Hits to the head ejection

[ObamaRocks91]

For the record, the Big Ten rules official said that Kenny Bell's hit was used as an example of a play that is NOT targeting and consequently would not have been ejected. I think the inconsistency, as many have pointed out, is going to be the big issue with this rule.

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/77420/big-tens-carollo-talks-new-targeting-policy

[Hoosker]

I would be interested to find out what the players think of all this.

 

Why doesn't the NCAA do a huge player poll asking what they think should be done about this "problem" in football?

[Count 'Bility]

I would be interested to find out what the players think of all this.

 

Why doesn't the NCAA do a huge player poll asking what they think should be done about this "problem" in football?

Because the NCAA and School Administrators do NOT care what the players/students think. Never have, never will.

[Hoosker]

I would be interested to find out what the players think of all this.

 

Why doesn't the NCAA do a huge player poll asking what they think should be done about this "problem" in football?

Because the NCAA and School Administrators do NOT care what the players/students think. Never have, never will.

True. It just seems a little ridiculous that the players both delivering and receiving the hits aren't involved in what happens becaues of it.

[Count 'Bility]

I would be interested to find out what the players think of all this.

 

Why doesn't the NCAA do a huge player poll asking what they think should be done about this "problem" in football?

Because the NCAA and School Administrators do NOT care what the players/students think. Never have, never will.

True. It just seems a little ridiculous that the players both delivering and receiving the hits aren't involved in what happens becaues of it.

And I fully agree with you. It's bullsh#t.

[zoogs]

I don't know, maybe they feel that there are people more qualified to evaluate medical consequences than 18-24 year old college athletes?

[Count 'Bility]

I don't know, maybe they feel that there are people more qualified to evaluate medical consequences than 18-24 year old college athletes?

Well, they must know somethin Zoog. You basically said earlier that if this issue wasnt addressed (or the sport ruined in my eyes) that kids were gonna not play football and play something else safer anyway.

[Judoka]

The pussification of football has begun continues.

Fixed that for you.

[The King]

So, the league can review the play and overturn it. What good does that do? Doesn't ban them from the first half of the next game? Well, yay, that's great, but that doesn't make up for unrightfully kicking him out of the game in the first place - possibly costing a team the game.

 

This is pathetic.

[zoogs]

I don't know, maybe they feel that there are people more qualified to evaluate medical consequences than 18-24 year old college athletes?

Well, they must know somethin Zoog. You basically said earlier that if this issue wasnt addressed (or the sport ruined in my eyes) that kids were gonna not play football and play something else safer anyway.

 

Yeah, if the game doesn't become safer and awareness efforts are more prevalent, that could happen.

 

Right now, the ones that know something are the ones who are feeling the effects of their entire career behind them, the ones who are also living legends and icons for those that follow.

 

I don't know, you might not end up having the game ruined in your eyes anyway. Those fears may turn out to be unwarranted.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

This is just dumb. But here's a caveat, remember that no touchdown for unsportsmanlike conduct that the NCAA enacted a few years ago? How many times has that been used? Furthermore, how many times has it needed to have been used? Hopefully, this goes the same way--

This isn't going to go away like the unsportsmanlike conduct rule. They are already throwing flags for this. This is on top of the 15 yard penalties they are already accessing. The article I referenced earlier said that last year there would have been 99 ejections.

 

The problem is that they catch some bad shots on defensless players, but also penalize good hits with legal contact like Kenny Bell's hit last year. The calls are already inconsistant, now just with enhanced repercussions.

 

Bro, read my whole post.

[Blackshirt316]

Just googled it, "The rule would allow for the ejection portion of the penalty to be reviewed through video replay. The replay official must have conclusive evidence that the penalized player didn't intentionally target a defenseless player in order to overturn the call" (from CBS sports).

 

I keep thinking about Bell's block. He contacted with his shoulder/arm on the opponents collarbone area. But with the call made for targeting, does the video replay conclusively show he did not target? The call was bad in real time, I don't trust that the idiots in stripes would make the right replay call either.

 

 

So they can use replay to conclusively conclude intent? Pretty sure that's impossible. You can't conclusively determine the intent of another person with 100% accuracy.

[Count 'Bility]

I don't know, maybe they feel that there are people more qualified to evaluate medical consequences than 18-24 year old college athletes?

Well, they must know somethin Zoog. You basically said earlier that if this issue wasnt addressed (or the sport ruined in my eyes) that kids were gonna not play football and play something else safer anyway.

 

Yeah, if the game doesn't become safer and awareness efforts are more prevalent, that could happen.

 

Right now, the ones that know something are the ones who are feeling the effects of their entire career behind them, the ones who are also living legends and icons for those that follow.

 

I don't know, you might not end up having the game ruined in your eyes anyway. Those fears may turn out to be unwarranted.

 

I hope youre right.

 

After sleeping on this I realized it may not be as bad as first thought. Like someone mentioned with the taunting rule, it really has NOT been an issue. The helmet to helmet thing is obvoiously tougher to judge and I still dont think officials on the field should be allowed to make a determination of a players eligibility on the field based on a judement call. They have a hard enough time doing the basic sh#t as it is. This is something that needs to be reviewed by league office on monday and a suspension possible handed down from then. You start kicking players out of the game for it at the time, and one team loses a star in the 1st qtr, and one loses one on their last defensive play of the game to make the final stand for a win. Gee, I wonder which team got the blunt of that punishment.

 

It's just another perfect example of the NCAA having good intentions, but showing total incompetence in acting on those intentions. It's so far off common sense that it's mind-boggling.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The suspensions should be done on a progressively increasing scale. First time it's a game suspension. Second time a 2-3 game suspension. And so on.

 

By the way, getting the dangerous person off the field isn't going to make the game any less safe.

[nebraskafaninwi]

When I was watching college football 25 years ago we didn't see head slinging shots. It needs to be taken out of the game and get back to fundamental football. That will cut down on a lot of concussions, but obviously you can't eliminate such a thing since it can occur in your own home (getting a concussion). When you see players leaving their feet going for the head when they clearly could have made a normal football move it ruins the game.

 

Some of these "blah blah rantings" are most likely people who don't realize the newness of head slinging shots. Those types of hits started in the NFL several years ago and it needs to stop. And I am as die hard of a football fan as you can get.