Proposed Rules Changes 2015

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
NCAA football rules committee recommends change to ineligible receiver downfield rule | AL.com

Thankfully they are looking at addressing illegal man downfield changes.

The committee, which announced several recommendations on Wednesday, is proposing that the zone in which linemen can move on pass plays before being declared downfield from 3 yards to 1 yards.

Under a proposal, a lineman who is more than 1 yard past the line of scrimmage when a pass is released would have to be engaged with a defensive player in order for the play to be legal.

This is just a pathetic example of what it was allowed to be....

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nEMkOEcerjI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Anchorman

New member
Messages
658
Reaction score
60
Actually not a huge fan of that change--3 yards is fine IMO. 1 yard you could have a lineman step up to pick up a blitzing backer or safety and cross the 1-yard point.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
This isn't the rule change that is necessary. The rule change that is necessary is actually having refs enforce the rule, which they never do. I remember when Michigan beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl among the bajllion breaks that they got they had their center catch the ball off a deflection something like 20 yards downfield. How did he get there? How do you not throw a flag on that?
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
This isn't the rule change that is necessary. The rule change that is necessary is actually having refs enforce the rule, which they never do. I remember when Michigan beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl among the bajllion breaks that they got they had their center catch the ball off a deflection something like 20 yards downfield. How did he get there? How do you not throw a flag on that?

Agree, but I think the closer to the LOS the rule is, the easier it becomes to officiate.
 

BeauBenken

Shut up, Richard
Staff member
Messages
16,041
Reaction score
5,491
NCAA football rules committee recommends change to ineligible receiver downfield rule | AL.com

Thankfully they are looking at addressing illegal man downfield changes.



This is just a pathetic example of what it was allowed to be....

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nEMkOEcerjI" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>

In the clip you showed, the linemen downfield were engaged with defenders. According to the revision proposed, that is still a legal play.
 

eNDzone

Irish to the bone!
Messages
831
Reaction score
53
If a lineman falls on his face forward he is more than one yard down the field. Just another rule tha can be called any way at any time. Leave the sport alone.
 

GoldenDomer

preferred walk on
Messages
3,160
Reaction score
166
I like it. That play has become a staple of certain team's HUNH and I can't stand it.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
In the clip you showed, the linemen downfield were engaged with defenders. According to the revision proposed, that is still a legal play.

Here is the rule as I have read it to be:

No originally ineligible receiver shall be or have been more than three yards beyond the neutral zone until a legal forward pass that crosses the neutral zone has been thrown (A.R. 7-3-10-I and II).

The change would make that 1 yard instead of 3.

So, in the clip, the guy being 5 or 6 yards downfield would be illegal, engaged or not.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
The change would make that 1 yard instead of 3.

So, in the clip, the guy being 5 or 6 yards downfield would be illegal, engaged or not.
In the clip, the guy being 5 or 6 yards downfield already is illegal. As another poster pointed out, it's an enforcement issue, not an issue with the rule itself.
 

BeauBenken

Shut up, Richard
Staff member
Messages
16,041
Reaction score
5,491
Touche. I just want to point out that I lost a game this year when one of my middle school kids was called for this.

Middle school.

But it doesn't get called at higher levels?
 

DonnieNarco

Banned
Messages
322
Reaction score
26
Just going to repeat what people have said. Rules aren't the problem. They rarely are. The current ones just need to be enforced.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Here is my rule change. Full time, non-conference affiliated refs.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Just going to repeat what people have said. Rules aren't the problem. They rarely are. The current ones just need to be enforced.

As I mentioned, rules that are difficult to enforce are rules that have a problem. It's very challenging for officials to determine how far 3 yards is versus 4. One yard is much easier to gauge. Usually, refs will grant a yard or two of grace, which is why you have plays like the one shown above. Truth be told, it would be much simpler to enforce if they went to the NFL rules on this.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,383
As a lineman I always hated that rule, and I'm pretty sure I got burnt on it once. It's too obvious to the defense that a pass is coming if the linemen fall back in a pass blocking stance. Rather than give a PA pass play away, myself and the guard next to me would often fake run block and push a defender back just a few feet to give the illusion of a run play. We just wouldn't go all out. Don't know if anyone else did that, but it made sense to us. If the QB has to sell the fake, it doesn't help if the OL isn't selling it too.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,585
Reaction score
20,035
This isn't the rule change that is necessary. The rule change that is necessary is actually having refs enforce the rule, which they never do. I remember when Michigan beat Virginia Tech in the Sugar Bowl among the bajllion breaks that they got they had their center catch the ball off a deflection something like 20 yards downfield. How did he get there? How do you not throw a flag on that?

He was really fast for a lineman! lol

Touche. I just want to point out that I lost a game this year when one of my middle school kids was called for this.

Middle school.

But it doesn't get called at higher levels?

Middle School is where the rules are taught and the kids learn the rules.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
SBNation's Ian Boyd discusses how the proposed changes will affect teams that utilize "POP" passes heavily:

The NCAA's football rules committee has proposed a change that could diminish the pop pass, the newer breed of option plays that include play action. The concept's become more and more popular in college football, even making appearances in the NFL.

The current rule allows offensive linemen to advance 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage on passing plays. The proposed change would limit that to one yard, like the pros.

Combining run-blocking schemes with forward passes is not a strategy teams are going to give up. It's a continuation of play-action and option football, married into a single concept. Evolving the sport to feature exciting playmaking and faster tempo is good for the game, especially when it comes to appealing to millennials.

The suspicion amongst offensive coaches seems to be that the defensive guys are appealing to the rules committee to deliver them from a concept they've struggled to stop. Much like when Bret Bielema and Nick Saban appealed to stop up-tempo offenses in the name of player safety, this rule is said to be in the interest of making the illegal man downfield rule easier to enforce.

Sure it is.

While some teams got away with blocking more than 3 yards downfield, one would think adding an eighth official and emphasizing the existing rule would be enough. Instead, it's hard to come away with any impression other than that defensive factions aim to end pop plays such as this one...

If we're moving toward a "power" spread next season, these rules are going to hurt us much more than they'll help our defense.
 

Grahambo

Varsity Club Member
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
2,606
SBNation's Ian Boyd discusses how the proposed changes will affect teams that utilize "POP" passes heavily:



If we're moving toward a "power" spread next season, these rules are going to hurt us much more than they'll help our defense.

Personally, I don't have a problem with changing the rule to 1-yd. I also didn't have a problem with rule changes such as if an offense substitutes then the defense is allowed to make a substitution to counter.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
If they break that 12 team rule then they need to let ND play a 13th game.
 

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,383

"One True Champion"

ncf_ua_bowlsby_ms_576x324.jpg
 

irishff1014

Well-known member
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
9,287
Not sure where else to put this.

2 rule changes I would like to see.

#1 if a player falls with out contact the can continue the play. Like the NFL

#2 I forgot that you could advance an onside kick. I think that needs to be changed as well.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
Touchdown and extra point; commercial.
Kickoff; commercial
3 and out and punt; commercial.
Interception; commercial.

That's the formula for games anymore. Four 30 second timeouts in what could realistically be 1 minute of game clock. THAT'S the issue.
 

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,077
More rule changes designed to "make games shorter" as if the problem is college football and not the absurd amount of tv timeouts.

Also had no idea that halftime was so much longer in college than the NFL, but looking back on the season, it makes sense.

20 minutes vs 12 minutes is a significant difference... but they'll never shorten halftime because TV.
 
Top