Another year, another set of proposed changes. Some, for the better. Some, for the stranger.
Summary of changes:
- The first targeting penalty called on a player in a season will NOT result in any next-game disqualification or suspension. If they accrue a second, they sit out the first half of the next game. A conference or team can appeal disqualification for the second offense…which I guess implies that someone will review the targeting penalty outside the game itself and determine if it was warranted in the first place. Sounds a little too-little, too-late, to me.
- Players wear leg coverings from the top of the shoe to the bottom of the pants, in unison with the uniform. Players would have to sit one play at least to rectify the situation. In other words, the legs need to be covered from head to toe, which should eliminate players wearing the short shorts. Kind of makes sense, given they’re exposing their kneecaps and it’s stupid to play a contact sport that way.
- Now here’s an interesting one, if someone can please explain to me what this is in the comments, I’d appreciate it, because it sounds bizarre, although I have heard of it before:
Under a new proposal, a team could choose to attempt a fair catch kick after a completed or awarded fair catch. The kick would be a field goal place kick with a holder (no tee) or a drop kick from the spot where the returner caught the ball.
Here’s the rest:
- On punts where jersey number exceptions (players who do not wear numbers 50-79) are used, the snapper and two adjacent linemen on either side who are lined up in (or touching) the tackle box are ineligible receivers by position and become exceptions to the numbering rule when the snapper takes his position. This makes it clear which players are eligible and ineligible receivers in the formation.
- While the subcommittee is comfortable with the administration of unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, the group recommended clarifying the rule to give on-field officials guidance to align with the current game. Officials would focus on unsportsmanlike conduct where someone taunts an opponent; actions that interfere with game administration; and celebrations found demeaning to the game or opponent.
- Offensive pass interference penalties would be 10 yards. Currently, the penalty for offensive pass interference is 15 yards.
Great. That means that Georgia will have five fewer yards for offensive pass interference penalties should we play Texas again. Glad to know.
Been in the nfl forever. Very rare:
https://youtu.be/vHQHiarZ2lQ?si=gFcOdam4nyA1VrT7
The previous successful one was in 1976.
I read about a Georgia High School team making a free kick after a fair catch so apparently it is in the high school rules. I just assumed it was in the NCAA rules as well but apparently I was wrong.
I saw it this year. Our kicker at GAC kicked a 60 yarder off a tee at the end of the first half.
I’m a GAC guy too. You have kids there?
Our younger 2 graduated from GAC, but we’re still involved at the school.
The free kick on a fair catch has been a rule in the nfl and ghsa for a long time.
The punt eligibility was used against Georgia – a Richt team played Vandy in Nashville and on a fake punt the center caught a pass for a first down.
Make work for idle people
This OPI change is garbage unless the officials are going to start calling it more as a point of emphasis.
Why would opi and dpi not be the same?
Regarding the leg covering rule, this won’t eliminate the short shorts. Queue the Nike tights being worn underneath to meet rule compliance. Kickers, especially, will choose the short pants because it gives them more freedom of leg movement when the pant is above the knee.
Perhaps a player will wear tights (pantyhose) of the appropriate color and a bikini bottom or even a jock strap of the appropriate color or would that be too much freedom of movement?
Broadway Joe missed out on some NIL opportunties here.
I would have thought college had the fair catch kick rule already. Ehhh…why not add it. Targeting being reviewed and ruled on days later I guess could be an improvement. We already discussed it’s poorly defined and administered anyway. Going to be a whole lot more PI but maybe they’ll actually call it with the penalty less severe. This, however, could swing the pendulum the other way and the passing game will just be a series of PI calls. They should probably eliminate the auto-first down if they’re going to do this.
Oops! More coffee! It’s just a change for OPI? When is that ever called?
I really like the changes to the unsportsmanlike penalty rule. I mean, what could go wrong having a bunch of old, mainly white, guys decide what is “demeaning to the sport” for a bunch of mainly AA kids playing the game? Just eliminate the direct taunting and be done with it.