In the never ending quest of the NCAA trying to make college football safer, you will be seeing some changes in the 2012 season. And, in typical NCAA fashion, the majority of the changes make zero sense.
We'll start with the not so awful and spiral downward into NCAA stupidity.
Leading off are some changes to blocking below the waist:
The rules panel also approved new wording in the football rules book regarding blocking below the waist. Offensive players in the tackle box at the snap who are not in motion are allowed to block below the waist legally without restriction. All other players are restricted from blocking below the waist with a few exceptions (for example, straight-ahead blocks).
I have no issue with this rule as it should hopefully save a few knees in our annual Navy matchup. The biggest problem with blocks below the waist are the ones players never see coming and this rule should address that. The only issue I can see here is the in-motion restriction causing some confusion and a few flags. It will surely drive some coaches nuts, especially those that rely heavy on cut blocks, but I can't call this an overly horrible idea.
There will also be a new rule prohibiting players from leaping over blockers in an attempt to block a punt. Receiving-team players trying to jump over a shield-blocking scheme has become popular for teams in punt formation. Receiving-team players try to defeat this scheme by rushing into the backfield to block a punt. In some cases, these players are contacted and end up flipping in the air and landing on their head or shoulders.
The Football Rules Committee raised concern about this type of action and proposed a rule similar to the leaping rule on place kicks that does not allow the receiving team to jump over blockers, unless the player jumps straight up or between two players.
Now, I see the logic here, but I can already see the flags flying for a player trying to jump in between two blockers and have his action deemed illegal. Furthermore, with such a small window to block a punt, instinct is bound to take over to try to have a shot at a potential game-changing play, only to give their opponent a first down.
I'm also curious as to why punts were singled out. It seems that a logical progression of this rule is that no player can attempt to leap a blocker, which is a very common reaction for anyone avoiding a cut block (for instance on a pass rush). The same risk of a player flipping and landing on his head still exists there as well.
Can't wait until a game is changed by an awful interpretation of this rule and screws someone over.
Another new rule that goes into effect next season is if a player loses his helmet (other than as the result of a foul by the opponent, such as a facemask), it will be treated like an injury. The player must leave the game and is not allowed to participate for the next play.
Current injury timeout rules guard against using this rule to gain an advantage from stopping the clock. Additionally, if a player loses his helmet, he must not continue to participate in the play, in order to protect him from injury.
Data from the 2011 season indicated that helmets came off of players more than twice per game.
Uh...what?!
Look, I think it is beyond annoying that helmets fly off players at an absurd rate, but having a player sit out a play is just dumb. Just think of how different a critical third down play would be if Aaron Lynch's helmet happened to pop off the play before or if a hard hit happens to knock a helmet off on any impact player on offense.
Not to mention this rule, like any dumb rule, places too much subjective power in the hands of the referee. A ref could miss a facemask, but only see the helmet come off, leading to a possible game-changing personnel change that shouldn't have happened.
To me this encourages head hunting. Jar a helmet lose, take a guy out for a play. Good work NCAA, you just instituted a bounty in the name of safety.
Next fall, teams will kick off at the 35-yard line instead of the 30. Also, players on the kicking team can’t line up for the play behind the 30-yard line, which is intended to limit the running start kicking teams used to have during the play.
Also, touchbacks on free kicks will be moved to the 25-yard line instead of the 20 to encourage more touchbacks. Touchbacks on other plays (for example, punts that go into the end zone, or fumbles that go out of the end zone) will remain at the 20-yard line.
The recommended changes came from the Football Rules Committee after that group examined NCAA data showing that injuries during kickoffs occur more often than in other phases of the game.
Words can't even describe how dumb these kickoff rules are.
First off, now all touchbacks are not created equal because is all kinds of logical. Have fun explaining the logic behind this new rule to, well, anyone.
How does this actually encourage touchbacks? If you are the kicking team, why in the hell would you willingly want to give up five more yards of field position? Now that your coverage team has five less yards to cover to get to the ball carrier, it would seem just a tad bit wiser to give a kick some more hangtime and try to land the ball inside the 20 and stuff the return.
This rule change doesn't encourage touchbacks, it encourages more returns, which the NCAA seemingly wants to avoid because they cause too many injuries.
Increasing the game's safety is a noble goal and it's heartbreaking to see a young talent suffer a brutal injury, but rules like these don't help. Football, at its core, is a violent game. Players, at their core, are competitive and run on instinct to make a play, putting their bodies in great danger. It's the nature of the game, you can't eliminate it with rules alone. Thinking that you can leads to the shortsightedness and utter stupidity that some of these rules exhibit.
By Erik 04 February 24, 2012 - 2:01 pm
I agree with everything except your interpretation of the touchback rule. It encourages more touchbacks by encouraging more kick returners to down it in the endzone instead of bringing it out. If a returner catches the ball 1 yard deep into the endzone, it’s pretty easy to bring it out near the 20, so there’s little risk in terms of field position compared to the reward you could get if you have a big return. However, if you know you can take a touchback and get it at the 25, maybe you decide to down it instead of risking only returning it to the 17 and giving up 8 yards instead of 3. So it will “encourage more kickoffs” by encouraging the returners to down it more.
Hot debate. What do you think?
7 
8
By Erik 04 February 27, 2012 - 11:33 am
7 dislikes? Yikes. Yet no one has made any comments contradicting my theory. Are you just disliking my typo in the last sentence where I said “kickoffs” instead of “touchbacks” or the whole idea of disagreeing with Tex’ interpretation of why the rule will lead to more touchbacks (assuming kickers don’t hang it high and land it at the 5)?
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By trey February 27, 2012 - 12:44 pm
I agree with you in that it will encourage more touchbacks…that’s the whole point of the rule change. I dont really see anything to disagree with, so I dont understand the “dislike”
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
1
By Erik 04 February 24, 2012 - 2:02 pm
Uh, just disregard that last sentence, kthx.
Thumbs Up/Down:
2 
4
By HerringBoneSports February 24, 2012 - 2:03 pm
Tex, great article and some quality takes. Totally agree with your thoughts on cut blocking, possible misinterpretation of the punt blocking change, and the kickoff move.
I’ve done some research in the past on football concussions and causes, so I’m agreeing with you 50% on the helmet removal change. The safety they’re looking for isn’t in ensuring players get their helmet back on properly after it’s removed in a play, it’s a HEAVY warning that players, coaches, and equipment managers need to ensure the helmets are always fitted properly from the beginning. The threat of players missing a play is obviously going to loom large.
A properly fitted helmet has about 0.1% of coming off during a play even on a brutal facemask. We see so many pop off during games because they aren’t fitted properly from the beginning. Lots of players like the looser fit of the helmet and chinstrap for comfort, but that draws on the concussion prevention. That is what this rule is addressing.
Aaron Lynch is a great example for this article because his bull-rush on pass plays drew lots of OTs to pushing on his facemask and you could see his chinstrap slide up his face. It looked pretty obvious that he needs to put more air in his helmet and tighten his straps, maybe go to the newer 6 strap helmets. It’d likely lead to more facemask calls on Tackles,and possibly make him even a bigger threat moving forward if that’s possible.
You’re 100% right that a star player will eventually be on the sideline on a game-changing play because of the rule and it will be scrutinized and the likelyhood of a ref missing a facemask call, but enforcing the missed play rule will happen as well. I think it’s a positive move, and if a replay official could call down and void the “missed facemask call” it’d make it pretty effective.
Go.Irish.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
1
By trey February 24, 2012 - 7:27 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
4
By Mark G. February 24, 2012 - 5:24 pm
Good post.
I don’t mind moving the kickoff up to the 35, but leave the rest alone. Defenders will get up to full speed whether they start running on the 30 or the 25. And moving those touchbacks to the 25 is non-sensical. One practical concern is that it has taken me over 25 years of marriage to explain rules like touchbacks to my wife (and this is a woman who has been going to ND games since she was 7 years old). How am I supposed to explain this all to her? Her head will just explode.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
By trey February 24, 2012 - 7:25 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
10
By Tim's Neighbor February 24, 2012 - 6:41 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
3
By trey February 24, 2012 - 7:24 pm
I dont know if I’m the only football official, but I haven’t seen anyone else admit it yet, so until someone claims differently, I’ll assume the role of “official HLS rules interpreter.” I am an NCAA offical and this applies directly to me in a big way. First, a couple of comments:
1. If you dont like the rules cracking down on blocking below the waist(BBW) then get ready to get pissed for the next couple of years. This rule is targeted to get more and more restrictive. We have heard Rogers Redding(NCAA rules editor) speak for the last 3-4 years on this topic and it is common knowledge that the NCAA rule will soon be the same as the NFHS rule, which is NO BBW in any case. The issue you raised, BTW was instituted LAST year. The change for this year is regarding what type of backfield player is restricted. There was a lot of confusion in the community if a player was half-way behind a lineman or if he had to be completely behind the lineman, was he restricted? This change clearly declares any player with his whole body frame outside the second lineman from the snapper is restricted.
2. Helmets coming off…again, something that you knew was coming if you studied the rules changes from last year. Last season, we were required to track every time a ball carriers helmet came off and report that information to our various chapter and conference directors. The NCAA compiled that information and used it to determine that the problem was an epidemic taht needed to be addressed. The reason this rule was instituted isnt because the officials want a new way to screw teams over. This is completely a safety issue. When you look at the usage instructions on the helmets, they clearly state that the chin-strap should be tightened as to prevent the helmet from being removed. When you allow the thing to jostle on the head, all the concussion-prevention advances the helmet makers have invented become useless. Players, coaches, and trainers need to stop allowing the players to wear their equipment improperly. We all knew a yardage penalty was coming, this just means it is official.
3. Im surprised you missed the most important rule change regarding kicking rules:
“C. A player of the receiving team who is in position to receive the ball has the same
kick‐catch and fair‐catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or
is immediately driven to the ground, strikes the ground once and goes into the air in
the manner of the ball kicked directly off the tee.”
This one is going to drive special teams coaches insane. This nearly eliminates the kick where kickers drill it into the ground and the kicking team goes and catches a live ball. Now, the receiving team can call for a fair catch, and if the kicking team doesnt allow them a chance to catch it, it will be interference. Also gone will be the pooch kickoff. This is a big change. Moving the kickoffs up was to be expected after seeing how successful it was in the NFL. Im surprised they only moved it up 5 yards.Expect the ball to be moved to the 40 in the near future(like TX HS)
Those are my thoughts on the actual rules. I am a little insulted about how you criticized the entire officiating community in this article, but it’s understandable. We are usually the first to blame when things dont go right for a fan’s team and we are usually the scapegoat for losses. Just in the future, please understand that there are 24 players on the field and only 7 of us. We usually get it right, but there are certainly cases where we miss plays. I dont think these rules changes will lead to a gross-unfairness in any way.This year’s changes are built totally around safety issues and making the game more fair to both teams
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
3
By NDtex February 24, 2012 - 10:57 pm
Firstly, my criticism is 100% directed at the NCAA, not the officials. In my opinion, these rules put refs in a horrible position with far too much subjection. It’s hard enough to call the game on the black and white rules, much less to be expected to get the subjective parts right.
These rules make your job so much harder in my opinion. It’s like the celebration rule, make a judgement in real-time people don’t like and in comes the ire.
I get the need for safety, especially the helmet rule, but I believe there are far better ways to go about it.
Also, I didn’t mention the returner protection provision as the link I went off of (NCAA press release) failed to include it.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
0
By trey February 24, 2012 - 11:07 pm
Understood and thanks for your clarification. There are a lot of things we dont like about the rules either, but the problem is the NCAA rules are put together by the rules COMMITTEE and not a single person. You know the joke, dont you? What is this: http://fohn.net/camel-pictures-facts/the-pictures/Arabian-Camel-1024×768.jpg
It’s a horse designed by a committee.
Some of the rules are really a problem because a) theyre so subjective at times(celebration being a prime example, holding another) and b) the connect-the-dots can sometimes be so confusing that you forget one step and misapply a rule because you left out step 20 of 100. That’s why Dr. Redding sends out weekly rules interpretations from the prior week’s games. One official sees a play one way, but the official interpretation intends the rule to be something else.
As a final statement on this, I can say, as an official, this will make things a lot easier to call and I dont envision any issues at all. Like I said, most of us saw all of these changes coming and we’ve been officiating for a year getting teams prepared for them. The committee does major revisions every two years, and that happened last season. This year is just a few minor tweaks. Next year, i would bet you will see BBW become completely illegal and a number of other safety issues addressed.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
3
By Bruce February 25, 2012 - 8:49 am
Quote “Just in the future, please understand that there are 24 players on the field and only 7 of us.”
Wait a minute – that’s sure to draw a flag, isn’t it? Or did I miss another change?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
By trey February 26, 2012 - 9:39 pm
Depends where you’re at. You know the 12th man and all…;-)
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
1
By Joe Schulz February 25, 2012 - 10:30 am
As noted by the official the loose helmet comes from the most part from players who don’t like it tight on their head. Hasn’t anyone considered having some form of padding not only on the inside of the helmet but also on the outside (I know, unsightly & big head) so the concussion itself is dampened. Let’s not just mollycoddle the players. Remember the comment from an old Michigan State coach. “Football is a collision sport. Dancing is a contact sport.” Let’s stop trying to move closer to dancing.
Thumbs Up/Down:
2 
0
By Joe Schulz February 25, 2012 - 10:21 am
I was the starting wingback on the last single wing team in the country. at 5=11, 195, I generally blocked people much larger than I. How is a running back or wide receiver to knock anyone down in this time of 290 -320 lb. linemen. This actually is an extension of the blocking with your hands concept that leads naturally to holding. Soon everyone of the field who is expected to block someone will weight 240 or more or get killed during the experience. I feel sorry for teams that generally field smaller player, e.g., Navy, that relied, up until now on technique. I blocked a lot of people and have no recollection of anyone getting hurt because of the technique. Tall guys, big guys, didn’t like it because any runt, like me, could tale them down. Who, other than the coaches of the teams that play the academies, is complaining. The game used to be about knocking people down, dirt on the uniforms, etc. Why don’t we stop playing around and just call it flag football?
Thumbs Up/Down:
2 
1
By trey February 26, 2012 - 9:42 pm
Your first statement really explains it. No one runs the single wing anymore. Football is more and more a passing game and the need to cut block is becoming less of a necessity. The problem isnt the low block as much as it is low blocks from the side and behind that are blowing knees out and ending careers.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
1
By IrishLion February 25, 2012 - 11:49 am
Hate the new kickoff rules. I get that it’s about safety, but you are also eliminating an entire phase of the game by encouraging touchbacks on every kickoff, especially if kickoffs eventually are moved to the 40 like Trey thinks. Touchbacks eliminate strategy, as well as the desire for the coverage team to run down the field and beat the return team to their points of attack.
However, I could be completely wrong, and maybe teams will intentionally add hangtime and take away distance from kicks in order to give their coverage team a shot at bringing the returner down before the 20. In which case, the rule actually has the opposite of the intended effect. What an odd situation.
Thumbs Up/Down:
3 
0
By kyndfan February 26, 2012 - 9:51 am
The helmet rule and the kickoff rule are horrible examples of governing bodies making up rules “for our own good”. Football players, especially by the time they get to the collegiate level, understand the risk involved in playing this great game. Piece by piece this game is being stripped down and made into something that will one day be hard to recognize.
Thumbs Up/Down:
1 
3
By Chris February 26, 2012 - 5:20 pm
I could have swore I heard Tom Hammond say that helmets were being made to be easier to pop off during a collision as it better absorbed the blow? Someone please clarify, because I think it makes sense, but I’m not a physicist or a doctor, and I know many ND grads are lol. Thanks!!
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
0
By The Biscuit February 27, 2012 - 12:23 am
The kickoff rule is the biggest joke, only because it’s so easy to kick against. Teams will tell their guys to hang it high high high on the 5, and then that guy will get CRUSHED as guys with TONS of momentum come barreling down on a dude barely moving. Ooops
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
1
By reimero February 27, 2012 - 10:15 am
I’m gonna dissent on the whole helmet thing. The overwhelming majority of helmets knocked loose are the result of improperly-fit helmets, not of headhunters. A jarring blow won’t knock off a properly-fit helmet, it would require actively ripping the helmet from the head – an act which in itself would draw a personal foul or more.
Thumbs Up/Down:
2 
0
By trey February 27, 2012 - 12:46 pm
Exactly
Thumbs Up/Down:
0 
1