[Husker] Joel Klatt's Chad May moment, live on ESPN(.com)

[Rod Wellman]

Steve,

My point is in line with a subsequent post by Mr. Thompson:  the  
rules in place are sufficient protection and in my opinion do a good  
job of walking the line between protecting the athletes and "letting  
the kids play".  Have you seen some of the flags thrown in the NFL  
for "roughing" the QB?  Defensive ends who are coming at full bore,  
required to "pull up" at the last second.  I've seen so many  
ridiculous calls, where the QB barely gets touched...reminds me of  
the flags thrown for roughing the punter where the punter obviously  
gets "tapped" and falls down as if he'd been hit by a truck.  This is  
a rule I simply cannot stand, and points out once again why I prefer  
the college game any day over the NFL.

Just exactly what rule changes would you be looking for?  My bet is  
that they would resemble the NFL rules regarding hits on the QB,  
which I think is blatantly designed to create more offense, not  
necessarily protect the QB from "debilitating" injury.

On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:18 PM, Steve Stone wrote:

>  Rod Wellman wrote:
>
>> Just one more reason the college game is "more pure" and much more  
>> enjoyable than the NFL.
>> Why does it seem that everyone wants everything to be the same as  
>> the NFL all the time?  What do we want from Div. 1 college  
>> football? A playoff just like the NFL?  Rules just like the NFL?   
>> All of our offenses and defenses basically the same, just like the  
>> NFL?  Sheez already.  This is COLLEGE football.  Not the NFL.
>
> Thank goodness!
>
>> An announcer on last night's bowl game delighted in a big hit put  
>> on the QB.  He said in the NFL that would have been a huge fine,  
>> possibly an ejection.  I college, it's just part of the game.
>
> Since when was the opinion of an announcer with a shaker of salt?
>

I was merely agreeing with one item that came from his mouth. Not  
giving him god-like status.

>> Protect the QB, yes.  But use NFL rules (designed to create an  
>> advantage for the offense, by the way) that turn him into a wimpy  
>> pocket-passer that no one can touch with their pinky without  
>> drawing a fine or flag?  No way.
>
> In truth, we're not talking about protecting quarterbacks but  
> protecting the health of young men most of whom will never even see  
> a NFL practice field. In this respect the NCAA has been sadly  
> derelict.
>

If that's the case, then why more stringent rules?  I mean, in  
Klatt's case, his case is FOR more stringent rules, just so that he  
doesn't ruin his NFL chances, right?  Seems to me the 2 or 3 years of  
"live hits" the college kids get pales to the career-long type of  
grind the NFL players go through.  How much more protection do they  
need?  Klatt suffered a concussion on an unfortunate "cheap shot"  
hit.  It happens.  Get over it.  Instead, he's campaigning for major  
rule reform?

>> By the way, that hit he talked about didn't look that devastating  
>> to me, and the QB jumped right back up and continued to play.  I'm  
>> not condoning the Texas hit.  I didn't see it.
>
> I saw it, and it was egregious in the extreme.

And a flag WAS thrown.  Like Mr. Thompson says, maybe the change  
needed has more to do with a review process that would make the  
penalty for making a "cheap shot" hit carry more weight...in the end  
that's the only way to reduce them, versus changing the rule to cover  
more "instances" that are not really nearly as severe as the one we  
are talking about.

>
>> A flag was thrown and it cost them 15 yards.  If you're worried  
>> about your 1st string QB taking a hit like that at a "meaningless"  
>> point in the game, then put in your backup.
>
> Poor logic. Barnett wasn't worried. Klatt took the hit.

He should have been.  If he was concerned with winning the next game  
(bowl game), he would have taken his first string QB out of the  
game.  No rule change can fix a poor coaching decision.

Rod W.
Sioux City, Ia.