New 2012 college football rule changes
- Thread starter FlabLoser
- Start date
they were going to eliminate blocking below the waist outside the box as high school did a long time ago. People told me I was an idiot and it would never happen. Looks like they are on the way there. Good change.
if I am understanding "earholed" correctly, however you make a good point since the foul part could get missed.
They are trying to make the players actually tighten their chinstraps. Lots of players nowadays only use 2 or 3 of the 4 buttons. Thehelmets are designed to be buckled down in acertainmatter for maximum protection. Not to mention, this is going to save a little bit of time. Seems like ever 3rd play, someone is having to chasetheirhelmet around and put it back together. I'd rather have that person in the huddle.<div>My only concern isthatpeople are going to view this as a way the NCAA is trying to curtail the predator hairdoos. Seems like that hairstyle leads to a lot of people losing their hats because they can't buckle it down properly.</div>
But it seems as if they are penalizing the effect not the cause. And the effect could be cause by something outside the player's (whose helmet comes off) control. I've seen both buckles busted on one side of a helmet in 1A high school games, and we didn't achieve half of the force that these players do. A timeout is called to fix the helmet and the player is able to play the next down. In my scenario the PF is declined, the SEC may penalize the defender for the next game, but the offense is forced to go at a two point conversion without the starting QB. If course the solution would be enforce it like they do the mouth piece rule, but again that causes a time problem.
instead of 2, and no one will be able to block a punt because they can't jump over one of the players, and probably not 'between' the up backs, either. <div>
</div><div>I don't like that rule. I don't think I've ever seen an injury from someone jumping over a player to block a punt. Heck, I don't like the rule forbidding jumping over a lineman to block a FG/XP attempt, either. That's just not how players get injured in college football. They are taking one of the most exciting plays out of the game.</div>
</div><div>I don't like that rule. I don't think I've ever seen an injury from someone jumping over a player to block a punt. Heck, I don't like the rule forbidding jumping over a lineman to block a FG/XP attempt, either. That's just not how players get injured in college football. They are taking one of the most exciting plays out of the game.</div>
My question is, why are the helmets coming off at such a high rate anyway? Is it from amanufactorsdesign flaw? Such asthe helmet not fitting correctly and/or chin straps not working properly. Or from not buckling chin straps and/or wearing a helmet that is to large? Obviously, the NCAA feels like it is from improper wear and sizing. Also, I am sure we would have heard of a manufactors flaw by now.So, assuming it is improper wear/sizing, I think it is a good rule. Force theschools and equipment managers to make the players buckle chin straps and wear ahelmet that fits properly. Hell, back in my day, a helmet damn near ripped your ears off when you took it off.
Isaw a number of plays over the last few years where players continuing playing without a helmet. That is extremely dangerous.
Isaw a number of plays over the last few years where players continuing playing without a helmet. That is extremely dangerous.
I'm thinking it's the punt block rule. This is how I see it's happening:
We're up by less than a TD late in the game against (insert random SEC
West team not named Ole Miss). We're thinking that if we can hold them
here, we can get the ball back and run out the clock. We stop them.
It's 4th and 4 and they have to punt. For some unknown reason, Dan
calls for the punt block defense (because, he tends to do crazy ****
like that from time to time). Our guy runs up to the up back, jumps
vertically, and gets undercut by the up back. Our guy gets hurt. We
get a penalty for jumping over another player, giving them the ball
back. They go down and score with seconds left and we lose. Damn it's
good to be MSU.
We're up by less than a TD late in the game against (insert random SEC
West team not named Ole Miss). We're thinking that if we can hold them
here, we can get the ball back and run out the clock. We stop them.
It's 4th and 4 and they have to punt. For some unknown reason, Dan
calls for the punt block defense (because, he tends to do crazy ****
like that from time to time). Our guy runs up to the up back, jumps
vertically, and gets undercut by the up back. Our guy gets hurt. We
get a penalty for jumping over another player, giving them the ball
back. They go down and score with seconds left and we lose. Damn it's
good to be MSU.
And those still get blocked. Hell most blocked punts aren't from leaping over linemen anyway, it's someone shooting the gap
. . .can't have more than 4 in the backfield (modification of the old must have 7 on the line of scrimmage rule). Easier to count the backfield than it is to count the line. HS you still have to count the line and it is a PIA. Basically same thing. I'm thinking this rule must be like the FG one where you cant take a running leap over the line, but I'm not sure.
I think is just going to lead to a penalty being thrown basically everytime a helment comes off, especially on the OL/DL rather the refs see it or not.
4 is ok. 5 is not. In his previous post he was talking about putting 4 guys in front of the punter. Those 4 plus the punter is 5. Too many.
so he has to miss the next play.....I know that would be a penalty, but refs miss penalties all of the time. That helmet rule will end up costing someone big time, I just hope it's not us. Any rule that can have that much gray area, should never be enforced. If you can get punched in the nuts at the bottom of a pile, then you can have your helmet ripped off at the bottom of a pile without the refs seeing it every time.
that if you always go for it on fourth (with the exception of some extreme circumstances) you actually end up scoring more points. Some guy did a big study, used average down and distances, conversion rates, effect of other team's field position, etc. and says that you're better off going for it. I think a high school or two and maybe a lower division college teams actually do it.
Here's a couple things I just found after remembering this
link
espn
There are many more. It's an interesting concept at least.
Here's a couple things I just found after remembering this
link
espn
There are many more. It's an interesting concept at least.
. . .and many of the smaller schools simply do not have a punter, or they just don't have the coaching expertise of willingness to coach a punter. I see a rather larger percentage of these small schools do one of two things. They either always go for it on 4th down or they line up and kick a "field goal" from wherever they are on the field (it's the same as punting). I have not paid close enough attention to know whether this really makes a difference, but in honesty, it really doesn't seem to hurt them too much unless they go for it on 4th and forever deep in their own territory and a stopped for a loss. This happens more than you would think. And in many of these cases the other team is doing the same thing, so it generally evens out with fairly evenly matched teams.
sense. You figure he's got a shot of bringing it all the way for a TD if you don't, which can't happen on an onside kick, he's got a fair chance of getting to midfield, where they get it if they recover, and you get about a 40% or so shot at getting it yourself. It almost makes sense.
short high kick landing at about the 30 near the sideline. They line up a "hammer side" of the kick off team to be right in the receiver's face when he fields the kick off. They figure the percentages are with them. If he fields it cleanly, they have them at the 30. Most times he does not field it cleanly especially after being decleated a couple of times, and the kicking team reasons they will recover the kick once or twice a game. It's worth it for what probably amounts to a difference of 5 or 10 yards field position on kicks you don't recover.Works a lot like onside, but not as risky. Of course with the hands and skill in college it would not be as effective.
They eliminated the rule in college, but it is still in effect in high school. After a fair catch or an awarded fair catch the receiving team has the option to put the ball in play anywhere between the hash marks on the line where the fair catch was made by either a snap or a free kick. Said free kick is like a kick off. Team B has to be ten yards back etc. The difference is this free kick CAN score a 3 point field goal. I have never seen a team use this, and most coaches are probably not aware of it. It seems it may come in handy in the last seconds of a close game after the opponent punted from deep in his own territory.<div>
</div><div>Another thing about that rule is this. If you choose to put the ball in play by a snap and say you get a defensive passinterference call resulting in a 15 yard penalty, you then get to repeat the option of a snap or a free kick from anywhere between the hashes after you are moved forward the 15 yards.</div>
</div><div>Another thing about that rule is this. If you choose to put the ball in play by a snap and say you get a defensive passinterference call resulting in a 15 yard penalty, you then get to repeat the option of a snap or a free kick from anywhere between the hashes after you are moved forward the 15 yards.</div>
Yard? I do remember seeing free kicks taken though, and ridiculously long field goal attempts. The clock is stopped, so it's used on last second plays. I think.
I seem to recall Burt Reynolds surprising the guards by punting it for a field goal when the guards weren't expecting it. But I haven't watched that movie in forever.
I seem to recall Burt Reynolds surprising the guards by punting it for a field goal when the guards weren't expecting it. But I haven't watched that movie in forever.
Optimus Prime 4 said:
During the Croom Error, I wanted us to kick onside kicks every time. The KO coverage was so bad, teams usually made it AT LEAST to the 40. Sometimes our 40. Hell, just onside the damn thing.
No sarcasm intended. It pissed me off that Croom couldn't see that onside kicks made the most sense.