The Demise of College Football
Aubrey Clark
September 08, 2009
Almost every sport known to man has been watered down one way or the other by "well meaning" bleeding hearts who are looking out for other people's interest.
From the origins of soccer, which split from rugby in favor of a cleaner game with specific rules to "protect the players"; to boxing which has been watered down from a bare knuckles brawl to a 12 round fight with padded gloves mainly decided by judges.
Literally, if you look at the origins of every sport you will see the erosion of brute competition replaced by subjective rules introduced and enforced by "well-meaning" third parties designed to make the sport safer. The UFC is next, mark my words.
Don't get me wrong, most of the rules are necessary to, and are designed to, protect the players; but it seems that most of the rule changers don't know where to draw the line.
This is clearly demonstrated by Mike Bellotti's and Rogers Redding's recent pilgrimage to protect the safety of the players by taking last year's flagrancy rule "to the next step."
"We feel that the officials and coaches have generally responded well to last year´s rules change and this is another step," said Rogers Redding, secretary-rules editor of the NCAA Football Rule.
Okay, banning players from leading with their helmet is a good rule. It's pretty cut and dry, either he did or he didn't. But now they want to go to the "next step" and have the officials determine whether or not the tackle was too rough.
Are you kidding me? Taking a cut and dry rule, like no leading with the helmet, and turning it into a subjective rule that is open to interpretation by the official as to which tackle is too rough is absolutely stupid.
Who's to say what is tough or not? Do we now have to keep records on our ref's like baseball does to determine which ref's are real men and which one's are tree huggers?
What about crossing routes? Receivers know if they lay-up in the middle to get the ball they are going to pay for it, that's football!
What about the teams that favor hard hitting defense over high powered offenses? Which teams do you think will benefit the most from this rule?
Take Saturday's OSU v UGA game. Both teams were penalized for "unnecessary roughness" for tackles on receivers that were jumping for the ball. Neither tackler led with the helmet but both were given flags.
Now, they are already discussing the "next step" in the erosion of college football.
"We are giving consideration to applying these fouls as live-ball fouls, which would penalize the offending team at the spot of the foul" said Rogers Redding, secretary-rules editor of the NCAA Football Rules Committee and coordinator of officials for the Southeastern Conference.
What's next? Two hand touch?
From the origins of soccer, which split from rugby in favor of a cleaner game with specific rules to "protect the players"; to boxing which has been watered down from a bare knuckles brawl to a 12 round fight with padded gloves mainly decided by judges.
Literally, if you look at the origins of every sport you will see the erosion of brute competition replaced by subjective rules introduced and enforced by "well-meaning" third parties designed to make the sport safer. The UFC is next, mark my words.
Don't get me wrong, most of the rules are necessary to, and are designed to, protect the players; but it seems that most of the rule changers don't know where to draw the line.
This is clearly demonstrated by Mike Bellotti's and Rogers Redding's recent pilgrimage to protect the safety of the players by taking last year's flagrancy rule "to the next step."
"We feel that the officials and coaches have generally responded well to last year´s rules change and this is another step," said Rogers Redding, secretary-rules editor of the NCAA Football Rule.
Okay, banning players from leading with their helmet is a good rule. It's pretty cut and dry, either he did or he didn't. But now they want to go to the "next step" and have the officials determine whether or not the tackle was too rough.
Are you kidding me? Taking a cut and dry rule, like no leading with the helmet, and turning it into a subjective rule that is open to interpretation by the official as to which tackle is too rough is absolutely stupid.
Who's to say what is tough or not? Do we now have to keep records on our ref's like baseball does to determine which ref's are real men and which one's are tree huggers?
What about crossing routes? Receivers know if they lay-up in the middle to get the ball they are going to pay for it, that's football!
What about the teams that favor hard hitting defense over high powered offenses? Which teams do you think will benefit the most from this rule?
Take Saturday's OSU v UGA game. Both teams were penalized for "unnecessary roughness" for tackles on receivers that were jumping for the ball. Neither tackler led with the helmet but both were given flags.
Now, they are already discussing the "next step" in the erosion of college football.
"We are giving consideration to applying these fouls as live-ball fouls, which would penalize the offending team at the spot of the foul" said Rogers Redding, secretary-rules editor of the NCAA Football Rules Committee and coordinator of officials for the Southeastern Conference.
What's next? Two hand touch?
Print
Email
