Proposed NCAA Rule Changes

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it would have helped.

It will have the effect of changing the behavior the same way replay has changed the behavior for football officials in relation to fumbles.

In football, unless it is blatantly clear, they assume the player was NOT down and let the play run its course knowing they can go back and fix it on replay.

With BI/GT, the change in behavior will be to call it if it close and depend on review to get it right.

And if determined that the call was incorrect, the result will be an IW and resume play with the arrow. I'm surprised that the coaches are fine with that.

With regards to the F2, I'd be interested to learn what "language" falls under that rule. But, I don't think the moderators want that debate on here.

Giving coaches live-ball TO capability in the last 2:00 is stupid. Either let them have it the whole game or not at all. Oh well, they write the rules.

[SC Official]

I know a lot of people are upset they're staying with halves over quarters, but I actually prefer halves. A couple years ago when there were rumblings that the NFHS was going to switch to halves, I was a proponent.

The NCAA-W bonus rule is something that a lot of people like and something I wouldn't mind seeing in NFHS/NCAA-M, but at the end of the say what problem would that solve? I guess it's still possible we could see the NFHS release that as a rule change anytime now, but I won't hold my breath.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

...

Giving coaches live-ball TO capability in the last 2:00 is stupid. Either let them have it the whole game or not at all. Oh well, they write the rules.

It's not stupid. The coaches put a lot of stock into the last 2 minutes and OT. I'm surprised they didn't write this into the rule when it was originally changed.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's not stupid. The coaches put a lot of stock into the last 2 minutes and OT. I'm surprised they didn't write this into the rule when it was originally changed.

If they want the control, then why not give it to themselves (since they make the rules) the entire game?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

If they want the control, then why not give it to themselves (since they make the rules) the entire game?

Because the last 2 minutes of the game is not the same as the rest of the game. I actually listen when coaches speak at clinics and camps. They ALWAYS talk about how much more important getting plays right at the end of the game is compared to the rest of the game. This falls right in line with that philosophy. As I alluded to in another thread, coaches put a lot more stock into end of game situations. It's always going to be that way, no matter how much officials rail on about all calls and all situations being equal.

The coaches make the rules. They are letting us know what is important.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Because the last 2 minutes of the game is not the same as the rest of the game. I actually listen when coaches speak at clinics and camps. They ALWAYS talk about how much more important getting plays right at the end of the game is compared to the rest of the game. This falls right in line with that philosophy. As I alluded to in another thread, coaches put a lot more stock into end of game situations. It's always going to be that way, no matter how much officials rail on about all calls and all situations being equal.

The coaches make the rules. They are letting us know what is important.

I'm sorry, but is it written somewhere that I have to agree with/like a rule change because it's "important" to the coaches?

I wasn't a fan of the live-ball TO rule change a few years ago, and I'm not a fan of this change. Clearly you don't mind it, which is fine, but it doesn't make you morally superior or a better official for agreeing with the coaches on a rule change. People are allowed to dislike things.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I'm sorry, but is it written somewhere that I have to agree with/like a rule change because it's "important" to the coaches?

I wasn't a fan of the live-ball TO rule change a few years ago, and I'm not a fan of this change. Clearly you don't mind it, which is fine, but it doesn't make you morally superior or a better official for agreeing with the coaches on a rule change. People are allowed to dislike things.

You asked a question ("If they want the control, then why not give it to themselves (since they make the rules) the entire game?")...

and I answered it ("Because the last 2 minutes of the game is not the same as the rest of the game. I actually listen when coaches speak at clinics and camps. They ALWAYS talk about how much more important getting plays right at the end of the game is compared to the rest of the game. This falls right in line with that philosophy. As I alluded to in another thread, coaches put a lot more stock into end of game situations. It's always going to be that way, no matter how much officials rail on about all calls and all situations being equal.

The coaches make the rules. They are letting us know what is important.")


I didn't say I agree or disagree with the rule change, but if that's what you need to flame your rant, go for it. Being an a$$hole doesn't make one a better or superior official either, but hey, maybe I'm wrong about that.