Blackhorse83 said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that maybe Conferences don't want tacked down rules, that are clear cut, and that they might prefer certain rules to be ambiguous, like holding and targeting?

---

Yes, yes, yes. They want ambiguity or they would use technology to eliminate some of it such as a sensor in the ball and on the sideline to determine forward progress. They have an agenda and it isn't fair play.

---

So what is the call on the play below on forward progress?


How are you going to use the sensors to determine when someone is down since it is any body part other than feet and hands? How to you determine if someone has the ball in firm possession before they go down? Do you want a hold every time the official definition is met including by a player 15 yards from the play on the other side from where the ball is? If a defender touches a receiver downfield, do you want that called every time even if was barely him brushing the jersey? If a lineman's hand moves a finger a fraction of an inch, is that a false start because it is under the strict rules in which case almost every play would be blown dead due to insignificant movement by the offense.

This would change nothing. Replay can still say "it didn't happen". What's needed is accountabity, transparency, and clarity, not another rule change. Bureaucrats.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Blackhorse83 said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that maybe Conferences don't want tacked down rules, that are clear cut, and that they might prefer certain rules to be ambiguous, like holding and targeting?

---

Yes, yes, yes. They want ambiguity or they would use technology to eliminate some of it such as a sensor in the ball and on the sideline to determine forward progress. They have an agenda and it isn't fair play.

---

So what is the call on the play below on forward progress?


How are you going to use the sensors to determine when someone is down since it is any body part other than feet and hands? How to you determine if someone has the ball in firm possession before they go down? Do you want a hold every time the official definition is met including by a player 15 yards from the play on the other side from where the ball is? If a defender touches a receiver downfield, do you want that called every time even if was barely him brushing the jersey? If a lineman's hand moves a finger a fraction of an inch, is that a false start because it is under the strict rules in which case almost every play would be blown dead due to insignificant movement by the offense.

---

It'd be nice if some teams started playing by the rules, yes.

TexasRebel said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Blackhorse83 said:

---

Old Sarge said:

---

Has anyone ever thought about the fact that maybe Conferences don't want tacked down rules, that are clear cut, and that they might prefer certain rules to be ambiguous, like holding and targeting?

---

Yes, yes, yes. They want ambiguity or they would use technology to eliminate some of it such as a sensor in the ball and on the sideline to determine forward progress. They have an agenda and it isn't fair play.

---

So what is the call on the play below on forward progress?


How are you going to use the sensors to determine when someone is down since it is any body part other than feet and hands? How to you determine if someone has the ball in firm possession before they go down? Do you want a hold every time the official definition is met including by a player 15 yards from the play on the other side from where the ball is? If a defender touches a receiver downfield, do you want that called every time even if was barely him brushing the jersey? If a lineman's hand moves a finger a fraction of an inch, is that a false start because it is under the strict rules in which case almost every play would be blown dead due to insignificant movement by the offense.

---

It'd be nice if some teams started playing by the rules, yes.

---

So strictly by the rules, the play in question is offsetting fouls. I can see two holds by the offensive line on the play. In both cases they have hands outside the frame on the shoulders. On is by the LT the other is by the LG on the double team that you see from the endzone shot. I sure hope we don't start calling those holds even though by the rule book, they are.

Then why have rules?

TexasRebel said:

---

Then why have rules?

---

So I can put you down that tu not getting called on targeting didn't have a big impact on the game because it was offsetting fouls.

I assume you also never speed a a fraction of 1 mph over the speed limit or have never been in an intersection by even 1 inch when the light turns red.

It's legal to have already entered an intersection when the light turns red.

Also, offsetting penalties don't negate the disqualification.

TexasRebel said:

---

It's legal to have already entered an intersection when the light turns red.

Also, offsetting penalties don't negate the disqualification.

---

Why this is an issue isn't the ejection, it was the yardage that would have increased the chance that ASU would score. Of course they almost certainly in your world where every rule is called by the letter of the rule with zero discretion used, they almost certainly would have committed holding or illegal motion on the next three plays so they would have been out of field goal range (of course I'm not sure how many offensive plays would have actually not had a penalty so there likely would have been no scores other than maybe safeties.)

So you're saying the rules shouldn't exist.

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

---

Are you saying 3-5 former NFL DB's would attend every college football game and review any potential targeting call on-site? I'm sure you'd have them lined up to participate.

TexasRebel said:

---

So you're saying the rules shouldn't exist.

---

Nope. I'm quite fine with the current with the current system of officials using years of experience and training to use their discretion on making calls. Are there errors? Absolutely but it is a lot fewer than the players and coaches make in a game and it creates a game that is overall fair and watchable than one where every violation of the rules as written is called (there would still be missed calls and errors in your world btw).

Would I change some rules if I was given sole discretion? Yes but that is a totally different discussion.

Ah. You're one of the ones that is okay with selective enforcement to appease litterbugs.

Got it.

Aggiesdm95 said:

---

TxAg76 said:

---

Put together a panel of 3 or 5 former defensive players.
Odd number for voting.
Former NFL guys for expertise.

Let them review each one, using what they know they see with their eyes and what their experience can derive from the situation.

And if it's unanimous no, there's no yards, no nothing.
If it's split, it's 5 yds only.
If it's unanimous yes, 15 yds, player disqualification, sits the next full 1 quarter only (not a full half)

I'm all for player safety.
But I'm tired of taking football outta football.

Defer to guys that have actually been there done that, at an elite level, and rely on their insight

---

Are you saying 3-5 former NFL DB's would attend every college football game and review any potential targeting call on-site? I'm sure you'd have them lined up to participate.

---

With the technology available, they could be remote and still review every camera angle and slow mo replay that the officials are seeing.

They could cover multiple games also. Targeting reviews aren't occurring in every second of every game across the country.

When the announcers dial in a guy like Matt Austin or Gene Steratore for side commentary on officiating decisions, they're remote, and covering multiple games simultaneously. They're not sitting in the booth with the commentators

The rule was suppose to protect the players, both offense n defense.ASU player was layed out, if you are not going to rule ttargeting on the side of caution then you really don't give 2 ****s about to player. Now its become some random penalty which no one understands, not the announcers, not the fans, and not the rules experts.

Why would the panel consist of only former defensive guys?? It would never be targeting.

You either protect players heads or you don't. The ASU sip game saw two plays that were extremely dangerous to player's heads. The first was a launched body to a receiver in the air and was lucky to not hit head. But the aim was clear as the launch was aggressively upward. The second was forcible direct helmet to helmet contact. Based on the spirit of why this stupid ass penalty was brought to the game, both were clear penalties and both extremely dangerous. Neither were called. What kind of behavior does that game now incentivize? We've gotten so damn in the weeds about crown, target area, launch, intent, blah blah that we are now ignoring plays that are undeniably dangerous. It's so stupid. Do away with the rule. Players now make plenty of money. They can sign a waiver removing liability from everyone. If they don't like it, don't step on the field. But the subjective nonsense around this has to stop. And it wont stop with more layers to an already cloudy rule.

12Power said:

---

Why would the panel consist of only former defensive guys?? It would never be targeting.

---

I don't think y'all are giving defense guys enough credit for being fair and reasonable.
We're all watching the long term effects of CTE, so it's important to make changes to the game.
But at the same time we're fed up with the bull**** surrounding the inconsistency in what's being called vs not.

Just off the top of my head, think about some of the talking heads that have been with ESPN or SECN.
Guys like Roman Harper, Rodney Harrison….even David Pollack….plus I'm sure there's others