College football rules changes you actually would like to see implemented

#1
V

Volosaurus rex

Doctorate in Volology
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
6,039
Likes
4,252
#1
As we are moving toward the college football offseason, I thought that an interesting topic would be to pose the following question: What rule changes would you actually like to see implemented in college football?

The first of my pet peeves includes:

(1) Intentional grounding.

In the 1964 Supreme Court case Jacobellis v. Ohio, Justice Potter Stewart issued this famous proclamation in explaining why material at issue in the case was not obscene, and therefore was protected speech that could not be censored:

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

The straight-forward principle of “I know it when I see it” has been absolutely turned upside down and inside out when it comes to enforcement of intentional grounding. Acts which formerly would have clearly been defined as intentional grounding are now allowed as long as the quarterback is outside the tackle box. One example involved Manziel if memory serves me correctly. On this play, the quarterback was behind the line of scrimmage but within a step or two of the sideline. He simply flipped the ball forward and out of bounds to avoid a sack. Solution: Adopt the old standard. The quarterback is still permitted to throw the ball deep and out of bounds to avoid a sack. On other instances where the quarterback releases the ball just before being sacked and where an eligible receiver is not reasonably close, intentional grounding should be called whether the quarterback is inside the tackle box or not.
 
Last edited:
#3
#3
Should get rid of the 15 yrd penalty for targeting, after a review shows that it wasn't targeting.

And I'm pretty sure they will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
Defensive pass interference is also high on my list of rules to be amended. Under the old format, a degree of subjectivity or judgment was often involved as to whether pass interference should be called on a given play. In the new format, you are allowed to tackle the receiver if he has beaten you on a deep route 50 yards downfield and only suffer a 15-yard penalty. In such clearly egregious situations I absolutely agree in re-imposing the spot of foul standard, even if it means a 47-yard penalty against the defense. There is, however, the potential for abuse in its enforcement, so I would not be opposed to review from above, a scenario which I would envision to function somewhat like the new review policy for targeting, wherein review serves to determine whether a 15-yard penalty is sufficient or whether the violation was, indeed, flagrant enough to warrant ejection from the game.
 
#9
#9
The fact that there is no such thing as a defensive false start has always irritated me. I am referring specifically to situations in which encroachment or neutral zone infractions have not occurred, i.e. the defensive lineman has not made contact with an offensive player or caused a false start. As the rule now stands, a defensive lineman can jump offsides, be a yard or two past the line of scrimmage but, if he gets back without making contact prior to the ball being snapped, no penalty is called. By contrast, if an offensive lineman so much as twitches, he is flagged for false start. To me, that is an unacceptable double standard.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
Although it is a matter of statistical record keeping, as opposed to a rule per se, there is one practice that I believe that the college game should borrow from the NFL. In pro football, sacks are recorded as lost yardage passing which are credited against the offensive TEAM, as opposed to the quarterback. After all, most sacks do not occur on designed runs by the quarterback.
 
#11
#11
I personally wish we could revert to kickoff touchbacks at the 20 and kicking off deeper like we used to. 80% of kickoffs are boring now. Do statistics back up their safety concerns yet?
 
#13
#13
If you mean the "I-haven't-been-touched-by-a-defender-so-I-am-free-to-get-up-and-run" rule, I agree. If a running back, receiver or kick returner slips in the open field but has not been touched by a defender, he should not be ruled down.
 
#15
#15
They need to change the OT rules that allow teams to commit as many violations as they want on the last play of an OT period and receive no penalties.
Recall UK twisting Eric Berry's facemask in 2007 to stop him from running back the blocked FG for a winning TD. Nothing happened to UK, because by rule, a foul committed during the play does not have its penalty carried over to the next OT.

At the very least, they need to carry over the 15 yards, like they do for dead ball penalties like Foster's unsportsmanlike penalty.

A better solution would be to extend the rule that a quarter cannot end on an accepted penalty to include OT periods. Mark off the yardage and award one "untimed" down. If no one scores on the ensuing play, the period ends, and the game moves on to the next OT.

That would be a great change for player safety. I don't see how anyone could think that allowing personal fouls to go unpunished is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
Aesius said:
Most obvious one: Fumbling in the endzone=touchback.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The defense should have to actually possess the football to be awarded a takeaway.
If no one recovers the fumble before it goes through the end zone, it should be returned to the spot of the fumble, IMO.
 
#18
#18
For years and years, it was also the college protocol to mark pass interference at the spot of the foul. That was, however, in the pre-review era. I would not be adverse to a "flagrant" version of pass interference, one in which replay officials might be involved so as to mitigate the likelihood of abuse by officiating crews. In other words, make sure that a 40-yard spot-of-foul penalty truly merited such a severe penalty as opposed to a "garden variety" 15-yard pass interference call.
 
#20
#20
Notorious B.E.N said:
Pass interference should be a spot foul like the NFL.
Click to expand...

I agree. Here are my other two:

1. Either college needs to require two feet down for a completed pass (as prep for NFL), or NFL needs to change to only one foot down.

2. Get rid of all reviews. This goes for NFL also. Slows down the game tremendously, is only reviewed accurately like 75% of the time (it seems), and, let's be honest: half the time they'll go against you and half the time they'll go in your favor. So, in other words, reviews are a wash and useless.
 
#21
#21
Make players wait two years before playing again if they switch Div 1 schools. There are to many players that get kicked out of one school and pop up at another school.
 
#22
#22
PI should be a spot foul.

Excessive celebration penalty should be eliminated

Should implement the down by contact rule the NFL has

Bring back the wedge on kickoff returns

10 second run off of the game clock for a injured player, needs to go.

The ball carrier rule where it is illegal for a lineman to help him with forward progress needs to go
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
Volosaurus rex said:
The fact that there is no such thing as a defensive false start has always irritated me. I am referring specifically to situations in which encroachment or neutral zone infractions have not occurred, i.e. the defensive lineman has not made contact with an offensive player or caused a false start. As the rule now stands, a defensive lineman can jump offsides, be a yard or two past the line of scrimmage but, if he gets back without making contact prior to the ball being snapped, no penalty is called. By contrast, if an offensive lineman so much as twitches, he is flagged for false start. To me, that is an unacceptable double standard.
Click to expand...

I'll go ahead and disagree with this one. The offensive players supposedly have an advantage in knowing what the snap count should be, I think defensive players should have every opportunity to mess up the offense short of crossing the actual LOS.

Agree with pretty much everything else ITT, and while it's granted that defensive PI as a spot foul gives college refs a lot of discretion, it basically incentivizes PI on long balls if it's from LOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top