Proposed on-the-field rule changes

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,720
Founding Member
The "30-second timeout" is bullsh*t too. Another rule to speed up the game for TV. When a team calls a TO they need a breather, need to slow momentum, re-group, etc. The "30-second timeout" was only instituted to speed up the game. Note to the NCAA: Stop F*cking w/ the clock rules!

Agree on this one, a timeout is a timeout....
 

Gator By Marriage

A convert to Gatorism
Lifetime Member
Dec 31, 2018
14,785
27,965
The "30-second timeout" is bullsh*t too. Another rule to speed up the game for TV. When a team calls a TO they need a breather, need to slow momentum, re-group, etc. The "30-second timeout" was only instituted to speed up the game. Note to the NCAA: Stop F*cking w/ the clock rules!
This might be the only suggestion in this thread we can all agree on.
 

Double Gator Dad

Founding Member
Senior Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
4,988
8,400
Founding Member
I would agree with the pass interference change except the fact that nobody seems to know what constitutes pass interference. You can watch a handful of games on a Saturday and see each game called differently as well as different interpretations play to play. Giving an offense a huge gain from a completely arbitrary judgment call just seems too damaging to me. This season alone I saw PI called multiple times on passes that were several yards out of bounds which boggles the mind and given that you cannot review a horrible call, I am not sure I want the reward to increase
 

Gatorbait25

Founding Member
H.E. Pennypacker, wealthy American industrialist
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
3,536
5,322
Founding Member
Having to sit out a play because your hat is knocked off is a dumb rule that we also
get reminded of every time it happens.
 

no1g8r

Bringing Reason to the dumb masses
Lifetime Member
Oct 23, 2017
2,407
5,295
Having to sit out a play because your hat is knocked off is a dumb rule that we also get reminded of every time it happens.

It used to be that guys weren't strapping up tight enough. Now it is usually a ref missing a call when the opponent is trying to take his head off. Penalize the victim.
 

YLGator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jan 14, 2016
1,430
3,719
Two things come to mind for me. First is targeting. The single worst rule ever implemented. This one is simple to me. It’s all about the helmet. If you’re gong to let players wear them, they’re going to make contact from time to time. If you don’t want that to happen, get rid of the helmets. Anything else is just absurd.

Second is fumbles. The offense should never be able to advance the ball on a fumble. If the offense recovers a fumble, they should get the ball at the spot of the fumble. Even if the fumble goes through the end zone. Giving the ball to the D in that situation is the second dumbest rule in the books.
 

Concrete Helmet

Hook, Line, and Sinker
Lifetime Member
Jul 29, 2014
22,047
23,183
Doug, any comment that says "make it like the NFL" gets a down-vote.

I'm tired of the "let's f*ck w/ the clock" rules changes that are designed to speed up the game. This ISN'T the NFL! Leave it alone.

The NFL has a goal w/ the clock: make the game as close to 3 hours as possible. They roll the clock on ANY play that is anywhere near the sideline (if the tackle is anywhere near the out-of-bounds marker the clock rolls). I like that college football is longer (time wise) and usually more plays (# of plays per game). CFB is a different game than the NFL.

I agree on the targeting BS, but unfortunately don't see anything changing. The new KO rule (fair catch, get the ball at the 25) is all about "player safety" (at least they didn't get rid of the KO).
They need to move the kicker back 10 yards and make it part of the game again. If the kicker can still get a touchback from there reward his team by placing the ball on the 20 yard line instead of the 25. Leave the fair catch option and the receiving team gets the ball on the 25....My guess is that most returners getting a chance from the 5 or 10 yard line would be willing to try and return the ball to get better than the 25 yard line.
 

Concrete Helmet

Hook, Line, and Sinker
Lifetime Member
Jul 29, 2014
22,047
23,183
Second is fumbles. The offense should never be able to advance the ball on a fumble. If the offense recovers a fumble, they should get the ball at the spot of the fumble. Even if the fumble goes through the end zone. Giving the ball to the D in that situation is the second dumbest rule in the books.
yep on both
 

AuggieDosta

I Don't Re Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 1, 2018
7,451
12,007
I hate it when a pass is thrown past the LOS but a lineman was more than 3 yards downfield, and it's called a penalty.

Hell, I think the whole "ineligible receiver downfield" rule is stupid. You should be able to send 10 out and throw it to your center, if he's open, if you want. No declaring, make the D defend everybody.

Offense, offense, offense. GET SOME!
 

Uncle Rob

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 10, 2016
399
493
Injury timeouts. If training staff has to come on to the field, the player should sit for the rest of the series, or the rest of the quarter, whichever is longer. Hold up the tempo offense for 15 seconds to allow him to limp off on his own power if required.
 

AuggieDosta

I Don't Re Member
Lifetime Member
Aug 1, 2018
7,451
12,007
I'm also tired of the penalty for not having 7 men on the LOS. Especially when the linemen are in a V and one of them is slightly further back than his counterpart.
 

Malaka

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2018
210
350
The current rules are 5 and a first, I disagree with it being a first. If it is 3rd and 20, receiver gets held in the first 5 yards of the route. Should that really be a first down or 3rd and 15?

And if that reciever otherwise beats his man and has open field ahead? It can't be perfectly retributive but seems to me a hold has potential to prevent large gains more often than not as it typically means an offensive player would have his man beat.
 

TheDouglas78

Founding Member
Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jun 12, 2014
16,292
14,720
Founding Member
And if that reciever otherwise beats his man and has open field ahead? It can't be perfectly retributive but seems to me a hold has potential to prevent large gains more often than not as it typically means an offensive player would have his man beat.

Just the receiver will get the benefits of a PI even when the ball is uncatchable, I don't think we need to do the same with a defensive holding. At least they would have another shot at 3 and a little closer.
 

Pablos Tunnel

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Sep 23, 2017
2,689
4,130
I'd like Soft Helmets and Soft Shoulder Pads. That eliminates targeting and many injuries.


I played Rugby; the tackling can be just as aggressive if not more.


IMO, it’s the equipment not the rules that is the issue.
Nope
It is the speed, size and sudden impact.
 

BMF

Bad Mother....
Lifetime Member
Sep 8, 2014
25,399
59,221
They need to move the kicker back 10 yards and make it part of the game again. If the kicker can still get a touchback from there reward his team by placing the ball on the 20 yard line instead of the 25. Leave the fair catch option and the receiving team gets the ball on the 25....My guess is that most returners getting a chance from the 5 or 10 yard line would be willing to try and return the ball to get better than the 25 yard line.

I'd love to see that but unfortunately, they'd more likely move it 10 yards closer than farther. That's about the exact opposite of what "football" wants to do w/ the KO's. They've literally discussed doing away w/ KO's altogether.
 

NOLAGATOR

God uses the unlikely to accomplish the impossible
Lifetime Member
Aug 20, 2018
16,979
21,201
Nope
It is the speed, size and sudden impact.

Really? Take away the armor and watch the debilitating injuries go down.

You will still get the ACLs, Torn Muscles…but far fewer head and spine injuries.

Take away the facemask and see how many people tackle with their head and face.

Watch a little Australian Rules Football or Union Rugby…you tackle with your shoulders and you turn.

What good is equipment if you throw a flag every time you wipe someone out?
 

Back Alley Gator

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
Jul 16, 2018
7,556
19,871
The only thing I'd change is the disqualification for targeting. These players only have so much eligibility to play the sport. Taking some of that away, especially in some of these questionable cases, is wrong.

I'd also get rid of the second unsportsmanlike rule, with Joesph's case in the VU game being a perfect example. No player should ever be sitting minding his own business and be told he's being disqualified, in part, because of someone else's mistakes. That's a joke and should be killed first thing tomorrow morning.

Other than that, leave it alone. The NFL has become such a disaster in rule interpretation it's exhausting. Just looking at bizarre calls like yesterday's Eagles/Bears game, or the Ertz TD in the SB where he took twelve steps, crossed the line and the ground caused the fumble and it was nearly called an incompletion should tell you all you need to know. The more a group of people(who may not have ever even played the game) tinker with things to find solutions for extremely rare instances, the worse it gets.

Thank you. This...1000x THIS. Leave the goddamn sport alone and get rid of the ridiculous disqualification rules.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Help Users

You haven't joined any rooms.

    Birthdays

    Members online

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    31,642
    Messages
    1,615,698
    Members
    1,642
    Latest member
    fishermb