2022 CFB Rule Changes

I think they should have also put in a "No fake spikes". You aren't supposed to hit the other team when they're spiking the ball and then some teams fake the spike and throw a go route to a receiver. Once you fake the spike, blow the whistle and call the play dead if you're not going to let the defense hit the QB on spikes.
 
JJacket said:
Determining an injury is fake is a good basis for a lawsuit against the NCAA or conference. It could be seen as encouraging players to play through injuries so the team doesn't get punished. I don't really get why it is such a big deal.
Click to expand...
I think it's fine since they do it afterwards and it will likely be the extreme super obvious ones that get called out. There are some where you can 100% see a guy that is fine and gets a signal from the sideline and just falls down for no reason. Then miraculously he's back in a play later as if nothing is wrong. By the way... didn't Mike Lockhart do this last season? Lost a shoe or something and couldn't get it back on so he just fell out on the field or something?

EDIT: I think a better way to police this would be any player that goes down with injury must sit the remainder of that series. Don't let him come back in after a play or 2 off. That way you don't have folks going down just to stop clock or slow down an offense when they won't be able to come back in, and you could even argue that it's erring on the side of safety because if a person gets injured it's probably best to keep them out a little bit before sending them right back out there while adrenaline is still high and they could be hurt more than they realize.
 
daBuzz said:
I think they should have also put in a "No fake spikes". You aren't supposed to hit the other team when they're spiking the ball and then some teams fake the spike and throw a go route to a receiver. Once you fake the spike, blow the whistle and call the play dead if you're not going to let the defense hit the QB on spikes.
Click to expand...
Agree. Fake spike is like a fake slide to me.
 
Are they gonna make the play "hey coach, wrong ball!" Illegal? It gets them every time
 
JJacket said:
Determining an injury is fake is a good basis for a lawsuit against the NCAA or conference. It could be seen as encouraging players to play through injuries so the team doesn't get punished. I don't really get why it is such a big deal.
Click to expand...
I think there are teams that fake injuries. This is very evident with teams that play a past pace offense. I cannot how many times, the other team had a player "go down", at least once every other 3 down series. However; my concern is this.... Who is going to make that call?? I think putting a rule that if a player goes down injured, they aren't allowed back in for a set number of plays... Not, just they miss one play. I think you make them miss 6,7,8 or 10 plays... You will see the questionable injuries disappear and leave the door open to actual injuries. My thinking is this.. If you were "injured", than you should NOT be back in 1 play later.. There is a point, where it is obvious.
 
GoGATech said:
Ok so I'm gonna be the guy... I appreciate the option and what it did for us, but if you can't successfully run it without all the cut blocking, then is it really that great of an "offense" or are you just taking advantage of a certain blocking technique? Why can't an option offense be successful with traditional sized linemen and blocking schemes?
Click to expand...

Every successful offense takes advantage of some technique. Imagine if they change the rules so that only 2 offensive players can be more that 10 yards downfield before a pass is thrown; that would change some offenses too. There is an infinite number of ways the rules can be changed to dictate what offenses and defenses are successful. There have been rule changes over the past 3 decades to favor passing offenses. The power teams don't want to be shown up by being outsmarted when they have the roster advantage they do; so tweak the rules to prevent it.
 
Last edited:
aeromech said:
Every successful offense takes advantage of some technique. Imagine if they change the rules so that only 2 offensive players can be more that 10 yards downfield before a pass is thrown; that would change some offenses too. There is an infinite number of ways the rules can be changed to dictate what offenses and defenses are successful. There have been rule changes over the past 3 decades to favor passing offenses. The power teams don't want to be shown up by being outsmarted when they have the roster advantage they do; so tweak the rules to prevent it.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this but is cut blocking really "out smarting" people? My question still remains, if the x's and o's part of an option offense is so great, why can't teams run it with traditional blocking?
 
GoGATech said:
I agree with all this but is cut blocking really "out smarting" people? My question still remains, if the x's and o's part of an option offense is so great, why can't teams run it with traditional blocking?
Click to expand...
They could if the people who were exceptional at traditional blocking wanted to play in the option.
 
GoGATech said:
Ok so I'm gonna be the guy... I appreciate the option and what it did for us, but if you can't successfully run it without all the cut blocking, then is it really that great of an "offense" or are you just taking advantage of a certain blocking technique? Why can't an option offense be successful with traditional sized linemen and blocking schemes?
Click to expand...
That’s like saying the RPO game without allowing the lineman 17 yards downfield isn’t all that great.
 
GoGATech said:
I agree with all this but is cut blocking really "out smarting" people? My question still remains, if the x's and o's part of an option offense is so great, why can't teams run it with traditional blocking?
Click to expand...

Cut blocking has been around a long time, it isn't like Paul Johnson invented it; so it sort of is 'traditional blocking'. If the offense you seem to prefer is really all that great why do you need huge offensive lines to be successful at it? My theory is that the powers that be know they can corner the market on huge offensive linemen so they want to force everyone to run an offense that requires a commodity they control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top