NCAA Football Rules Question / Answers

[AeroBuff99]

Thought having a dedicated thread to rules questions could be useful.

In another thread a question was asked about the hit on Travis if it could result in a disqualification.
A: Under 9-1-1: Before the game, during the game and between periods, all flagrant fouls (Rule 2-10-3) require ejection or disqualification. Team B flagrant personal fouls require first downs if not in conflict with other rules. 2-10-3 defines a Flagrant Personal Foul as illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury.
My opinion is that although the hit resulted in Travis going to the hospital, initial indications were that it was not a hit that in the referee's mind would put the player in danger of a catastrophic injury.

Furthermore under 9-6-1 all flagrant fouls that are called should automatically be reviewed by the team's conference to determine any further sanctions. If the foul is not called, a subsequent review of the game may reveal a flagrant foul and that conference may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game under 9-6-2.


The second situation was while I was at the game and concerned the free kick out of bounds when CU kicked from the 50. The referee initially announced the ball would be placed at the 35. I knew this was wrong, and subsequently CSU had us re-kick from the 45. The old guys in front of me didn't believe my explanation.
A: Rule 6-2-1 If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team B, it is a foul (A.R. 6-2-1-I-II and 4-2-1-III).
PENALTY—Live-ball foul. Five yards from the previous spot; or five yards from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B; or the receiving team may put the ball in play 30 yards beyond Team A’s restraining line at the hash mark [S19].

So because the kick went out of bounds, CSU could take the ball 5 yards from where it went out, 30 yards from the spot we kicked it, or force a re-kick 5 yards from the previous spot. So because CU kicked from the 50, and went out of bounds around the 12 yard line, they could have chosen to take the ball at the 17 (5 yards from where it went out of bounds), the 20 (30 yards from the spot of the kick), or have a re-kick at the 45 which ultimately resulted in the touchback giving them the ball at the 25. The only confusion was the referee initially announcing the ball at the 35 which was incorrect.

 

[torero]

The second situation was while I was at the game and concerned the free kick out of bounds when CU kicked from the 50. The referee initially announced the ball would be placed at the 35. I knew this was wrong, and subsequently CSU had us re-kick from the 45. The old guys in front of me didn't believe my explanation.
A: Rule 6-2-1 If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team B, it is a foul (A.R. 6-2-1-I-II and 4-2-1-III).
PENALTY—Live-ball foul. Five yards from the previous spot; or five yards from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B; or the receiving team may put the ball in play 30 yards beyond Team A’s restraining line at the hash mark [S19].

So because the kick went out of bounds, CSU could take the ball 5 yards from where it went out, 30 yards from the spot we kicked it, or force a re-kick 5 yards from the previous spot. So because CU kicked from the 50, and went out of bounds around the 12 yard line, they could have chosen to take the ball at the 17 (5 yards from where it went out of bounds), the 20 (30 yards from the spot of the kick), or have a re-kick at the 45 which ultimately resulted in the touchback giving them the ball at the 25. The only confusion was the referee initially announcing the ball at the 35 which was incorrect.

TIL. Great post. I was very confused on what happened there, and didn't get help from Mark Jones on the ESPN broadcast because he is the worst play by play guy on planet earth.

 

[CUBuff98]

Thought having a dedicated thread to rules questions could be useful.

In another thread a question was asked about the hit on Travis if it could result in a disqualification.
A: Under 9-1-1: Before the game, during the game and between periods, all flagrant fouls (Rule 2-10-3) require ejection or disqualification. Team B flagrant personal fouls require first downs if not in conflict with other rules. 2-10-3 defines a Flagrant Personal Foul as illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury.
My opinion is that although the hit resulted in Travis going to the hospital, initial indications were that it was not a hit that in the referee's mind would put the player in danger of a catastrophic injury.

Furthermore under 9-6-1 all flagrant fouls that are called should automatically be reviewed by the team's conference to determine any further sanctions. If the foul is not called, a subsequent review of the game may reveal a flagrant foul and that conference may impose sanctions prior to the next scheduled game under 9-6-2.


The second situation was while I was at the game and concerned the free kick out of bounds when CU kicked from the 50. The referee initially announced the ball would be placed at the 35. I knew this was wrong, and subsequently CSU had us re-kick from the 45. The old guys in front of me didn't believe my explanation.
A: Rule 6-2-1 If a free kick goes out of bounds between the goal lines untouched by an inbounds player of Team B, it is a foul (A.R. 6-2-1-I-II and 4-2-1-III).
PENALTY—Live-ball foul. Five yards from the previous spot; or five yards from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B; or the receiving team may put the ball in play 30 yards beyond Team A’s restraining line at the hash mark [S19].

So because the kick went out of bounds, CSU could take the ball 5 yards from where it went out, 30 yards from the spot we kicked it, or force a re-kick 5 yards from the previous spot. So because CU kicked from the 50, and went out of bounds around the 12 yard line, they could have chosen to take the ball at the 17 (5 yards from where it went out of bounds), the 20 (30 yards from the spot of the kick), or have a re-kick at the 45 which ultimately resulted in the touchback giving them the ball at the 25. The only confusion was the referee initially announcing the ball at the 35 which was incorrect.

Do we have any indications the P12 MWC or NCAA will issue sanctions against Cheap Shot University or that dirty SOB Blackburn?

 

[Johnny Juzang]

Lacerated liver. Assailant henry blackburn should face serious consequences.

 

[NW Buff]

It was a cheap shot, they were penalized for it. It sucks that Travis got hurt because of it but let’s not turn into the Nub fans and call for fbi investigations. Blackburn is a ram, which is punishment enough.

 

[NWD Buff]

Not really a question, but there should be some sort of mechanism in place to launch an investigation of a coaching staff when a threshold of personal foul penalties is hit. Throw injury timeouts into that.

When I say investigation, I don't mean anything major. Interviews with the players and the coaches involved, and just some general due diligence, would be instructive. If nothing else, teams should be warned that they are being watched for this ****.

EDIT: I also agree wholeheartedly with the post above this one. The calls for criminal charges, tec. make us look a lot like Frosty Husker fans.

 

[Bread]

Not really a question, but there should be some sort of mechanism in place to launch an investigation of a coaching staff when a threshold of personal foul penalties is hit. Throw injury timeouts into that.

When I say investigation, I don't mean anything major. Interviews with the players and the coaches involved, and just some general due diligence, would be instructive. If nothing else, teams should be warned that they are being watched for this ****.

EDIT: I also agree wholeheartedly with the post above this one. The calls for criminal charges, tec. make us look a lot like Frosty Husker fans.

If there is, I think there would need to be multiple games with egregious hits/unnecessary roughness/penalties to warrant anything like that. Yes, what Blackbitch did was egregious, intentional, and targeted. Was it coached? Maybe? But stuff like this happens relatively often in rivalry games. If investigations happened after one game, most rivalries would have one taking place after the game.

 

[NWD Buff]

If there is, I think there would need to be multiple games with egregious hits/unnecessary roughness/penalties to warrant anything like that. Yes, what Blackbitch did was egregious, intentional, and targeted. Was it coached? Maybe? But stuff like this happens relatively often in rivalry games. If investigations happened after one game, most rivalries would have one taking place after the game.

I agree. It would be tough to police. What if it was like a yellow card/red card system? Blackburn is on a yellow card for the hit, and Norvell is on a yellow card for excessive PFs in one game. (Subject to a review. There was a clear pattern of malicious hits/penalty time outs/etc.) If Black burn commits a similar foul, he's out for a game. It's also not unlike flagrant fouls in basketball, but make them subject to review, and carry them over.

I'm just spitballing here. There should be a better way to police a team that is clearly pushing the boundaries with an apparent intent to injure or skirt the rules to gain an advantage.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

nm

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head
or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player
ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below) When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6) (AR 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14) When in question, a player is defenseless Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to:
• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return
• A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier

FR-94 RUlE 9 / CondUCt oF PlayERs and othERs
• A player on the ground
• A player obviously out of the play
• A player who receives a blind-side block
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward
progress has been stopped
• A quarterback any time after a change of possession
• A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet-
first

pages 96 and 97

https://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR23.pdf

---

I still think this met the criteria for targeting. He crouched slightly then drove his shoulder upward into Travis who was defenseless.

 

[AeroBuff99]

Targeting requires the contact to be to the HEAD OR NECK AREA or that the contact be made with the CROWN OF THE HELMET, neither of which occurred in the hit on Hunter. It was late, dirty, malicious and a penalty but doesn't meet the Targeting rule. As I tried to explain to Howell, the Notes are not the rule, they are part of the indicators. The rule specifies what qualifies and hits to the mid-section, unless made with the crown of the helmet, don't qualify no matter what other criteria are met.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Targeting requires the contact to be to the HEAD OR NECK AREA or that the contact be made with the CROWN OF THE HELMET, neither of which occurred in the hit on Hunter. It was late, dirty, malicious and a penalty but doesn't meet the Targeting rule. As I tried to explain to Howell, the Notes are not the rule, they are part of the indicators. The rule specifies what qualifies and hits to the mid-section, unless made with the crown of the helmet, don't qualify no matter what other criteria are met.

You are correct. I found these reading further (the shoulder, not just the helmet appears to count in targeting)…

“Neck Area” is not really defined anywhere. This bolded from the examples section seems to define it as above the shoulders.

---

pages 221-222
Approved Ruling 9-1-4
I Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass As A83 is about
to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder This occurs in the (a) first half; (b) second half RULING: Foul by B45 for targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders 15 yards, first down B45 is automatically disqualified (a) for the remainder of the game (b) for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game



BUT further down in the examples there is this similar event

VII Pass receiver A88 has just caught the ball when defender B55 launches and drives his shoulder and forearm into his upper body The back judge flags B55 for targeting to the head-neck area and he is disqualified The referee makes his announcement of the targeting foul, and the play goes to review RULING: After review, Instant Replay rules that there was not forcible contact to the head-neck area, overturning the disqualification of B55 The referee announces that B55 is not disqualified and that there will be no 15-yard penalty

 

[AeroBuff99]

You are correct. I found these reading further (the shoulder, not just the helmet appears to count in targeting)…

“Neck Area” is not really defined anywhere. This bolded from the examples section seems to define it as above the shoulders.

---

pages 221-222
Approved Ruling 9-1-4
I Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass As A83 is about
to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder This occurs in the (a) first half; (b) second half RULING: Foul by B45 for targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless opponent above the shoulders 15 yards, first down B45 is automatically disqualified (a) for the remainder of the game (b) for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game



BUT further down in the examples there is this similar event

VII Pass receiver A88 has just caught the ball when defender B55 launches and drives his shoulder and forearm into his upper body The back judge flags B55 for targeting to the head-neck area and he is disqualified The referee makes his announcement of the targeting foul, and the play goes to review RULING: After review, Instant Replay rules that there was not forcible contact to the head-neck area, overturning the disqualification of B55 The referee announces that B55 is not disqualified and that there will be no 15-yard penalty

The later falls under "when in doubt, throw the flag" process. The idea is to flag it and let the replay review because sometimes it is very hard to discern what is or isn't a foul because of the speed and force of the hit.