Flagrant fouls
Moderators: kerrigjl, BrentVU, jfgogold, NateSY, KarenYates, Vandyman74, roanoke, VandyWhit
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:37 pm
- Been thanked: 12 times
Flagrant fouls
In the past there has been some discussion on this board about the penalty for a flagrant foul in football. Some think that ejection from the game is too severe.
Last night I watched an NBA game. I was reminded that in pro basketball there are two levels of flagrant foul - flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. They have different penalties.
I connected the dots. Why can't college football have two levels of flagrant fouls? Different levels of penalties, like the NBA. For example, a flagrant 1 might mean that the player has to sit out through the end of the next series when he would otherwise play. Flagrant 2 results in disqualification.
Of course there would have to be definitions to delineate between the two. Also, there will be borderline hits which could go either way. However, there has to be a way to not have such severe punishment as currently exists for some flagrant fouls which clearly not intentional and result in little or no harm.
Last night I watched an NBA game. I was reminded that in pro basketball there are two levels of flagrant foul - flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. They have different penalties.
I connected the dots. Why can't college football have two levels of flagrant fouls? Different levels of penalties, like the NBA. For example, a flagrant 1 might mean that the player has to sit out through the end of the next series when he would otherwise play. Flagrant 2 results in disqualification.
Of course there would have to be definitions to delineate between the two. Also, there will be borderline hits which could go either way. However, there has to be a way to not have such severe punishment as currently exists for some flagrant fouls which clearly not intentional and result in little or no harm.
- dcdore
- Admiral
- Posts: 5255
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 7:17 pm
- Has thanked: 66 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
Good ideas.
I would add that the penalties for pass interference need further delineation. Neither college or NFL has the right answer. Generally, I think college is closer; 15 yards and 1st down. But if a receiver is reasonably clear for a long gain/TD and is effectively tackled, should be a spot foul.
In the NFL, if a receiver is bumped on a long route - not manhandled - a spot foul is way too punitive. 15 yards and 1st down is plenty.
I would add that the penalties for pass interference need further delineation. Neither college or NFL has the right answer. Generally, I think college is closer; 15 yards and 1st down. But if a receiver is reasonably clear for a long gain/TD and is effectively tackled, should be a spot foul.
In the NFL, if a receiver is bumped on a long route - not manhandled - a spot foul is way too punitive. 15 yards and 1st down is plenty.
Always hopeful; rarely optimistic.
-
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 2016
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:37 pm
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 37 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
I haven't watched an NBA game since Bob Cousy and George Mikan were playing. I refuse to watch unless the guys have haircuts like Wally Cleaver and Eddie Haskell. And furthermore, get off my lawn!!
(Obviously just kidding, I actually switched to DirectvStreaming when the other big streaming cable services lost the ability to show the Preds and Grizz... thus I get to see the Memphis NBA team quite a bit and enjoy following them)
(Obviously just kidding, I actually switched to DirectvStreaming when the other big streaming cable services lost the ability to show the Preds and Grizz... thus I get to see the Memphis NBA team quite a bit and enjoy following them)
- geeznotagain
- Admiral
- Posts: 8877
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:04 pm
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
A good suggestion except for games in which Vandy is playing. The more discretion the refs have, the more decisions they have to make, the more likely we are to get screwed.LawoftheWest wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 8:50 pm In the past there has been some discussion on this board about the penalty for a flagrant foul in football. Some think that ejection from the game is too severe.
Last night I watched an NBA game. I was reminded that in pro basketball there are two levels of flagrant foul - flagrant 1 and flagrant 2. They have different penalties.
I connected the dots. Why can't college football have two levels of flagrant fouls? Different levels of penalties, like the NBA. For example, a flagrant 1 might mean that the player has to sit out through the end of the next series when he would otherwise play. Flagrant 2 results in disqualification.
Of course there would have to be definitions to delineate between the two. Also, there will be borderline hits which could go either way. However, there has to be a way to not have such severe punishment as currently exists for some flagrant fouls which clearly not intentional and result in little or no harm.
- DivergentDore
- Commander
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:00 pm
- Location: Texas
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
There's already two different levels of flagrant type penalty calls: 15 yard personal foul, roughing the passer, etc that don't carry ejections. Targeting is an ejection because players go outside the scope of football rules and use their helmets as a weapon instead of a protective device.
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts: 2620
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:37 pm
- Been thanked: 12 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
DivergentDore wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:49 pm There's already two different levels of flagrant type penalty calls: 15 yard personal foul, roughing the passer, etc that don't carry ejections. Targeting is an ejection because players go outside the scope of football rules and use their helmets as a weapon instead of a protective device.
Aha. Thank you for the correcting my erroneous terminology. Clearly I confused the term "flagrant fouls" from NBA basketball with "targeting" from college football. I don't watch college football except for Vandy on TV and a few exceptionally anticipated games, like Georgia/Bama.
I think my premise still stands. There are some targeting fouls that are clearly intentional, such as the hit to the head on our quarterback (Mo Hassan?) about 2 seconds after he was on the ground. From my limited observations others seem to be more accidental, where a player stumbles and in doing so lowers his head, or lowers his head at the same time the ball carrier also lowers his. It seems to me that not all situations deserve the draconian penalty of disqualification. In the less egregious cases a 15 yard penalty just does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent.
- DivergentDore
- Commander
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:00 pm
- Location: Texas
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
Intended my post to be "mildly" corrective but words in text carry no intonation. Sorry if it came across hard or heavy.LawoftheWest wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:10 pmDivergentDore wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 12:49 pm There's already two different levels of flagrant type penalty calls: 15 yard personal foul, roughing the passer, etc that don't carry ejections. Targeting is an ejection because players go outside the scope of football rules and use their helmets as a weapon instead of a protective device.
Aha. Thank you for the correcting my erroneous terminology. Clearly I confused the term "flagrant fouls" from NBA basketball with "targeting" from college football. I don't watch college football except for Vandy on TV and a few exceptionally anticipated games, like Georgia/Bama.
I think my premise still stands. There are some targeting fouls that are clearly intentional, such as the hit to the head on our quarterback (Mo Hassan?) about 2 seconds after he was on the ground. From my limited observations others seem to be more accidental, where a player stumbles and in doing so lowers his head, or lowers his head at the same time the ball carrier also lowers his. It seems to me that not all situations deserve the draconian penalty of disqualification. In the less egregious cases a 15 yard penalty just does not seem to be a sufficient deterrent.
I fully agree about calls like the Mo Hassan hit. It should have been called and when it wasn't the primary zone official (in that case the head referee) should have been suspended one game for not properly enforcing the rules set forth to protect players.
An overwhelming majority of accidental helmet to helmet contacts I've seen flagged most likely were accidental with no intent to injure, but almost all occured because a player (usually defensive) is leading with his helmet down at time of contact instead of eyes up and ready to tackle.
Dennis Dodd of CBS sports had a great article last month about targeting and one of the people quoted often in the article is NCAA supervisor of officials Steve Shaw who is openly against ejections for targeting. Very informative piece for anyone interested.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsspo ... rward/amp/
-
- Vice Admiral
- Posts: 3675
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:23 pm
- Has thanked: 85 times
- Been thanked: 23 times
Re: Flagrant fouls
Agreed. And the NBA also has this differentiation similar to what you're talking about for pass interference. They have clear path fouls. The foul gets called. The fouled team gets two free throws and the ball. Good nuance there that football could stand to learn from.dcdore wrote: ↑Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:17 am Good ideas.
I would add that the penalties for pass interference need further delineation. Neither college or NFL has the right answer. Generally, I think college is closer; 15 yards and 1st down. But if a receiver is reasonably clear for a long gain/TD and is effectively tackled, should be a spot foul.
In the NFL, if a receiver is bumped on a long route - not manhandled - a spot foul is way too punitive. 15 yards and 1st down is plenty.