Quote :

"The proposals include mention of 'horse collar' tackles, incidental facemasks and various timing changes. Let's review these categorically: The Good, The Bad, and The Whatever. The Good "abolishing the 5-yard incidental face-mask penalty" Incidental facemask grabs happen all the time and players tend to play through them. So long as there's no twisting or dangerous grabbing, let the incident go and put that flag away. Any block below the waist when a player already is engaged with another blocker automatically is a chop block penalty. K.I.S.S. ruled the day here. Says SEC Coordinator of Officiating Rogers Redding: "What we've simply said is a high-low combination block is going to be illegal. It's going to be clear to everybody. The official is not going to have to worry whether the person committing the block is from an adjacent position or behind or ahead of the line of scrimmage." A penalty would be added for so-called "horse-collar tackles." I'm torn between good and bad here. The horse-collar tackle is a dangerous play, but it's also more prevalent in the college game as more plays are made to the outside making backside tackles something of a regular occurrence. The ruling favors offenses but I'm not sure it will actually reduce this kind of desperate tackle. The Bad As for sideline warnings, the new rule would allow a team to be immediately penalized for crowding the sideline This seems silly. We're talking about college football here, a game driven by emotion in the stands, on the sidelines and on the field. The sidelines should be chaotic and disorganized pits of emotion and energy. Officials simply need to be more enthusiastic about giving that first warning. Once that cat is out of the bag then yeah, penalize as they see fit. The first mistake should be met with a fair, public warning before handing out penalties. Previously, the game clock stopped when a runner went out of bounds and didn't re-start until the next snap. The proposed change will make an out-of-bounds play just like a first down, after which the clock is started when the official marks the ball ready for play. This is a concession to TV executives. I should probably be happy that no proposals were made this year to affect the actual number of plays. However, the beauty of college football is that it isn't so clean, so regimented like the NFL. Some games can be done well under three hours, some seem to take forever. It's a bit like baseball in that regard. The game's fans are presumably watching because they enjoy the experience, which should override any concerns about how long each game takes. I say the longer the game, the better. Saturday is about football, I'm in no hurry to see it end. The Whatever A coach who successfully challenges a play would retain the right to make one more challenge, for a maximum of two Maybe I'm overthinking, but this seems like an admission that the officiating in college football is not up to snuff. If so, measures should be taken to improve the on-field officiating. They could start by standardizing the education of officials throughout the conferences. The proposed cross-conference officiating teams is a great idea. Anything to improve the quality of officiating would greatly improve trust between fans and officials and return scrutiny to on-field play instead of officiating. giving the receiving team the option to taking possession at the 40-yard line after an out-of-bounds kickoff TBD. I like kick returns, they're exciting, but having the ball at the 40 is hard to pass up for most coaches. I doubt this will actually reduce the number of out-of-bounds kickoffs. Remember that college kickers are notoriously inaccurate. It's not like they're really thinking to themselves as they kick the ball off "hey, let's send this sucker out of bounds, coach'll love it". It just happens unless you've got one of those rare, consistent kickers. What it will do is make it less likely a coach opts to return a kick even if he has a dangerous returnman if he can take the ball at the 40. This speeds up the game (bad), but may also lead to more scoring and actual possessions (good). Hmm ..."

[Edited on February 17, 2008 at 5:57 PM. Reason : d]

2/17/2008 5:56:13 PM

Quote :

"Previously, the game clock stopped when a runner went out of bounds and didn't re-start until the next snap. The proposed change will make an out-of-bounds play just like a first down, after which the clock is started when the official marks the ball ready for play."

this makes me angry.

2/17/2008 6:04:56 PM

^

2/17/2008 6:18:58 PM

[old]. you're a little late there gaybee

2/17/2008 6:31:44 PM

hey! jay does rhyme with gay! No one else has ever noticed this!


Is there another thread for this?

2/17/2008 6:33:50 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=514615

2/17/2008 6:34:16 PM

alright, mine provides commentary though, totally different

2/17/2008 6:34:56 PM

then paste it in the other thread and ibtl

2/17/2008 6:38:29 PM

this one is already doing better and its only a few minutes old

2/17/2008 6:39:54 PM

this one has three posts not about how dumb you are

2/17/2008 8:51:49 PM

we dont discriminate

2/17/2008 8:53:11 PM