New NCAA rule in effect

[AppSt94]

I dig the change.

Next they need to change the targeting rule. Not what they consider targeting, because there will always be subjectivity involved, but the instant ejection

The majority of target plays are ones where there was no ill intentions involved. In my opinion should be an unsportsmanlike penalty, carrying the 15 yards. And of course two of those matter if the first was for taunting, then you're out of the game.

I would propose that the player committing the infraction is assessed 15 yards and must sit out until the player that he hit is out or the duration of the current drive, whichever is longer.

I would also like to see them do something similar with injuries. If your injury causes a stoppage in play then you must sit out the duration of the current drive. That would cut down on flopping.

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

I dig the change.

Next they need to change the targeting rule. Not what they consider targeting, because there will always be subjectivity involved, but the instant ejection

The majority of target plays are ones where there was no ill intentions involved. In my opinion should be an unsportsmanlike penalty, carrying the 15 yards. And of course two of those matter if the first was for taunting, then you're out of the game.

I would propose that the player committing the infraction is assessed 15 yards and must sit out until the player that he hit is out or the duration of the current drive, whichever is longer.

I would also like to see them do something similar with injuries. If your injury causes a stoppage in play then you must sit out the duration of the current drive. That would cut down on flopping.

The real silly part of the current rule is a player commits a targeting penalty on the first play of the game, essentially misses the entire game. A player commits a targeting penalty with 1 minute left in the first half and essentially he would only miss the second half.

[AppSt94]

I dig the change.

Next they need to change the targeting rule. Not what they consider targeting, because there will always be subjectivity involved, but the instant ejection

The majority of target plays are ones where there was no ill intentions involved. In my opinion should be an unsportsmanlike penalty, carrying the 15 yards. And of course two of those matter if the first was for taunting, then you're out of the game.

I would propose that the player committing the infraction is assessed 15 yards and must sit out until the player that he hit is out or the duration of the current drive, whichever is longer.

I would also like to see them do something similar with injuries. If your injury causes a stoppage in play then you must sit out the duration of the current drive. That would cut down on flopping.

The real silly part of the current rule is a player commits a targeting penalty on the first play of the game, essentially misses the entire game. A player commits a targeting penalty with 1 minute left in the first half and essentially he would only miss the second half.

Doesn’t he miss the first half of the next game as well? I get your point though. Maybe make the penalty 30 yards and the player must set out the rest of the series and the next one. I don’t agree that next weeks opponent should get the benefit of a penalty from a previous game.

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

I dig the change.

Next they need to change the targeting rule. Not what they consider targeting, because there will always be subjectivity involved, but the instant ejection

The majority of target plays are ones where there was no ill intentions involved. In my opinion should be an unsportsmanlike penalty, carrying the 15 yards. And of course two of those matter if the first was for taunting, then you're out of the game.

I would propose that the player committing the infraction is assessed 15 yards and must sit out until the player that he hit is out or the duration of the current drive, whichever is longer.

I would also like to see them do something similar with injuries. If your injury causes a stoppage in play then you must sit out the duration of the current drive. That would cut down on flopping.

The real silly part of the current rule is a player commits a targeting penalty on the first play of the game, essentially misses the entire game. A player commits a targeting penalty with 1 minute left in the first half and essentially he would only miss the second half.

Doesn’t he miss the first half of the next game as well? I get your point though. Maybe make the penalty 30 yards and the player must set out the rest of the series and the next one. I don’t agree that next weeks opponent should get the benefit of a penalty from a previous game.

I believe the rule is you miss the half you're ejected from and the following half, which would just be the rest of the game.

[AppSt94]

I dig the change.

Next they need to change the targeting rule. Not what they consider targeting, because there will always be subjectivity involved, but the instant ejection

The majority of target plays are ones where there was no ill intentions involved. In my opinion should be an unsportsmanlike penalty, carrying the 15 yards. And of course two of those matter if the first was for taunting, then you're out of the game.

I would propose that the player committing the infraction is assessed 15 yards and must sit out until the player that he hit is out or the duration of the current drive, whichever is longer.

I would also like to see them do something similar with injuries. If your injury causes a stoppage in play then you must sit out the duration of the current drive. That would cut down on flopping.

The real silly part of the current rule is a player commits a targeting penalty on the first play of the game, essentially misses the entire game. A player commits a targeting penalty with 1 minute left in the first half and essentially he would only miss the second half.

Doesn’t he miss the first half of the next game as well? I get your point though. Maybe make the penalty 30 yards and the player must set out the rest of the series and the next one. I don’t agree that next weeks opponent should get the benefit of a penalty from a previous game.

I believe the rule is you miss the half you're ejected from and the following half, which would just be the rest of the game.

Ah. Then yes, the rule is in need of some modifications. Thanks.

[AppGrad78]

I might be on an island here but I like the NCAA’s targeting rule, especially the severity of it. Players are less likely to suffer severe head injuries, and that in my opinion outweighs any of the negative effects the rule has caused.

[Cro-Magnon App]

The rule was needed, but it led to more arm tackling which jacked up scores. But the people demand entertainment and I guess high scoring games give them that.

[AppSt94]

I might be on an island here but I like the NCAA’s targeting rule, especially the severity of it. Players are less likely to suffer severe head injuries, and that in my opinion outweighs any of the negative effects the rule has caused.

I don’t mind the real either. Anything that can be done to curtail the use of one’s helmet as a weapon is a good thing. I do feel like that there are some aspects and spirit of the rule, particularly helmet-to-helmet hits in general that are taken to far. It’s just a hard rule to be clear cut on and the punishment is both harsh and unfair as some of these hits aren’t intentional or malicious but happen in the course of the play that are just unavoidable.

[AppinATL]

Less plays… less concussions and other major injuries.

By ghat rationale, we could eliminate injuries and concussions entirely by doing away with the sport of football.

[appbanker]

I might be on an island here but I like the NCAA’s targeting rule, especially the severity of it. Players are less likely to suffer severe head injuries, and that in my opinion outweighs any of the negative effects the rule has caused.

My problem with the rule is that you often see the offensive player lower their head into the tackler making it impossible for the tackler to avoid the helmet to helmet.

[T-Dog]

I think targeting should have two levels, kinda like Flagrant 1 and 2 in basketball. The first is for those happenstance lowering of the crown of the helmet plays. No ejection, but a penalty. The second type, the malicious one, is penalty and an ejection.

[AppSt94]

I think targeting should have two levels, kinda like Flagrant 1 and 2 in basketball. The first is for those happenstance lowering of the crown of the helmet plays. No ejection, but a penalty. The second type, the malicious one, is penalty and an ejection.

I don’t disagree. I just see where too much judgement and subjective interpretation of intent can be applied that could influence the outcome. Maybe a targeting that results in injury is an automatic ejection.