there are going to be plays where it's not clear and wrongly it'll be enforced - and I fear this could swing the balance of some game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DontTazeMeBro
Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 20519
Location: 321
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Freakin stupid. Shouldn't even be a penalty unless its blatant head hunting which barely ever happens anymore.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cp0k2
Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| DontTazeMeBro wrote: | | Freakin stupid. Shouldn't even be a penalty unless its blatant head hunting which barely ever happens anymore. |
Did you even read it? It would be for intentional above the shoulder hits and would need to be verified with replay, not just a bang bang judgement call.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
