Started By
Message
Approved rule changes
Posted on 4/21/20 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 4/21/20 at 2:27 pm
1) 2 minute time limit on reviews.
2) Allows players ejected for targeting to remain on the sidelines instead of being escorted to the locker room.
3) Officials jurisdiction begins 90 minutes before kickoff instead of the current 60 minutes. A coach must also be on the field with any players for pre-game warmup.
4) Capping duplicate jersey numbers at 2.
5) Adding 0 as a legal jersey number.
Only #1 seems to be of much substance. Even so, what happens at the 2 minute mark? They either make a decision or quit and resume play? #2 was a no-brainer. #3 could cause some issues at certain positions.
I would love to be an team's first number 0.
2) Allows players ejected for targeting to remain on the sidelines instead of being escorted to the locker room.
3) Officials jurisdiction begins 90 minutes before kickoff instead of the current 60 minutes. A coach must also be on the field with any players for pre-game warmup.
4) Capping duplicate jersey numbers at 2.
5) Adding 0 as a legal jersey number.
Only #1 seems to be of much substance. Even so, what happens at the 2 minute mark? They either make a decision or quit and resume play? #2 was a no-brainer. #3 could cause some issues at certain positions.
I would love to be an team's first number 0.
4
Posted on 4/21/20 at 2:32 pm to phil4bama
quote:
1) 2 minute time limit on reviews.
Fantastic - if you can't figure it out in 2 minutes it isn't indisputable. Pretty simple.
quote:
2) Allows players ejected for targeting to remain on the sidelines instead of being escorted to the locker room.
Reasonable
quote:
4) Capping duplicate jersey numbers at 2.
Was this a problem somewhere?
quote:
5) Adding 0 as a legal jersey number.
Sure, why not. But should only be for players under 5'7.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 5:10 pm to phil4bama
The 2 minute thing on the review isn't a limit, it is just suggested it be faster then 2 minutes.
Also a new rule is, at the end of a half, if there is a review and time is put back on the clock. If it is less then 3 seconds, then the half is over. This rule change is a direct result of last year's Iron Bowl. Had that rule been there last year, then no field goal for Auburn.
Had the rule been in place in 13, then no kick six.
Also a new rule is, at the end of a half, if there is a review and time is put back on the clock. If it is less then 3 seconds, then the half is over. This rule change is a direct result of last year's Iron Bowl. Had that rule been there last year, then no field goal for Auburn.
Had the rule been in place in 13, then no kick six.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 5:51 pm to phil4bama
I think on the targeting rule they should back off a little more. The premise of the rule is great, but is still too subjective among different conferences. EVEN WITH REPLAY.
For that reason, make it a 15 yd penalty and maybe a 1 quarter suspension. All too often players get labeled with targeting when the offensive player ducks his head into the way of the defensive player using his shoulder for the tackle.
For that reason, make it a 15 yd penalty and maybe a 1 quarter suspension. All too often players get labeled with targeting when the offensive player ducks his head into the way of the defensive player using his shoulder for the tackle.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 6:39 pm to Bolivar Shagnasty
It's been discussed to death that a really good way to improve the targeting rule would be to follow basketball's rule of flagrant fouling. There are levels to the infraction. A flagrant targeting 1 would be unintentional or non-egregious contact above the shoulder pads i.e. a RB ducks into helmet to helmet contact. Personal foul, 15 yards, no ejection for your first infraction. Get a second in the same game, adios. A flagrant targeting 2 would be intentional or egregious contact above the shoulders, 15 yards, ejected for the next 2 quarters of play. Get another flagrant 2 the same season, you miss a game. Get a 3rd, you are done for the year.
This post was edited on 4/21/20 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 4/21/20 at 7:32 pm to phil4bama
quote:
It's been discussed to death that a really good way to improve the targeting rule would be to follow basketball's rule of flagrant fouling. There are levels to the infraction. A flagrant targeting 1 would be unintentional or non-egregious contact above the shoulder pads i.e. a RB ducks into helmet to helmet contact. Personal foul, 15 yards, no ejection for your first infraction. Get a second in the same game, adios. A flagrant targeting 2 would be intentional or egregious contact above the shoulders, 15 yards, ejected for the next 2 quarters of play. Get another flagrant 2 the same season, you miss a game. Get a 3rd, you are done for the year.
Better idea: Get rid of targeting altogether.
Posted on 4/21/20 at 7:35 pm to phil4bama
quote:
5) Adding 0 as a legal jersey number.
Fans should be able to vote on who gets that number
Posted on 4/21/20 at 8:09 pm to Cobrasize
Ole Gus tweeted this out. Little bitch
Posted on 4/21/20 at 10:14 pm to Cobrasize
Did they really need a rule for that? All they had to do was enforce the previous rule. If the refs had done their job and not given into Gus’ whining, it wouldn’t have been an issue.
Posted on 4/22/20 at 12:06 am to Cobrasize
It's sad that they had to create an explicit rule for that. All the refs had to do was appropriately handle it.
Posted on 4/22/20 at 7:27 am to phil4bama
quote:
It's been discussed to death that a really good way to improve the targeting rule would be to follow basketball's rule of flagrant fouling. There are levels to the infraction. A flagrant targeting 1 would be unintentional or non-egregious contact above the shoulder pads i.e. a RB ducks into helmet to helmet contact. Personal foul, 15 yards, no ejection for your first infraction. Get a second in the same game, adios. A flagrant targeting 2 would be intentional or egregious contact above the shoulders, 15 yards, ejected for the next 2 quarters of play. Get another flagrant 2 the same season, you miss a game. Get a 3rd, you are done for the year.
While I like this idea.....I stand by my previous statement. It is too subjective and refs from each league still screw this call up every year. Egregious fouls are over looked and fouls that should be rescinded are enforced. If we add more options to their subjectivity, it will create more opportunities for the refs to miss. There is no way to make everyone happy in this situation, that is for sure.
Posted on 4/22/20 at 10:41 am to FairhopeTider
quote:
Did they really need a rule for that? All they had to do was enforce the previous rule. If the refs had done their job and not given into Gus’ whining, it wouldn’t have been an issue.
What amazes me is to this day, the powers that be insist it was handled correctly. Oh really? So we need a new rule to determine that you can't give a team a damn free play just because you had to review something that was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and you allowed them a score that technically occurred during halftime since the clock would have and should have expired except you stopped the clock on a technicality. Then you allowed them to bring the field goal unit onto the field, line up, and snap the ball in a fraction of time that shouldn't even have allowed them to get the snap off.
What happened to common sense and the spirit of the rules? All they had to do was say, "Gus, you can't do that shite." At worst, let them run the FG unit out there but as they are lining up, whistle it ready for play as they should have done and the clock expires before they can snap it. End of story.
Maybe if Gus would spend more time trying to find ways to succeed within the rules instead of always looking for loopholes and ways around the rules, he would be more successful. Until then, fvck you, Gus, and fvck Auburn.
Posted on 4/22/20 at 2:01 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Was this a problem somewhere?
Alabama has 26 duplicate numbers. How is that supposed to be capped at 2? Or am I misunderstanding the language of the rule?
Posted on 4/22/20 at 2:21 pm to phil4bama
quote:
What amazes me is to this day, the powers that be insist it was handled correctly. Oh really? So we need a new rule to determine that you can't give a team a damn free play just because you had to review something that was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and you allowed them a score that technically occurred during halftime since the clock would have and should have expired except you stopped the clock on a technicality. Then you allowed them to bring the field goal unit onto the field, line up, and snap the ball in a fraction of time that shouldn't even have allowed them to get the snap off.
Yep. The real irony is that they passed a rules change in response to a play that, had it been handled correctly in the first place, would have resulted in Auburn having absolutely zero shot at even getting 11 players down to the new LoS, much less lined up over the ball, before the clock started again. The review accomplished one thing and one thing only and that was to give Auburn a 4th timeout.
Posted on 4/22/20 at 2:22 pm to CapstoneGrad06
quote:
Alabama has 26 duplicate numbers. How is that supposed to be capped at 2?
It means only two of the same number. For instance, you can't have three guys wearing number 12.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News