NCAA Rule Changes

[ladyhawke]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think the second rule is stupid. I accept others' opinions about them, but at the same time I don't understand the constant desire or need from our society to make sure everything is politically correct and fair for all audience members. If somebody wants to put a bible verse on their eye-black - let em. If they want to write "I love you, Dad." - let em. It doesn't hurt anybody. I can understand not having derogatory terms or language on eye-black, but people who complain about that kind of stuff really need to find better ways to live their lives.

 

And I can already see the taunting rule becoming an extremely volatile issue. If a qb throws up a hail marry, the wr catches it at the ten yard line and points into the crowd as he runs into the end zone to win the game, is that taunting? This rule is going to be extremely subjective and is going to be abused about as badly as roughing the quarterback is or helmet to helmet contact rulings.

 

I'm with you 'Enchance89' Sheesh! Like anyone can even see what's written there unless they do a camera closeup. There are more important things for the NCAA to worry about than that. I think the taunting rule is going to be very difficult to enforce. It's like someone else said, it will be like the head butting fiasco we had this year. That was a huge bunch of crappola.

**THIS WAS MY 200th POSTING WHOO HOO!!!*******

[zoogs]

Rules 2 and 3 are garbage. These things are good for the sport, simply put. The NCAA is a fool for not recognizing this.

[okaive]

Link

 

• No Wedge Blocking on Kick Offs (15 yard penalty)
• No Taunting (from spot of foul, potentially eliminating the score)
• No Eye Black Containing Messages or Symbols

 

At some point this season, that second one is really going to hurt a team or two. And be totally bogus at the same time.

 

I like the third one, because I am tired of seeing players putting their personal causes on the eye black. It is a team sport.

 

 

 

It's not like you can see it unless there is a close-up of the person without the helmet on. The last one I actually seen was His Holiness, but he is gone anyway.

 

As long as it's not advertisement, I don't see anything wrong with #3 not being a rule.

 

#2, well I do hate the Terrel Owens self satisfaction, but other then that they need to celebrate their joys some how, unless of course the score is 60 to 7. No reason to celebrate an ass kicking.

[Saunders]

Is this taunting:

Yup. 15 yard penalty too.

 

bullpies!!!

 

A Taunt is an insult intended to demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviors without thinking.

 

To me, those words mean that if the Taunt is directed towards the opposing team or fanbase, its a penalty.

KSU player got tagged for a 15 yard unsportsmanlike for saluting his teammates after scoring a TD....

 

F the NCAA

[Enhance]

Is this taunting:

Yup. 15 yard penalty too.

 

bullpies!!!

 

A Taunt is an insult intended to demoralize the recipient, or to anger them and encourage reactionary behaviors without thinking.

 

To me, those words mean that if the Taunt is directed towards the opposing team or fanbase, its a penalty.

That's a definition of a taunt, but the examples are more important. What you think is taunting behavior may be wildly different than what I think is taunting behavior. There is no set way of defining a taunt. False starts, holding, etc. all have specific things to look for. What are you looking for in a taunt? How do you know the player is making a motion to a teammate and not an opponent?

 

A ref is going to see one little thing and have a hay-day.

 

Link

 

• No Wedge Blocking on Kick Offs (15 yard penalty)
• No Taunting (from spot of foul, potentially eliminating the score)
• No Eye Black Containing Messages or Symbols

 

At some point this season, that second one is really going to hurt a team or two. And be totally bogus at the same time.

 

I like the third one, because I am tired of seeing players putting their personal causes on the eye black. It is a team sport.

 

I don't like the taunting rule, it is subjective.

Here's the thing - it doesn't affect anyone and it doesn't affect how the game is played. I'm not a religious person yet I don't find a bible verse offensive. Similarly, I have no problem with some putting "For you, Dad" or something else on there.

 

That said, I understand the rule. Although players have good intentions, there are people out there that will misconstrue every little thing just because they can. I think the NCAA is doing this to save themselves headaches more-so than anything else.

 

But this brings me to my point that if people have reason to complain about a bible verse on eye black, then they need to find a better way to live their life.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I think the second rule is stupid. I accept others' opinions about them, but at the same time I don't understand the constant desire or need from our society to make sure everything is politically correct and fair for all audience members. If somebody wants to put a bible verse on their eye-black - let em. If they want to write "I love you, Dad." - let em. It doesn't hurt anybody. I can understand not having derogatory terms or language on eye-black, but people who complain about that kind of stuff really need to find better ways to live their lives.

 

And I can already see the taunting rule becoming an extremely volatile issue. If a qb throws up a hail marry, the wr catches it at the ten yard line and points into the crowd as he runs into the end zone to win the game, is that taunting? This rule is going to be extremely subjective and is going to be abused about as badly as roughing the quarterback is or helmet to helmet contact rulings.

 

I'm with you 'Enchance89' Sheesh! Like anyone can even see what's written there unless they do a camera closeup. There are more important things for the NCAA to worry about than that. I think the taunting rule is going to be very difficult to enforce. It's like someone else said, it will be like the head butting fiasco we had this year. That was a huge bunch of crappola.

**THIS WAS MY 200th POSTING WHOO HOO!!!*******

These are my thoughts exactly, hawke.

 

IMHO they should spend more time developing equipment and spending money on concussion research than worrying about what a player has on his eye black or a taunt he makes on his way to the end zone.

[Danimal]

Link

 

• No Wedge Blocking on Kick Offs (15 yard penalty)
  
• No Taunting (from spot of foul, potentially eliminating the score)
  
• No Eye Black Containing Messages or Symbols
  

 

At some point this season, that second one is really going to hurt a team or two. And be totally bogus at the same time.

 

I actually like the 2nd one, mainly from the standpoint of the showboating that occurs before the crossing of the goal line. Taking off the points should stop that. There won't be any high stepping, diving from the 2 or 3 yard line when no one is around, running parallel to the goal line from one side of the field to the other to get more camera time. The bad thing about this, is it's another judgement call for the refs to make, and we've seen how the judgement varies from conference to conference. I guarantee you'll see people do the exact same thing in two different games, one will be called for it, one will get away with it and we'll have the same controversy as the "leading with the head" BS we had last year.

 

 

That is the thing, consistency, look at the bowl where KSU got screwed over a freaking salute. All season guys have done more and got away with it but this idiot decides to make a total ticky-tack call with the game on the line. Ya the "leading with the head" enforcement varied a ton too.

[Blaze1up]

Like pass interference theres going to be a lot of grey area.

[zoogs]

It's nice when players score and act like they've been there before. But showboating and raw displays of emotion are a part of sports and should be anything but punished. Think of the soccer moments when players pile on each other after scoring a goal. Or any basketball dunk ever. The amount of regulation going into celebration behavior in American football is quite ridiculous.

 

Heartbreak, joy, taunting...all should be *celebrated* parts of the game. You don't penalize players for jawing at each other before the snap. Why penalize them for high-stepping into the endzone?

 

The NCAA and NFL should be reversing their course here instead of going even further in the current direction.

[Schoeny]

I hate to agree with any ThugU mentality, but I have to. While I personally would not taunt on the way into the endzone, I don't discount the people who would.

 

If you don't want me taunting, then man up and stop me from having the chance. It's football, not chess.

[Apathy]

I'm probably in the minority, but I think the second rule is stupid. I accept others' opinions about them, but at the same time I don't understand the constant desire or need from our society to make sure everything is politically correct and fair for all audience members. If somebody wants to put a bible verse on their eye-black - let em. If they want to write "I love you, Dad." - let em. It doesn't hurt anybody. I can understand not having derogatory terms or language on eye-black, but people who complain about that kind of stuff really need to find better ways to live their lives.

 

And I can already see the taunting rule becoming an extremely volatile issue. If a qb throws up a hail marry, the wr catches it at the ten yard line and points into the crowd as he runs into the end zone to win the game, is that taunting? This rule is going to be extremely subjective and is going to be abused about as badly as roughing the quarterback is or helmet to helmet contact rulings.

I completely agree with you on the bold statement. I referee High School Football and both Iowa and Nebraska have similiar rules as stated above but I'll be touching the eye paint subject, celebrations, and equipment.

 

How does eye paint make a football player gain more of an advantage over another player? By placing a bible verse or a "I love you Dad" under their eye make them more athletic compared to the guy across the line of scrimmage? Does it allow a player to catch the ball better, run faster, tackle harder, etc?

 

Some people have debated that the eye makeup is a form of intimidation that draws a lot of attention to that player which is freaking stupid. A 6'6" 250lbs linebacker coming right at my 5'11" frame is intimidating enough so why would eye makeup be more intimidating IMO. Should they ban neck collars then because not only do they protect your neck from spinal injuries but placing your jersey over the neck collar gives the illusion that the player's frame is much bigger than what it already is. Could that be considered intimidating? They say the same thing about celebrations or taunting because that draws a lot of attention to that player and why they are cutting down on that by penalizing that player or team in a game by littering the field with yellow laundry.

 

I mostly referee High School games in Iowa and I've never thrown a flag for celebraions but taunting is a different story. I once played Football and know what its like to score a touchdown, make a sack, or get an interception so I know the type of emotions players go through. If the players are celebrating in the endzone after a touchdown I'll approach those players and tell them nice catch, nice run, or whatever and then tell them to go to their huddle. If a player if obviously taunting another player like flexing at another player, throwing the ball at a player after a great play or touchdown, or high stepping into the endzone as he's looking back at a defender than yes I have thrown a flag. I just hope that officals in the NCAA leauge can identify what a celebration is and what taunting is.

 

In Iowa players can't have a sleeve that covers their cleats and have to remove it before the start of the game. A guy that was in my Dads crew, his son bought cleats that had this sleeve but couldn't wear it and he was upset. He said the main reason why his son bought that type of cleat was to protect his ankles from spraining his ankle and other ankle injuries.

 

There are a lot of rules both in High School, College, and Pro nowadays that are being enforced that has been in the game for decades that made it enjoyable to play and spectate.

[Enhance]

Good post, huskerjock. I would +1 but I've apparently reached my quota for the last couple of days, so here's one anyways! +1

 

That said, I don't know if the issue is so much about comparative advantage as it is trying to make a statement or a message. I don't know why the eye-black has become an issue, but my guess is that some people think players shouldn't bring their religion or emotional feelings onto the football field.

 

But to me, it's not like anybody is putting something controversial like "Abortion Sucks!" on their eye-black. Maybe they have and I haven't seen it. But for the most part these messages have either been tributes to loved ones or bible verses. I don't understand why someone would get upset with this. It's so trivial and pointless. Furthermore, if we didn't have the great video equipment we do today and all of the close-up shots, nobody would know these players had any messages on their eye-black to begin with.

 

I understand the reasoning behind banning messages on eye-black, but what frustrates me the most is that people found a reason to complain about it. I've said it a couple of times already - if a person gets that upset over eye-black messages, they need to find a better way to live their life.

 

As far as taunting is concerned, we are in the same boat. The most important thing for refs is to distinguish between celebration and taunting, but even that could be misconstrued. Refs aren't perfect as you probably know better than many here. At the same time this rule is open to far too much interpretation to be considered a legitimate rule.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I wonder how many NCAA officials, committee members, commissioners, etc...have played the game of football? Because to me it sounds like they have no idea what emotion runs through the player about to score a touchdown, or the DE who makes an interception and takes it the distance; can they not understand how exciting, how awesome of a feeling that is and how uncontrollable that emotion is in the player? I mean, I haven't even played football and I have an idea as to how it would feel.

 

The NCAA is trying to take emotion out of a game that is run purely on emotion.

 

 

I could frankly more or less care about the eye paint rule. I can see one situation coming up and making this a huge controversial issue (esp. when you combine it with the second new rule). Say a player, whose dad was a big part of his life and has since passed away, dedicates his play in the game to his father. He can't put "For you, Dad" on his eye-black. Late in the game, his team is down by 3 and this is their last possession; he goes deep and catches a hail mary from the QB and takes it to the endzone...but on his way, he looks up to the heavens and points up towards his "father".

 

The referee throws a flag, not knowing the history of this kid, and the TD is wiped off the board; the game ends, and they lose.

 

What happens then?

 

The NCAA is taking the fun out of the game, taking the excitement, the emotion, the passion right out of the game.

[The Maudfather]

Thank you Terrelle Pryor for the eye black rule. Cool post game interview, bro.

 

I thought the eye black was banned before the beginning of last season anyway though?

[BIG ERN]

I know someone posted some new rule changes, but here are a few more that have been confirmed from ESPN. The eliminating the score for taunting is probably the worst rule ever approved. Let me know what you think.

 

ESPN Link

[NUance]

Those changes coincide with perhaps the biggest change of the season -- implementation of the new taunting rule.

 

Last April, the playing rules panel approved a decision to nullify touchdowns if a player is called for taunting before he crosses the goal line. Examples include players finishing touchdown runs by high-stepping into the end zone or pointing the ball toward an opponent.

 

The panel decided then to wait one year before making the change.

 

Oh come on. Do we really need this? Isn't it enough that most of the fans who see a guy doing this will think he's a dick?