Many of you probably know I’m a fan of defensive football and believe the game is too tilted toward offense. A game this past Saturday resulted in a win as a result of a rule change that needs to be made …
It’s time to make college receivers get both feet in bounds with control of the ball for a completed catch.
These guys are professionals now at QB and receiver. Passers need to learn ball placement that allows receivers to get both feet down. Receivers make catches on Saturday that are no good on Sunday.
This rule leads to more replays than necessary to either uphold or reverse a call that would be easy for an official to make with both feet in. Fewer stoppages are a good thing.
What do you think? 1 foot or 2 and defend your choice in the comments.
I don’t know how to embed a poll and too lazy to figure it out. So sue me. 🙂
I agree with you. Only 1 foot in has bothered me forever. It’s a little too lax for big time athletes. I would say that should only apply to peewee at best. Additionally, I think the entire football without a doubt should cross the plane of the end zone for it to be a touchdown and for first downs too for that matter. It always seems like a bit of bs when just the tippy nose of the ball touches the pile on or whatever for a td.
I don’t mind it at the high school level, but I see your point.
Leave it at 1.
Screw the nfl.
Has nothing to do with the NFL … other than the fact the players are being paid now. Thank you for your opinion.
Didn’t intend to be offensive. Just that our game seems to be moving in the nfl direction that I detest
Keeping college unique from the NFL is a good enough reason to keep it at 1.
So EE, Are you becoming like the Senator(who I liked) that has some smart ass comment to someone that disagrees with you. ( or tries to shut down that discussion)… I guess what they say is true, Power corrupts and ABSOLUTE power corrupts Absolutly. Have a great day
TimINsav
Hell if you comment on a Coachs professional performance, you are met with personal insults.
Its kinda funny though coming from a bunch of guys who never been anywhere and did anything dangerous.
I just didn’t get the screw the NFL comment. I think you can probably look at many of my responses to comments during my time posting here and make the conclusion that I rarely make a smart ass comment to anyone that comments.
If you like defense a far better thing would be enforce holding along the OL on passing plays or allow defenders to hold before the ball is in the air. A few more – targeting should go away and enforce spearing, the “tush push” rule should come back (can’t aid the runner).
I have plenty of those on penalties. The other one in the passing game I would change is the ability to throw the ball into the seats as long as you’re out of the tackle box. I hate that rule.
What about Pass Interference when it’s not a catchable ball? That drives me nuts.
-SS
Hard one to say. Bowers having the acrobatic catch to save our butts on 4th down against Ohio State was masterful. Whether it was one or two. However, with the NIL, I think we should go to two. Even in high school football you must have two.
2 is not a requirement in high school.
Damn, you can tell I’m getting old. I could have sworn when I was in high school it had to be two.
I assumed over the years that one foot was a safety thing. I don’t have much insight on the technicalities of football, but as big, fast, and strong as today’s players are, I’d say leave it.
Also, the defenses seem to be catching up to the recent offensive highwater marks. Somebody publish some scoring trends?
One foot has nothing to do with safety. It was there to make the passing game easier.
Twice as many feet inbounds after the catch, will result in twice as many reviews….GO DAWGS!!
Okay ee. I see what you mean. But do you know the history of the one foot rule. Has it always been around, even back to the three yards and a cloud of dust days?
It seems based on a quick search that the NCAA went to 1 foot down in 1969 to increase passing.
The one foot rule only applies at your local I HOP…GO DAWGS!!
I agree it should be two feet. Also, I’d like PI penalties be enforced at the spot instead of a 15-yard penalty.
I’m ok with DPI called the current way. Yes, it encourages a DB just to commit a penalty to keep from being beaten deep. If you’re going to make DPI spot foul, then make OPI a 15-yard penalty plus loss of down. The equivalent of a deep sack.
The problem with pass interference is that OPI isn’t called enough.
They only call offensive pass interference after you litter the field with bottles. Like texass.
While I agree that DPI as a spot foul would curb DBs in college from using DPI to prevent deep balls, I think that DPI as a spot foul is too punitive for college. There is such a disparity in talent in college from team to team and especially from the top of D1 to the bottom of D2 that it would further advantage to top teams in D1 to make DPI a spot foul. The NFL certainly has better and worse DBs, but there isn’t a disparity in the DB talent like in college.
I don’t want it to be a spot foul. Reason being what little NFL I catch, it seems the requirements for a PI changes late in the game. In the world of ratings, Mickey create as much drama as possible, and betting, they seem to manufacture close games out of PI calls which are generous to the offense.
I
Sorry about that previous one word post. I hadn’t really thought about this but I’m with you. As long as they’re getting paid (they are)and we’ve turned college football into a professional sport (we have), let’s start playing by the NFL rules. I’d also like to see the college game use the NFL kickoff. I don’t want to see us use the NFL rules on PI though. I agree the game gives too much advantage to the offense.
Leave it one foot in. Doesn’t bother me.
If we are going to change a rule it needs to be targeting. Still way too much ambiguity and too much left up to the discretion of the officials and Lord knows they are The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. Take as much thinking away from them as possible. If an offensive player cant be called for targeting (has that ever happened?) there is no point in having the rule.
That’s fair.
I agree on targeting. If you want to call unnecessary roughness or spearing (which is still a rule), fine … similar to a yellow card in soccer. Get another in a game? You’re gone.
Many of the targeting penalties today aren’t really what the rule is about. Then Caleb Downs does this and no call.
https://youtube.com/shorts/bLenGPZJ9vs?si=PJFjqsU8iHrZifcV
Interesting, on that one it’s side of the helmet and shoulder pad making contact, and not crown of the helmet. But he did kind of launch at the head and neck area. They did still call the 15 yard penalty, just didn’t eject him. I think I’m ok with that one.
I searched online for the targeting rules and it’s not clear to me if all of the elements (a.k.a. indicators) have to be present for the targeting call to stand. In the Caleb Downs example, he didn’t hit with the crown of the helmet, but he did launch himself, did lead with his shoulder, and did hit a defenseless player. I’d file this hit under “if that ain’t targeting, then I don’t know what is.” I’m clearly not cut out to be an NCAA ref.
I think the main reason you don’t see offensive targeting is the part about “a defenseless player” being part of a lot of the calls. It is hard for a defensive player to be defenseless unless they are away from the play. The blindside block is basically the offensive targeting call.
That leaves only the launching and using the crown of the helmet instances to flag the offense for targeting. I agree there are situations that could be called, but I would think that the frequency for an offensive player doing that are much less than a defender.
The refs have too much to watch for as it is plus, we all know Georgia would get flagged for offensive targeting at some crucial moment again Bama so I am good with it not being called …lol.
-Sanford222view
I’m good with just one foot inbounds. I think you would still have just as many reviews for catches if it were two feet inbounds.
-Sanford222view
I’ve never understood why it’s one foot in college, but isn’t replays MORE difficult with two feet than one?
My opinion is no. That call on Saturday would have never gone to review. It would have been called incomplete on the field, and no way does it even get a full review.
I wasn’t watching live, but when I watched the game tape the next morning it looked to me that the back judge was almost run into so he didn’t get his eyes down until the last second. Even on replay I actually thought he might have gotten two feet down. But that’s just one example. My thinking is logically that only taking the time to determine if one foot is in bounds is shorter because that’s one less foot to have to confirm.
It’s the question of which foot touches first with the ball in control. They were looking to see if the right(?) foot hit the line before the left was down fully, or at least, that’s what they were saying on the broadcast.
I disagree. I actually thought the Indiana receiver got 2 feet in at first. The replay showed one.
Some great ideas and points . Here’s some of mine.
All “Personal Foul” penalties are subjective to an official’s opinion (and biases) as we so well know.
Facemask? Too often called a PF when it’s really incidental.
Roughing the passer? Very subjective
PI…good grief. One crew will let you murder the receiver and the next will call it if you so much as touch the guy…the MOST subjective, inconsistent and misused call or no-call in CFB.
Roughing the kicker? Subjective..the ref may think the kicker is majoring in theatrics…and may consider if it’s a PF or incidental..very subjective.
Off sides by the kicking team on kickoffs?…very, very prevalent and very very rarely called.
QB clapping? Watched Pavia do this to the extreme on third and long against Auburn and the refs ignored it. (It’s only been called once in the history of the human race.)
We can’t get around it. Officiating football requires a lot of subjective decisions by human refs…and sometimes they get it wrong.
Some refs can be almost perfectly subjective..
Most are somewhat objective..
Some are in that asshat Penn Wager’s category.
(Some are just stupid…like the one that called Tyler Simmons offside because a Bama coach was in his ear.)
Do believe the zebra that threw the flag for offsides, later said he had never seen anyone move that fast (big whatever conference ref’s called that game)
That call should have been overturned but for some reason off-sides isn’t re-viewable.
I don’t think he was dishonest.
I’ve heard he was swayed by the Bama bench yelling “offsides” and demanding he call it and he caved because he wasn’t sure.
Regardless, he cost UGA a National Championship.
Think of it…all the work, the blood sweat and sacrifice of a coaching staff and team to do everything necessary from summer through the season to get to that special game..to somehow fight your way into the final lap to win a natty…. to realize you’ve probably clinched the thing with a blocked punt..only to have it all erased in the next instant by a ref’s’ ineptness.. (although there were other missed calls on Bama’s last drive that those refs just couldn’t muster the courage to call). I don’t think it was Bama Privilege..they weren’t SEC refs…but the game was too big for those officials.
And Jasper Sanks didn’t fumble.
This^^^
There are many rules that college uses that the NFL does not. I see your point about players being paid now, but I like the differences (as I do not like many of the NFL rules that have changed over the past 10-20 years – it’s one of the reasons that I do not watch NFL football games anymore). I detest the changes that have occurred to make college football more like the NFL (running the clock after a player goes out of bounds – what’s the point of going out of bounds if the clock does not stop until the next snap?, no longer stopping the clock after a 1st down until the ball is marked “ready for play” (unless it’s within the final 2 minutes of each half), the 2 minute time-out, etc.). What do you think about college players being marked “down” if they can’t stay upright without being touched by a defensive player? Or the college “Targeting” penalty?
I like the college rule that the play is dead when the ball carrier is down..touched by a D player or not.
I don’t like the rule where the o line can continue to push the runner further down the field for extra yards..looks like rugby.
Agreed I don’t like this mob ball which was ushered in with the Bush Push BS.
Agree. What really irks me is that purportedly you can push your teammate but can’t pull them and there seem to be times every weekend where there is a mob pushing a teammate forward but one guy pulling and it doesn’t get called.
I think they went to not stopping the clock because now you have friggin 5 minutes worth of commercial adds during a break to supplement Disney’s purse. Thus the games were getting longer and longer. Can’t shorten those TV adds “money” so they chose to run the clock.
One foot two foot red foot blue foot…
I don’t suppose I have an opinion other than if it killed some of the incessant replay and the accompanying broadcast blather I’m all for it. I’ve been watching Skycast when available (Hulu subscription, default, Wife’s programs). You can see a lot more of the game than the myopic views regular broadcasting allows which brings me to my point:
Clarify and/or modify the rules for holding and pass interference then call it uniformly.
“then call it uniformly”..therein lies the real problem.
There is a hell of a lot of pressure on a ref when he sees a foul that will be game changing. Sometimes he just pretends he didn’t see it, esp if he’s already made some hard calls against that team and he doesn’t want to look like he’s picking on them. So he pretends he didn’t see it.
Or he calls something ridiculous against a team to “make up” for multiple or hard calls against their opponent (see UGA/AU a few weeks ago).
And the truth is..they’re human and some let their bias get the best of them (although it may be at an almost sub-conscience level so they can deny it even to themselves)
I’d make a poor football official.
You couldn’t pay me enough to officiate Basketball.
If ya wanna’ bark about rule changes, the B.S. concerning ball control at the goal line or in the end zone, supposedly, when a ball carrier (qb/rb) the ball touches and or crosses the goal line, the play is done, even without total ball control or security whether the players body or whatever never crossed the goal line or entered the end zone, wr’s on the other hand have to secure the ball through the action of receiving, being tackled or pushed out of bounds in the end zone, two different motions, but leaning towards the offense a wee bit too much….GO DAWGS!!
One foot. Loved the play by the IU receiver. Keep college unique for as long as possible. You must be joking about less replay. For every obvious “no two feet” you’ll have one to review so no difference. The play in question was going to be reviewed and once they go to commercial break there is no speeding up the game.
The rule bails out QBs. That’s my point. The IU player made a great play on it. No doubt.
Why change the rule just because they’re paid now. Most of these college athletes won’t go to the league. So why expect them to perform as NFL players.
The last thing college officials need now is another chance to expand replay and timeouts. Please leave this one alone.
Getting paid does not enter my thought process on rules.
I think about what brings about the style of play and speed of the game I associate with the game I enjoy watching.
Totally agree with you.
One foot down in CFB. Now and hopefully forever. I love it and would never change it.
One rule change that I would like is for the NFL to adopt the college overtime rules. Too dependent on the flip of a coin in the NFL.
PS, I haven’t been too interested in the NFL before, because I am a native Georgian and we really don’t have pro football here. However, since NIL and little pretense of the old student-athlete thing, I have started watching some. It sure seems to go faster, with fewer damn interruptions.
Too many ESPN timeouts that last too long. But, the commish and presidents wanted the money.
I’m fine with one foot.
Defensive offsides should be reviewable. It should be objective, not subjective.
If it hasn’t been mentioned yet, the one change I’d like to see is them broadcasting the conversation with the replay booth like the ACC does.
ACC has the SEC beat in this are for sure. Their reviews are quick. The SEC spends too much time to get it wrong.
ee, if you wish to reduce scoring I respectfully assert that changing the “one foot down” rule won’t move the needle.
During my lifetime of watching and playing football the following rule changes have had a far greater impact on increasing scoring and hampering defenses.
1. It used to be that offensive linemen could not extend their arms while pass
blocking. I played offensive line in high school in the 1960s and we had to
pass block with our hands into our chest. That was the rule in college as well. The holding penalty included the extending the arms and hand blocking we see now. Returning to the older pass blocking rules will result in greater pressure on QBS and reduce passing completion percentages and passer efficiency, if that is your goal.
2. It used to be that defensive players could hit receivers during their routes as long as the ball was not in the air. Receivers had a hard time getting open when DBs and LBs could chuck them while running routes.
Quarterbacks in 1970 threw the ball was well as quarterbacks in 2025, and receivers were as good then as now. The passing numbers were not as good then because not all receivers got to run free after the first 5 yards and pass blocking was harder.
Those reversions in rules would accomplish your goal more than the 2 fee in bounds.
By the way, since early in the 20th century a player catching a pass with one foot in bounds was considered making a legal catch since the rule made having at least on foot out of bounds when making the catch an incompletion. A guy did nt have a foot out of bounds, ergo, it was complete. The 1969 rule codified what had long been the interpretation of the rule; a guy catches a pass and gets one foot down in bounds then he is not out of bounds and it is a catch. That was the rule going back to when I first following the rules in 1964 and when I played in HS The increase in scoring was not a result of the 1969 codification.
I agree there are other more dramatic ways to cut scoring with holding being the most significant. That ain’t going to happen.
I just think that in today’s game where passing rules, it’s time for the sidelines and the end lines (of the end zone) to be a 12th defender.
Hell they call it a touch down, so why not make the runner or receiver touch the ball down so the TD or no TD call is easier. See Rugby. At least make the ball have to be over the goal line and not some imaginary point that is hard as heck to call without a 5 minute video review. When did helping the runner rule go out the window? Next thing we will get is the flying wedge.
I’d looked to me like he got both feet down. But that brings up another question. If the ball of your foot comes down clearly in bounds, then the hill of your foot comes down and touches a white line, was that foot in bounds or out?
He does not get both feet down.
On the second part, it depends.
Great topic and post EE! – Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, before it cooled, we were taught to grab our own jerseys when blocking to eliminate any chance of being called for holding. That said, was there any more fun than crossing two steps over the line and barreling top speed behind the DL headed for a middle linebacker who had just realized the play was going to the direction you were coming from? I cannot lie, we launched. The game has changed, but not necessarily evolved. IMO
The biggest rule that I would change to tilt the playing field back towards the defensive side of the ball is to go to the NFL rule of 1 yard and strictly call the downfield blocking on pass plays by ineligible players. 3 yards is too much and gives the offense a massive advantage on RPO plays. Hell…if they’d strictly call the 3 yard rule that’d be a start.
I would like to see 3 changes.
First, if the offensive player lowers his head or body, it should nullify targeting. I like the safety aspect, but you cannot expect a defensive player to attempt to “tackle the body” only to have the receiver lower his head.
Second, the offense should not be able to puch the ball carrier. Defense can’t push them backwards so offense shouldn’t push the pile forward.
Third,the ball has to end up in the end zone, not cross the plain. Several others have said it better than me, but a pass catcher has to complete the catch so a ball carrier should complete the run in the end zone with the ball in their possesion.
I’m good with one-foot inbounds, but see your point.