NCAA Rule Changes - Effects on Mich
1. Banned Wedge Kickoffs
THE RULE: When the team receiving a kickoff has more than two players standing within two yards of one another, shoulder to shoulder, it will be assessed a 15-yard penalty—even if there is no contact between the teams.
THE REASON: A 2007 study showed that 20 percent of injuries during kickoffs were concussions.
EXPLANATION: When receiving a kickoff, teams tend to coalesce their blockers into a tight wedge. The way to break through such blocking is to send one of the tacklers into the wedge like a missile and blow it up. Example here
You can see the violence involved in this play. In fact, the reason offenses can only have so many people in the backfield today is because the wedge and wedge-breaking were major sources of deaths in the early game.
The NFL banned wedge blocking last year. Now the NCAA has done it too.
IMPACT: This is ultimately a win for kicking teams, since blocking caravans cannot form while the kick is in the air. It will probably prevent a head injury every three to five games. It's also probably a win for Michigan, since our speedier blockers are more likely to succeed without a wedge, our speedy returners are the least helped by wedge blocking, and most importantly, we are glad it is gone because we really suck at it:
YAY OR NAY: Big Yay. This was a decision made to protect the health of players. Fewer concussions = Sam McGuffie playing for Michigan rather than Rice = win. It wasn't delayed, but it was based on good science. It also looks to open up the kicking game a bit more, forcing the returner to run around a bit and hopefully dodge more guys in space, rather than fight through a tightly packed crowd every time. Plus, the way they defined it is pretty cut-and-dry: when the ball is in the air, you have to be two feet from your teammates. Good rule.
2. No more holding L2 on your way to the end zone
THE RULE: Live-ball penalties for taunting will be assessed from the spot of the foul and eliminate the score. Examples include players finishing touchdown runs by high-stepping into the end zone or pointing the ball toward an opponent.
THE REASON: Old men with objects in their rectums get to make rules. The explanation given is that it's because it's team game. Ask any offensive lineman if he minds if a skill position player jigs into the end-zone rather than coldly running in like a pre-2004 Madden avatar. He don't mind. This is about large, oblong objects in old ani, period.
EXPLANATION: If you taunt before making it to the end zone, and are penalized for it, the penalty will now be assessed as a live play. So let's say you are a receiver, and through your mad football skills you beat a cornerback deep, your QB gets you the ball, and now you have lots of green between yourself and the end zone. At this point you should IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM DO ANYTHING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU ARE HAPPY ABOUT THIS.
If you high-step, hold the ball out to a defender, pump the ball in your arms, or pull a DeSean Jackson:
The score is negated, AND you get a 15-yard penalty.
IMPACT ON MICHIGAN: Well, so long as we continue to deploy 18- to 22-year-old athletes who are excitable and love scoring touchdowns, their body language is likely to negate some touchdowns. They don't say so, but I highly, highly, highly doubt this penalty will ever get called on a (white) quarterback who is jumping up and down in ecstasy while his teammate runs in the pass -- this is geared at showboat receivers and running backs. I'm calling it now: we will get penalized for this, because we have young guys who can score long touchdowns and this makes them happy.
I don't know how tightly they plan to call it, but this might count:
YAY OR NAY:
Nay. With sauce. There is a heavy smell of racism in this. Good sportsmanship is something coaches can teach and kids can display to earn themselves and their programs more respect. But the NCAA negating plays on the football field because a 20-year-old got too excited after the result of the play had been for all intents and purposes determined: that smacks of grumpy old men trying to teach those kids a lesson in manners.
3. No more eye black messages
THE RULE: Bans the use of eye black containing symbols or messages
THE REASON:
.
EXPLANATION: Hey, waitaminute, you can't use all the television cameras to say what you think or represent -- only WE can use all the television cameras to say what we think or represent.
IMPACT ON MICHIGAN: Dudes can't write stuff in eye black anymore (unless a shoe company pays the university top dollar for it). I assume duct tape over one's mouth is still cool.
YAY OR NAY:
Nay.
This is the second rule that could have just gone with a Don't be DeSean Jackson approach. There are precious few guys who actually get national exposure for their eye-black. It's basically Heisman candidates, and the odd Mike Hart-type fella who so personifies his team that TV cameras zoom in on his face a lot. Most eye-black messages are the school logo. Others are usually hometown area codes, or dead or sick friends and relatives.
The committee also approved a rule that will require all coaches boxes to have television monitors beginning in the fall of 2011. This is a good idea. I think. Is it?
April 17th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
April 17th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
April 17th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^
April 18th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discriminationI'm referring only to No. 2. I think most people view the relationship of racism to bigotry as zero-tolerance, which is to say, any little bit of racism makes you a bigot, you=hater, end-of-story. I think this wildly popular definition is absolute and utter crap. It sets the bar so high for what constitutes racism that small or subtle examples don't qualify for discussion. The result is that we no longer have a language with which to discuss the majority of racial problems. So then those who use this definition can see no problems: racism is solved, thank-you everyone involved, let's put away our "42" jerseys and have ice cream. As with any other sensitivity issue, a "right" answer requires understanding of why the offended party would feel that way. With racial issues, the offended party, African Americans, are seldom listened to or understood before their offense is judged to be unjustifiable. This is a very very very common mistake, and at the heart of probably most of today's racial tensions. Letting us white guys determine what's appropriate and what's offensive to black guys is a perfect way to ensure people get offended. Sure, oversensitivity can be annoying, but the annoyance of a white guy at having to be more "P.C." is cheerios beside the offense that a black guy would take from a clearly racist, even if accidental, statement. In parental terms, "be nice to your brother" always trumps "but I didn't do anything!" Racism and bigotry are not the same things. Racism, when you break it down, is mostly insensitivity, mixed with a bit of cultural bias, and reinforced by whatever level to which you define your sub-culture through the prism of race. Most racism, as I define it, is accidental. Or at least, the purveyor most likely has no idea that racial triggers in his brain played any role in what he said or did. When a bunch of grumpy old white men get together in a room to nail taunting, they probably aren't consciously thinking "let's stop these black kids," but they are probably playing a highlight reel of black show-boaters in their heads. And in application, I think the cultural difference between the refs and the players will lead to this rule being unfairly applied against black players. That's the racism I'm talking about. Whether or not this fits your definition of racism, I think we can agree that it is wrong. Overall, though, I agree that this is a secondary consideration as far as this rule is concerned. The bigger problems with this rule are that it's arbitrary, and more importantly, regulating something that doesn't affect the outcome of the game. That's the part I personally hate the most about the rule. Say you are a player who catches a long bomb with 3 seconds left in the 4th quarter and you are down 4 points. You then juke away from the lone defender in your area and are clear to the end-zone. Your first thought is "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" or something to that effect. What sucks is with this rule in place, your next thought has to be "DonotcelebratedonotcelebrateEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" The taunting rule thus regulates...elation. Because what: we have a problem with people feeling elation? Well yes: it cuts into enjoyment of a moment because it offends the tastes of others. That is a real consideration. But next to the damage potentially caused by this rule, purists' potential offense should mean diddly squat to the rest of us. All things considered, we should acknowledge that some people are offended by taunting, and then say "fuck 'em." The level of offense that purists feel at seeing a person express elation (particularly when they themselves are unhappy at that moment) is not important enough to justify a rule regulating body language, and certainly not important enough to justify increasing the penalty for that rule to the point where it is likely to profoundly affect the outcome of the game, negating a score and probably putting the ball 15 to 20 yards from the end-zone. That's my biggest problem with this rule: it's selfish and inconsiderate, making the arbitrary taste of some people into The Law and assessing a likely huge penalty to those who break it. It's censorship, and then when nobody takes the censors seriously because their censorship is widely regarded as asshole censorship, the censors deciding to teach their detractors a lesson they'll never forget. If a person's sensibilities are such that they don't like taunting, I totally respect that. I would also, however, expect that person to realize that their sensibilities are not as important as general enjoyment of the game, and to keep their criticisms within that context. The way to control showboating is to criticize the showboaters. This we do, and it is effective, because players either want to be liked and will check it themselves in the name of trying to be classy, or don't care about being liked in which case they are assholes and we are correct in calling them such. Where the judgment crosses the line is when it leaves the realm of taste and calling out someone for bad taste, and actually penalizing them for it. In other words, it would be like throwing a guy in jail for making a racist comment. Dislike the guy, or argue with the guy, or ignore the guy, or if you see the guy's problem as something that can actually hurt his performance for you, remove that guy from any position where it can hurt you. But penalizing isn't your prerogative.
April 18th, 2010 at 12:14 PM ^
Further, I still think that you are going out on a limb to say that there were some sort of subconscious racial triggers at play. Do you know who this committee is or what their background is?That is an excellent, excellent point. I think you have won this round. I withdraw.
April 20th, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^
April 20th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^
April 16th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
Comments