Rule Changes - Proposals For Football

#3
#3
Boston Vol said:
They’re fine, except for the one about starting the clock after an incomplete pass.
Click to expand...

I don't like that one or running the clock after a first down. Want to shorten the game, eliminate booth reviews and just go with coaches challenges. Also limit the length of time for reviews, 45 seconds and if no decision has been made the play stands. Also cut the halftime down to 12 minutes like the NFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74, Cdywolfe, GBOx2 and 5 others
#5
#5
hog88 said:
I don't like that one or running the clock after a first down. Want to shorten the game, eliminate booth reviews and just go with coaches challenges. Also limit the length of time for reviews, 45 seconds and if no decision has been made the play stands. Also cut the halftime down to 12 minutes like the NFL.
Click to expand...
Seems like this should be a no brainer. If it takes 5 damn minutes to review clearly there's something disputable there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74, Sudden Impact, Plecoptera and 2 others
#8
#8
I've seen more dissatisfaction about concentration of power and SEC dominance than about long games. Despite the player safety talk, these rule changes may be also be an attempt to increase parity in cfb. Fewer possessions and plays per game decreases the advantage of superior talent/depth. Of course, the unintended result could be more teams running a hurry up offense.
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
The thing I think is the most impactful on not stopping the clock on an incomplete pass, is when a long ball is dropped. Especially when you are in a "march the field, come from behind" scenario. The receivers might have to travel 40-50 yards to get back to the line of scrimmage after they have just sprinted 40-50 yards trying to catch the ball. Talk about getting gassed. There is a reason the NFL hasn't adopted this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolPack22, tbwhhs, volmanjr and 2 others
#10
#10
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and VolsSince78
#14
#14
RDU VOL#14 said:
I think you can keep it, but it has to be absolutely egregious. I think the targeting rule should be tiered like a flagrant foul.
This should get you kicked out
Click to expand...

Good point. Wonder if there is a way to do both, that is: Don't let targeting on it's own get you kicked out. There are plenty of examples where a running back goes low at the same time a defender is trying to tackle low and their heads collide. Shame to get kicked out for that. But this example is a prime reason where an ejection is warranted.

Maybe treat it like when a kicker gets knocked down. A classification for "incidental contact" with a less harsh penalty as compared to "roughing the kicker".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TC 83, VolNExile and RDU VOL#14
#17
#17
So, putting on my tin foil hat, I think Saban is behind this.

He always disliked uptempo. In the past he adapted and won titles. Now he sees he is getting past by Georgia and decides another change is needed. Gets a new OC that is more old fashioned. And suddenly we just so happen to get these rule proposals that favor the slower games? Color me skeptical.

Unrelated to that but back to the topic, what happens now if you spike the ball? Clock keeps running. End game just got a lot worse.
 
#18
#18
RDU VOL#14 said:
I think you can keep it, but it has to be absolutely egregious. I think the targeting rule should be tiered like a flagrant foul.
This should get you kicked out
Click to expand...

Disagree. If you give the officials discretion then certain teams will benefit and others suffer.
 
#19
#19
hog88 said:
I don't like that one or running the clock after a first down. Want to shorten the game, eliminate booth reviews and just go with coaches challenges. Also limit the length of time for reviews, 45 seconds and if no decision has been made the play stands. Also cut the halftime down to 12 minutes like the NFL.
Click to expand...

If you limit booth reviews and cap the time maybe add 1 coaches challenge and you only lose them if the call is CONFIRMED, not STANDS. I think one addition should be a crew review, when the ref blowing the whistle thinks it was suspect based on his position to the play. Got to take his best shot but questionable in his own mind or after another official questions him about his conviction. Booth reviews limited to awful calls with immediate brain dead level video evidence. Sometimes the eye in the sky is like us at home, has a better view of the play. The perspective you get with your feet on the ground with all those bodies around the ball is tougher. Try working the chain gang a game or two at any level and you will get a better idea. Get it as right as quickly possible and move on. Therefore the booth has to publish the video evidence used to CONFIRM the calls they rule that way. The conspiracy theories will then shift to the production crews that feed OR DON'T the replays.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top