BleedGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 62,900
- Reaction score
- 20,454
- Points
- 113
per CBS:
College football is a wonderful sport, but it's far from perfect. In fact, the further you get away from the field and the game itself, the slimier everything seems to feel. This is a sport that produces millions upon millions of dollars in revenue every year all around the country, yet the the people directly responsible for the product so many willingly pay money to enjoy -- the players -- barely see any of it.
So, you know, there are some ethical and logical flaws in the sport.
I'm not here to talk about that today, however. I'd like to keep our eyes on the actual field right now and some of the rules of the game we see impact it just about every week. Now, there are a few rules in college football that I am not a fan of, and I make no effort to try to hide these feelings.
I hate pass interference. It's too open to interpretation, and given how often we see referees blowing calls, I don't want to put more on their plate than we have to. I believe you could get rid of the concept of pass interference, continue calling defensive holding or illegal contact -- violations with much clearer definitions -- and not much would really change in how the game looks. So what if the receiver and defensive back make some involuntary contact down the field? It's football, and I'm tired of seeing quarterbacks rewarded for bad throws. How many times do we need to see a receiver stop or come back due to an underthrown ball, initiating contact with a defender and then having the flag thrown on the defender? We're giving the offense 15 yards and a first down because the quarterback screwed up.
Then there's the targeting rule, which, honestly, do you know what targeting actually is? It's clear the refs don't because the definition seems to change on a hit-by-hit basis. Targeting is a rule with an intention that is good and pure -- keeping players safe is a great! -- but when actually put in practice, it generally only makes things worse. Like pass interference, it's something that is left to the interpretation of the official, and the official's job is hard enough. I'm not sure what the solution here is exactly, but the targeting rules as currently practiced need to be reworked.
Pass interference and targeting are just two examples of rules I do not like. But they are far from the worst college football has to offer. That would be the dumbest rule in this wonderful sport, one we see affect games far too often.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-to-fix-the-dumbest-rule-in-college-football/
Go Gophers!!
College football is a wonderful sport, but it's far from perfect. In fact, the further you get away from the field and the game itself, the slimier everything seems to feel. This is a sport that produces millions upon millions of dollars in revenue every year all around the country, yet the the people directly responsible for the product so many willingly pay money to enjoy -- the players -- barely see any of it.
So, you know, there are some ethical and logical flaws in the sport.
I'm not here to talk about that today, however. I'd like to keep our eyes on the actual field right now and some of the rules of the game we see impact it just about every week. Now, there are a few rules in college football that I am not a fan of, and I make no effort to try to hide these feelings.
I hate pass interference. It's too open to interpretation, and given how often we see referees blowing calls, I don't want to put more on their plate than we have to. I believe you could get rid of the concept of pass interference, continue calling defensive holding or illegal contact -- violations with much clearer definitions -- and not much would really change in how the game looks. So what if the receiver and defensive back make some involuntary contact down the field? It's football, and I'm tired of seeing quarterbacks rewarded for bad throws. How many times do we need to see a receiver stop or come back due to an underthrown ball, initiating contact with a defender and then having the flag thrown on the defender? We're giving the offense 15 yards and a first down because the quarterback screwed up.
Then there's the targeting rule, which, honestly, do you know what targeting actually is? It's clear the refs don't because the definition seems to change on a hit-by-hit basis. Targeting is a rule with an intention that is good and pure -- keeping players safe is a great! -- but when actually put in practice, it generally only makes things worse. Like pass interference, it's something that is left to the interpretation of the official, and the official's job is hard enough. I'm not sure what the solution here is exactly, but the targeting rules as currently practiced need to be reworked.
Pass interference and targeting are just two examples of rules I do not like. But they are far from the worst college football has to offer. That would be the dumbest rule in this wonderful sport, one we see affect games far too often.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...-to-fix-the-dumbest-rule-in-college-football/
Go Gophers!!
