Best or Worst Rule Change

[MichiganDad3]

I am all for rule changes to improve safety, but some rule changes are mind boggling and take the fun out of football. The fumblerooski was banned after the 1992 season, and I see no reason to ban the play. This is an exciting, and fun play. I will never forget the fumblerooski in the 1984 Orange bowl. Here are nine reasons why the fumblerooski should be legalized.

 

http://lostlettermen.com/9-reasons-why-the-ncaa-needs-to-legalize-the-fumblerooski/

 

What is your worst and best rule change of all time?

[BigRedBuster]

I've never understood why that was banned either.

 

It is like if a team was successful running a half back pass, the NCAA should out law it the next year.

Makes no sense.

[Enhance]

It's not so much of a 'rule' change, persay, but moving the goal post base from the end zone line to the back of the end zone (out of bounds) was a really smart move and has helped prevent a lot of injuries. The fact that they had it placed where they did for several years is just a bit mind boggling.

 

I also think making players down by contact was a smart rule change. Early on in football, a ball carrier had to be completely held down by the defender/s, and prevented from getting back up, before the offensive player was considered down.

 

I will admit, however, it would be incredibly interesting to see a football game where tacklers had to hold the ball carrier to the ground for them to be considered down.

[NUance]

 

TARGETING! Something needs to be done about the targeting rule. The way it it now a perfectly clean but hard hit can be called targeting by a ref who has a thing for hard hits. Like Nate Gerry vs Iowa. Gerry's shoulder was about 30 inches off the ground when he hit the guy, and he (Nate) was doing everything he could to keep his helmet away from the guy. Still, targeting.

[DrunkOffPunch]

 

TARGETING! Something needs to be done about the targeting rule. The way it it now a perfectly clean but hard hit can be called targeting by a ref who has a thing for hard hits. See, Nate Gerry vs Iowa.

The Iowa call by defenition was targeting and I have no problem with that one being called. The problem I have is that the rule doesn't take into account what the offensive player is doing. If that Iowa guy is able to keep his feet instead of falling, he probably gets hit around the knees, which of course isn't a flag. To me it clearly looked like Gerry was trying to hit the ball loose. I'd like to see that changed.

 

UCLA call was pure BS though.

[huKSer]

My guess is that Knapp will say the forward pass.

 

Completely ruined the game for him.

[huKSer]

 

TARGETING! Something needs to be done about the targeting rule. The way it it now a perfectly clean but hard hit can be called targeting by a ref who has a thing for hard hits. Like Nate Gerry vs Iowa. Gerry's shoulder was about 30 inches off the ground when he hit the guy, and he (Nate) was doing everything he could to keep his helmet away from the guy. Still, targeting.

No ejection for targeting during the game. The film is sent to a national committee who then determines if an ejection is warranted. Should give a consistancy to the enforcement.

[Red Dead Redemption]

I hate that the rule of 'not wearing white after Labor Day' was changed.

 

How gauche!

[C N Red]

It's not so much of a 'rule' change, persay, but moving the goal post base from the end zone line to the back of the end zone (out of bounds) was a really smart move and has helped prevent a lot of injuries. The fact that they had it placed where they did for several years is just a bit mind boggling.

 

I also think making players down by contact was a smart rule change. Early on in football, a ball carrier had to be completely held down by the defender/s, and prevented from getting back up, before the offensive player was considered down.

 

I will admit, however, it would be incredibly interesting to see a football game where tacklers had to hold the ball carrier to the ground for them to be considered down.

We wouldnt have to see defenders getting up right away after a hit and flaunting their sh#t as much, but i would think more personal fouls would happen with having a pile. Thats never a good place to be.

[GSG]

 

It's not so much of a 'rule' change, persay, but moving the goal post base from the end zone line to the back of the end zone (out of bounds) was a really smart move and has helped prevent a lot of injuries. The fact that they had it placed where they did for several years is just a bit mind boggling.

 

I also think making players down by contact was a smart rule change. Early on in football, a ball carrier had to be completely held down by the defender/s, and prevented from getting back up, before the offensive player was considered down.

 

I will admit, however, it would be incredibly interesting to see a football game where tacklers had to hold the ball carrier to the ground for them to be considered down.

We wouldnt have to see defenders getting up right away after a hit and flaunting their sh#t as much, but i would think more personal fouls would happen with having a pile. Thats never a good place to be.

 

 

Ask this guy about being in a big pile

[The Dude]

With a name like Peacock I assume that was his destiny.

[Guy Chamberlin]

All I know is that when we used to make defensive linemen count to three before rushing, it really opened up the passing game.