ICT HSKR 10 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8944240/ncaa-rule-add-ejection-illegal-hit Opening up a huge can of worms IMO. I can see it now, will not be consistent between conferences, between officials and people are going to get ejected for things that would be deemed legal in other games/conferences. If they're going to do this, hand out the punishment after a review of the hits the Monday after the game. Quote Link to comment
Decked Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 No want. This is going to be awful for the viewers. Quote Link to comment
Foppa Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Maybe they should concentrate on the sh*t calls they make that aren't illegal #kennybellmakingthebestblockever 8 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 This is getting completely out of hand. Penalty-fine. I guess I see the point if you know you have the chance of hurting your team, then you be a little more picky, but as far as an ejection goes, this is something that has to be reviewed after the game and a suspension determined at that point. How can an ejection be determined on a split second judgment call? Common sense is gone from the world and football is dun. 3 Quote Link to comment
whateveritis1224 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 They absolutely need to have a review if they are thinking about ejecting. Can not have the ejection be put on the on field refs. Way too many bang bang plays to be trusted to those guys. Also they need to look and see if it was malicious. Kyler Reed had a helmet to helmet against FSU in 2011 that I would qualify as malicious. Quote Link to comment
LumberJackSker Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 if there gonna hold defensive players responsible for these hit that sometimes cant be avoided then they should eject players that dont keep their head on a swivel as well the guy Bell blocked and the Ok. State guy martin blocked on the special teams play should be held responsible because if they were more aware maybe the hit wouldnt have been as bad or they could just let the players play the game and do a better job not allowing guys that have head injuries play and improve the gear the players use to better compinsate for the speed and strength improvements in player instead of punishing the kids playing Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 A college football player who delivers a hit to the head of a defenseless opponent could be kicked out of the game next season under an NCAA proposal that took a step forward Wednesday. Horrible start to the article. I stopped there. Football will be unwatchable in a few years. Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Great. So now they're going to start ejecting players who can't make a split-second reaction the offensive player lowering their head. Where in the minds of the rule makers does it not occur to them that the offensive player ducks and inadvertently lowers their head when they're about to get hit? I don't mind the rule. I mind how the rule is going to be enforced. What they should do: Penalize the hit in game. Mark that hit. Then after the game, look at the game film and determine if the defender could have realistically done anything to avoid hitting the other player in the head. Or if the defender even hit the player in the head. By doing realistically doing something to prevent hitting the offensive player in the head, I mean that they don't come from 5 yards away when the play is clearly dead and nail the guy in the head. If it's not malicious, then it's not worthy of a suspension. If it is malicious, then they should be suspended. But this is the NCAA we're talking about and soon the NFL so that's not how it's going to be done. 2 Quote Link to comment
Foppa Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Living in New Zealand, I've gotten used to rugby. In the States, and at UNL, it's just an intramural sport. But in Europe, Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand...it's as big as Soccer, or the NFL. As violent as rugby appears, it isn't nearly as injury-prone as you might think. One thing I notice is that players don't lead with their heads because *why*... they don't have helmets. I watch a lot of rugby matches, and you never see concussions. Players don't use their heads as a tool because their heads aren't protected. I know accidents can happen, but this just seems like common sense to me. Be physical. Be violent. But take away head gear, and the problem goes away pretty damn fast. Not only do you not want to incapacitate another person...you don't want to do it to yourself. I'm sure a lot of football fans laugh at the idea of no football helmets...but look at what's happening with the sport. Pretty soon it's going to be so watered down that no one will care. Might as well think outside the box a little. 3 Quote Link to comment
whateveritis1224 Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 The problem with removing helmets from football, is the shoulder pads. Shoulder pads would then have to be removed and replaced with something else. Maybe eventually you'll see football end up with protection similar to Rugby. Quote Link to comment
huskerenner Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 How about ejecting officials for making bonehead calls.If they review a play,and see the official blew the call.Have a substitute official take his place.Maybe they would be more cautious in their calls. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 LOOK. FOOTBALL IS A HIGH CONTACT, DANGEROUS SPORT. THE CHANCES OF INJURY AND CONCUSSIONS ARE HIGH. PLAY IT OR DONT. BUT DONT RUIN IT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT TO STAY THE WAY IT IS. Quote Link to comment
Touchdown Tommie Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Stupid, stupid, stupid. How the hell can an official make this decision in game time and/or reviewable play? It too subjective. Will the offensive player get ejected for trucking a defensive player? How about ejecting and offensive lineman for chop blocking? At some point, these idiots need to understand that football is a violent sport and things like this happen in game speed. If I was an official I would not want to make this call at ALL... Quote Link to comment
hskrfan4life Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 LOOK. FOOTBALL IS A HIGH CONTACT, DANGEROUS SPORT. THE CHANCES OF INJURY AND CONCUSSIONS ARE HIGH. PLAY IT OR DONT. BUT DONT RUIN IT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT TO STAY THE WAY IT IS. exactly. They know the dangers of playing football. Guess we will have to just watch 7-on-7 flag football soon. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 LOOK. FOOTBALL IS A HIGH CONTACT, DANGEROUS SPORT. THE CHANCES OF INJURY AND CONCUSSIONS ARE HIGH. PLAY IT OR DONT. BUT DONT RUIN IT FOR THOSE WHO WANT IT TO STAY THE WAY IT IS. exactly. They know the dangers of playing football. Guess we will have to just watch 7-on-7 flag football soon. This isnt just an issue of football. It's an overall sh**ty path that society in general is taking. People wanna do sh#t and go places, but they dont want to be held responsible for their actions. When things go wrong, people want something or someone else to blame it on instead of pointing the thumb and saying "damn, I f'd up there didnt I?". it's what's driving me nuts about the NFL concussion lawsuits. Look. it doesnt matter. You wanted to play. You knew it was dangerous. You played anyway. You lead with your head. Now you have issues. Too bad. I goof around on Huskerboard at work all day. When I get carpal-tunnel in 6 years, can I sue my employer? 4 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.