• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

To Nick and Jack

mtgriz said:
I think a more useful and interesting debate about targeting is existential. Why is it 15 yards AND ejection? I know the reasons but they seem inconsistent with the spirit of the game. The game’s underlying principle is physicality. Unless it is obviously malicious, why does a hit to the head result in an ejection? Many times the targeted player is back in the game soon thereafter. It seems to me a more equitable penalty is ejection until the targeted player returns to the game. Remember when face mask was either 5 or 15 yards depending on the maliciousness? I think they called it intentional or incidental. That seemed more fair back in the day.
Click to expand...
Targeting shouldn't be in the game at all. One of the many things that ruins football
 
mtgriz said:
I think a more useful and interesting debate about targeting is existential. Why is it 15 yards AND ejection? I know the reasons but they seem inconsistent with the spirit of the game. The game’s underlying principle is physicality. Unless it is obviously malicious, why does a hit to the head result in an ejection? Many times the targeted player is back in the game soon thereafter. It seems to me a more equitable penalty is ejection until the targeted player returns to the game. Remember when face mask was either 5 or 15 yards depending on the maliciousness? I think they called it intentional or incidental. That seemed more fair back in the day.
Click to expand...
They don’t want big name players like Taco Dowler being taken out of the game with avoidable hits because it is the big name players that drive ticket sales and eyes on the tv.
 
mtgriz said:
I think a more useful and interesting debate about targeting is existential. Why is it 15 yards AND ejection? I know the reasons but they seem inconsistent with the spirit of the game. The game’s underlying principle is physicality. Unless it is obviously malicious, why does a hit to the head result in an ejection? Many times the targeted player is back in the game soon thereafter. It seems to me a more equitable penalty is ejection until the targeted player returns to the game. Remember when face mask was either 5 or 15 yards depending on the maliciousness? I think they called it intentional or incidental. That seemed more fair back in the day.
Click to expand...
Should be a 25 yard penalty with no ejection. If a player does it a second time then he should get ejected. I agree there wasn’t much Harper could do to avoid it but by the rule it’s textbook targeting. The punishment for it should just change.
 
Fathergriz said:
Should be a 25 yard penalty with no ejection. If a player does it a second time then he should get ejected. I agree there wasn’t much Harper could do to avoid it but by the rule it’s textbook targeting. The punishment for it should just change.
Click to expand...
I agree. Ejections suck. Especially when it’s not on purpose. Insanely important game and you get thrown out? It’s dumb.
 
The.Real.2506 said:
And he should have used his arms rather than tucking the back against his ribs.

What section is the hip drop tackle in the NCAA rule book?
Click to expand...
The equivalent action of a hip drop is illegal under a subset of unnecessary roughness. Rule 9-1 (Unnecessary Roughness). Do your research on unnecessary roughness and high drop.

"If the official deems the action "flagrantly dangerous" or "unnecessarily rough," they can still throw a flag for Unnecessary Roughness."

"
In NCAA Football, the relationship between "Unnecessary Roughness" and the "hip-drop" is the most debated safety topic of the 2025 season.

While the NFL has officially banned the hip-drop tackle, the NCAA Rules Committee explicitly chose not to ban it for the 2025 season. Instead, they are using the Unnecessary Roughness rule as a "catch-all" for only the most dangerous versions of the move.

1. Why it isn't a specific foul (yet)​

The NCAA National Coordinator of Officials, Steve Shaw, stated that the committee tabled the ban because it is currently too difficult for college officials to judge the three specific criteria of a "hip-drop" in real-time without the advanced replay systems used in the NFL.

However, an official can flag a hip-drop under Rule 9-1 (Unnecessary Roughness) if it meets these "flagrant" conditions:

  • The "Weight Drop" is excessive: If a defender clearly and unnecessarily drives their entire body weight through the opponent's lower legs after the runner is already held.
  • Non-Football Move: if the "swivel and drop" looks less like a tackle and more like a deliberate attempt to injure or "punish" the legs.
  • Defenseless Status: If the runner is already being held by two other defenders and a third player comes in with a hip-drop, it is much more likely to be flagged as Unnecessary Roughness.

2. The "Point of Emphasis" for 2025​

Rather than a ban, the NCAA has issued a "Point of Emphasis" to coaches and officials. They are categorizing the hip-drop alongside other "non-essential" contact.

  • The Directive: Officials are told to watch for "forcible contact that is not necessary to the play."
  • The Reality: In 95% of cases in 2025, a standard hip-drop tackle on a breakaway runner will go unpenalized in college football. It is only when the runner's forward progress has clearly stopped that the "Unnecessary Roughness" flag comes out."
  • [Davis' progress had been stopped when the tackler swung under to take out his lower lower legs and cause the injury to what looked like the ankle. That's dangerous, a dirty play, unnecessary and should have been an unnecessary roughness penalty. What happened in that play is exactly why it should have been called a penalty]
 
mtgriz said:
I think a more useful and interesting debate about targeting is existential. Why is it 15 yards AND ejection? I know the reasons but they seem inconsistent with the spirit of the game. The game’s underlying principle is physicality. Unless it is obviously malicious, why does a hit to the head result in an ejection? Many times the targeted player is back in the game soon thereafter. It seems to me a more equitable penalty is ejection until the targeted player returns to the game. Remember when face mask was either 5 or 15 yards depending on the maliciousness? I think they called it intentional or incidental. That seemed more fair back in the day.
Click to expand...
You should probably look into the history of football, in the early part of the 1900's it became so bad that kids were literally dying on the field. Rules were changed, and equipment improved.

Now we know so much more about CTE that those that love the game understand that we need to get those plays that can destroy a persons life out of this game. The Targeting rule has been the same and we still see stupid plays like this with a defender launching head first, arms at his sides and dropping his head to hit with the crown. If anybody doesn't know by now the shouldn't be playing.

Yes it is a sever penalty, but it is because that type of hit can cause severe lifelong injuries. Those plays have to be eliminated from the game.
 
mthoopsfan said:
The equivalent action of a hip drop is illegal under a subset of unnecessary roughness. Rule 9-1 (Unnecessary Roughness). Do your research on unnecessary roughness and high drop.

"If the official deems the action "flagrantly dangerous" or "unnecessarily rough," they can still throw a flag for Unnecessary Roughness."

"
In NCAA Football, the relationship between "Unnecessary Roughness" and the "hip-drop" is the most debated safety topic of the 2025 season.

While the NFL has officially banned the hip-drop tackle, the NCAA Rules Committee explicitly chose not to ban it for the 2025 season. Instead, they are using the Unnecessary Roughness rule as a "catch-all" for only the most dangerous versions of the move.

1. Why it isn't a specific foul (yet)​

The NCAA National Coordinator of Officials, Steve Shaw, stated that the committee tabled the ban because it is currently too difficult for college officials to judge the three specific criteria of a "hip-drop" in real-time without the advanced replay systems used in the NFL.

However, an official can flag a hip-drop under Rule 9-1 (Unnecessary Roughness) if it meets these "flagrant" conditions:

  • The "Weight Drop" is excessive: If a defender clearly and unnecessarily drives their entire body weight through the opponent's lower legs after the runner is already held.
  • Non-Football Move: if the "swivel and drop" looks less like a tackle and more like a deliberate attempt to injure or "punish" the legs.
  • Defenseless Status: If the runner is already being held by two other defenders and a third player comes in with a hip-drop, it is much more likely to be flagged as Unnecessary Roughness.

2. The "Point of Emphasis" for 2025​

Rather than a ban, the NCAA has issued a "Point of Emphasis" to coaches and officials. They are categorizing the hip-drop alongside other "non-essential" contact.

  • The Directive: Officials are told to watch for "forcible contact that is not necessary to the play."
  • The Reality: In 95% of cases in 2025, a standard hip-drop tackle on a breakaway runner will go unpenalized in college football. It is only when the runner's forward progress has clearly stopped that the "Unnecessary Roughness" flag comes out."
  • [Davis' progress had been stopped when the tackler swung under to take out his lower lower legs and cause the injury to what looked like the ankle. That's dangerous, a dirty play, unnecessary and should have been an unnecessary roughness penalty. What happened in that play is exactly why it should have been called a penalty]
Click to expand...
This is all just interpretation, and what it says is that if there is excessive force that it can be flagged, regardless of if the play included a hip drop or not. so the hip drop is included in virtually every other type of play that happens on the field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top