clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Pac-12 Roundtable: College Football Rules Changes

New, 4 comments

The targeting ejection rule will be one of the main subjects of discussion in this year's college football rules changes.

Kevin C. Cox

What are your thoughts on proposed NCAA rule changes?

Jack Follman, Pacific Takes: Nothing really jumps out as me as being particularly ground breaking or controversial. The safety stuff seems just like more of the same and the rest seems like bits and pieces. The field color thing was the only one that seemed to get major attention because it was kind of weird and I honestly never imagined that jersey color could seriously give someone an advantage.

NorcalNick, California Golden Blogs: The injury clock runoff rule strikes me as dangerous and/or cruel. The last thing I want to see is a player with a torn up knee trying to make his way to the sideline to save his team 10 seconds. I understand that teams can game the system for a clock stoppage, but this seems like an overreaction to something that hasn't been much of a problem.

The targeting ejection rule will absolutely be misapplied at some point and will cause a controversy. I'm 100% OK with increasing the punishments for dangerous hits, but asking refs to make that judgment call at full speed with no help from the replay booth? That won't end well. I'd prefer that the conference suspend players for the next game after reviewing the play rather than ejecting them from the game in question.

Anthony Cassino, UW Dawg Pound: I think we can all agree that one thing we'd like to see more of is Pac-12 refs potentially having greater control over the outcomes of games. Right?

On ejections for targeting, yes, player safety is important, but refs frequently get this penalty wrong as it is. Sending a player off for it seems a bit extreme especially if it was the wrong call. If they have to review prior to an ejection, that's great, but hasn't the NCAA been trying to cut down game times?

The spiking the clock thing is one of the dumbest rule changes I can imagine. You can't dictate how long a play takes. Either spiking the ball is illegal, and can't be done at all at any point in the game, or it's legal and it takes exactly as long as it takes. The length of a play is unaffected by the amount of time on the clock. And if a spike is illegal, teams could just throw a quick bubble screen at the feet of a receiver, and that still takes fewer than 3 seconds. This just doesn't make any sense at all.