CougarCorner

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T20:50:21-06:00

Every school shall have 1 and only 1 uniform for home games; 1 and only 1 uniform for away games.

Special uniforms (ie throwback) will be approved on a case by case basis, but the use of special uniforms is limited to once per year.

love it. Actually don't care about other teams though. I just want this rule to apply to BYU, although, make royal the official color and make navy the new "throwback".

Statistics: Posted by BroncoBot — Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T20:41:21-06:00

Every school shall have 1 and only 1 uniform for home games; 1 and only 1 uniform for away games.

Special uniforms (ie throwback) will be approved on a case by case basis, but the use of special uniforms is limited to once per year.

Statistics: Posted by Y12 — Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:41 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T20:23:46-06:00

Blue, the WAC reviewed the block and they found nothing wrong with this hit from behind targeting and diving at a defenseless player's knee. I don't see anything wrong with the block. Isn't it WAC and MWC policy that such plays are legal as long as the player hit has a Y on his helmet?

Ya, and apparently if you are a fat D-bag that is full-on in love with himself you don't even get flagged on the play.

http://twitter.com/#!/John_W_Bender" http://www.facebook.com/johnwbender" class="postlink">http://www.facebook.com/johnwbender" text/javascript" src="video.php?link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1i-Yw7s-Pw">

Statistics: Posted by Brayden Green — Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:23 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T19:59:18-06:00

My motive in starting this thread was to find ways to speed up the game. Football is a very exciting game, but stoppage after stoppage after stoppage without a play is just absurd. It is actually worse at the stadium than on TV, you just have to sit there while the refs blow the whistle to talk about something, then blow it for a false start, then blow it for a TV timeout--five minutes has gone by and not a single play has been run. I'm no soccer fan, but I have to admit playing a complete soccer game in 90 minutes is kind of appealing. I have a couple more:

1. Allow only one timeout per quarter, can't save a timeout past the half, but you can save it for the 4th quarter.

2. Coaches cannot get a free timeout just to rant at the ref about something

I think it's important to let the players play, and not have the game all about the coaches and play calling and time outs and stuff nobody cares about. Speed up the game by cutting out all the dead, boring stuff between plays...and the false start penalty. Please somebody prove to me that an OLineman jumping a half second early gives him an advantage, he can't hit anybody, he can't block anybody, if he's pass blocking he gives the play away, so where is the advantage--there is none.

Statistics: Posted by golong — Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T19:44:59-06:00

Harsher penalties for chop blocks and clipping. Getting hit from behind below the knees when you aren't expecting it is one of the most dangerous things in CFB.

I think that a player that hits from behind below the waist to anyone not in posession of the football - should be a 15 yard penalty, loss of down, and player should be ejected immediately. (Hitting the qb's not included in this one, unless they have released the ball in a timely fashion, same rules and approach as roughing the passer would apply here.) Defensively, should be 15 yards, automatic first down, and player automatically ejected.

Also, harsher penalties for body slamming and pile driving. Just tackle the guy.

I have posted a vid to illustrate what I mean:

script

(I also, I disagree with all of the proposals of the OP, for the reasons that many already list).

I would also get rid of the touchback on kickoffs. Give kickers an incentive to leg it deep into the endzone. Make for way more exciting football.

Blue, the WAC reviewed the block and they found nothing wrong with this hit from behind targeting and diving at a defenseless player's knee. I don't see anything wrong with the block. Isn't it WAC and MWC policy that such plays are legal as long as the player hit has a Y on his helmet?

Statistics: Posted by SpiffCoug — Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T18:30:30-06:00

College football is the only level of football where intentional grounding adds no additional yardage to the penalty. I'd add five yards from the spot, otherwise the qb has nothing to lose by throwing it away if he's gonna be sacked.
The intentional grounding is the same as a sack. It's a spot foul and loss of down. If you're whistled for IG on 2nd down it's now 3rd down from where the QB threw it. If you're sacked on 2nd down it's now 3rd down from the QB was sacked. They're essentially the same.
Exactly, so the QB has nothing to lose by throwing it away and hoping he doesn't get called for the penalty, the worst that happens is it gets called, which is the same as a sack, which would have been the result if he hadn't thrown the ball. There needs to be something to actually deter QB's from throwing the ball away.
How often is a blatant IG missed? A QB has very little to gain from risking an IG.
He has everything to gain by not taking a sack, he has literally NOTHING to lose by throwing it away, even if he does get called for IG.

More quarterbacks get away with non-IG calls than defensive players in sack situations.

(see what I did there?)

There has to be one or two times a game a no call comes up for intentional grounding.

Statistics: Posted by Brayden Green — Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:30 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T16:59:37-06:00

College football is the only level of football where intentional grounding adds no additional yardage to the penalty. I'd add five yards from the spot, otherwise the qb has nothing to lose by throwing it away if he's gonna be sacked.
The intentional grounding is the same as a sack. It's a spot foul and loss of down. If you're whistled for IG on 2nd down it's now 3rd down from where the QB threw it. If you're sacked on 2nd down it's now 3rd down from the QB was sacked. They're essentially the same.
Exactly, so the QB has nothing to lose by throwing it away and hoping he doesn't get called for the penalty, the worst that happens is it gets called, which is the same as a sack, which would have been the result if he hadn't thrown the ball. There needs to be something to actually deter QB's from throwing the ball away.
How often is a blatant IG missed? A QB has very little to gain from risking an IG.

He has everything to gain by not taking a sack, he has literally NOTHING to lose by throwing it away, even if he does get called for IG.

Statistics: Posted by Schmoe — Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:59 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T15:00:34-06:00

I'm okay with the 2-pt only, but FGs are a good part of scoring, but teams should have to move into FG position, not start there.

I agree that FGs shouldn't be eliminated, though I'm a little curious to see what effect their elimination would have.

To me, offenses seem to have a big advantage over tired defenses in overtime. Eliminating field goals would make every series a 4-down series--even those for the team in possession first--so forcing defense to play against 4-down strategies would put them at an even bigger disadvantage. I'd be interest to see if my theory is really true.

Statistics: Posted by Mingjai — Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T14:38:17-06:00

I'd make it a rule that if your QB has more TOs then TDs he has to be benched in the 3rd QTR.

I think seriously, I'd make more serious punishments for the Dline calling false snap counts. Utah did that to Bama so badly, and I see it as a dirty type play. 5 yards isn't enough

Statistics: Posted by Y4LYFE — Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:38 pm

Re: What Football Rules Would You Change?

2011-10-20T14:31:44-06:00

I like the idea of modifying the false start rule as suggested.

I would also like it if injury stoppages work almost like penalty boxes. The amount of real time that takes place between the ref whistling the stoppage and the ref starting play again (not counting timeouts, obviously) is how long on the game clock that you must sit out. So if you spend 2 minutes faking cramps to slow down the other teams offense, then you are sitting for 2 minutes of game clock. Of course if you are really hurt, spend all day on the ground because you're not coming back in anyway. The only reason why you would fear this rule is if you think you are coming back in in a few seconds anyway. In which case, you probably aren't really injured, so quit slowing the game down.

Statistics: Posted by Isola — Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:31 pm