Matt Zemek at CollegeFootballNews.com

[nickofthewoods]

When CollegeFootballNews.com started, it was mediocre,
but this guy, Matt Zemek, is really smart in his analysis.
His Monday columns really reveal things that you don't
see anywhere else. Today's column is typical:

http://cfn.scout.com/2/557921.html

 

[Brutus1]

Most of the CFN guys do a great job.

 

[OregonBuckeye]

I like them but they're prone to say some stupid/ignorant things like any other site.

 

[sandgk]

I like them but they're prone to say some stupid/ignorant things like any other site.

Not the least of which is actually in the article linked at the top of this thread.

One NCAA football rule that simply MUST be changed in my world is the asinine provision that a receiver has to get a foot (or knee, etc.) in bounds for his catch to be legal. If the corner or safety can hit a flanker in the air and push said flanker out of bounds on the fly, there is no "force-out" provision, unlike the NFL. If a corner is smart enough and strong enough to hit or lift a receiver out of bounds and prevent that receiver from coming down with a foot in bounds, it's an incomplete pass. Forget the fact that the receiver smoked or outjumped or otherwise outperformed the corner to catch a ball two or three yards inside the field of play; if the corner can hit the receiver out of bounds, it's no catch. This rule--if we want to reward players for making reasonable plays, a fundamental goal of every sport--has to be changed. Coaches committees and rules subcommittees need to address this item along with eliminating the new clock rules when they convene to reform the on-field product of college football.

OK, here is my beef with this premise (which is really the set-up to Zemek's article).
A - Is the rule asinine?
B - Is the rule instead actually a better way of deciding matters.

Zemek want's to give all the credit to the receiver's effort, none to the defender's effort. Zemek, it appears, would also prefer that that College once more emulate the pros in adding another judgement call - and we surely have too many of those already.
The rule as it presently stands is, in my view, better than the pro version, precisely because it is clear and emphatic. It is saying to the receiver this, we'll give you the one foot buddy, but you have to actually get the foot in - not leave it up the officials to predict, guess, or divine whether you would have done so, where it not for the intervention of a charging cornerback or safety.

So, I think that the rule is not asinine. It is in fact clear, and clearly better than the judgement based version used in the overly friendly to the offense rulebook in the NFL.

Sometimes it is better to lead than to follow.

 

[Taosman]

I like the college rule better.
But, I'm a communist.

 

[buckeyeboy]

Generally speaking, I like CFN. However, I think Pete Fiutak is not a good journalist. I understand being a fan of a team, but his love of scUM (which he has admitted in his articles), is too readily apparent in the things he writes, thereby undermining his work.

 

[bkochmc]

I like the college rule better.
But, I'm a communist.

That doesn't make you a communist, it makes you a purist.

 

[BB73]

OK, here is my beef with this premise (which is really the set-up to Zemek's article).
A - Is the rule asinine?
B - Is the rule instead actually a better way of deciding matters.

Zemek want's to give all the credit to the receiver's effort, none to the defender's effort. Zemek, it appears, would also prefer that that College once more emulate the pros in adding another judgement call - and we surely have too many of those already.
The rule as it presently stands is, in my view, better than the pro version, precisely because it is clear and emphatic. It is saying to the receiver this, we'll give you the one foot buddy, but you have to actually get the foot in - not leave it up the officials to predict, guess, or divine whether you would have done so, where it not for the intervention of a charging cornerback or safety.

So, I think that the rule is not asinine. It is in fact clear, and clearly better than the judgement based version used in the overly friendly to the offense rulebook in the NFL.

Sometimes it is better to lead than to follow.

I completely agree in eliminating as many judgment calls as possible. I greatly prefer the college rule that if the receiver if forced out of bounds it's his problem and not a catch. Having the game officials watch the feet coming down and making sure the ball is possessed is plenty for them to be doing.

I watched the Smith play on USC's last drive again last night, since I was still taping when that game was on. The game referee was in the absolute perfect position to make that call on the sideline. Smith's foot comes down at the edge of the sideline on the 19-yard line, and the referee is straddling the sideline on the 14-yard line leaning forward and looking down. I watched Smith come down about 10 times and I still found it inconclusive, but I have never seen a referee in a better position to make a call on a play like that.