The Rule Change:

Clearly, removing the words "and snapping the ball" make a profound change in the rule. The previous ruling would have protected Team B by waiting for the ball to be snapped, and assessed a penalty on team A had they snapped the ball after substituting and rushing to the line. Certainly, defenses were unsure of the rule, or afraid it would not be enforced, and were calling time-out to set their defense. Now the official will make the determination if team B has been put at a "disadvantage" by the actions of team A. This does seem to be a gesture of fairness on behalf of the committee, and properly done ... it will be. Fans will have to wait until they see the level of consistency in calling in the various conferences. I personally feel that if the clock continues to run and the interpretation is consistent... then this is quite fair in nature. My fear is that the team on offense can still rush AFTER the substitutions have been made ... so I hope the officials are consistent in enforcing (or not) this type of activity. So, time will tell. I will be interested in what they do with middle or secondary members that rush, to the line-of-scrimage, in blitz packages after a substitution has been made.

The change here is in the wording pertaining to seperation of the fingers and that it covers all of the digits. Some receivers use a "web-like" glove ... and others choose to expose the finger tips. The purpose here is that the glove is supposed to keep the players hands warm and not give anyone an unfair advantage by use of a glove that would aid in the reception of the ball. In addition, secondary members often expose the finger tips to aid in the tackle.

I personally have an issue with maintaining absolute privacy between coaches and players. The actions and words of coaches can be misinterpreted to be hostile, or overly-gratifying and become cause for fans and the administration to unfairly question a coaches methodology. Furthermore, I don't think this rule is in-place with enough detail ... there could be the potential for an unfair advantage (even with no audio) for the opposing team to view aspects of the upcoming sets or plays. I have written the NCAA to see if there is any further wording on the scope of view, and quantity of, camera(s) in place. However, let us all remember that this is I-AA and media coverage is usually local, without benefit of facilities and funds for such a device to be in place. In most cases, I-AA games receive only radio coverage. This could be a factor in IA vs I-AA games and post-season coverage.

This is probably more of an issue to officials than to fans ...as they will need to know the position of the HC at all times. However, one can expect to see attempts, by a head-coach to be missed. Also, the positioning of the coach will become crucial, so as to be seen ... and also that an assistant is not misjudged to be the head coach. This is well thought, in my mind, as to only allow a time out to be called when the ball is considered "dead". This is, I believe, the rule for a time-out called by any player. I only hope that this does not become basketball and the coach will whisper in the officials ear that they intend to call a timeout after the next play. I doubt it ... there are only 3, per half, to work with. The NCAA may have to further address this with regard to injury time-outs. Most all head-coaches will call a time-out when they suspect an injured player, only to find he is just "slow getting up". So players ... stay off the sidelines and coaches rethink your wardrobe to include eye-catching colors.

Somewhat difficult to understand. However, as I see it, the change gives the official 2 penalty options for an Encroachment violation. An exception, to this, is in place when the kicker "fakes" a kick, throws, and contact is made outside the neutral zone. This, will however, create a problem, as the official has to determine if there has really been pass interference. I assume the intent here is to stop this type of "fake" from occurring all together, by letting the defenses block outside the neutral zone. I will have to write to someone to fully understand this exception. Sorry about that.

Good rule in theory & I believe this is "in practice" by the NFL. This is one of those calls resembling a complete swing in baseball. 'Did he go around?" Let's ask the 3rd or first-base umpire. In this case, the referee will use the umpire and side officials to help make the determination if the contact was cause by a block (from the opposing team member) and unavoidable. We have seen it before on Sundays ... now it is time for Saturdays. Again, only time will tell. Although not exclusively related to the above rule, I have been told they expect an addition to the momentum rule to include both teams. So, the official can also penalize, or not penalize, contact initiated by a member of either team. This is not anything official.

This will be interesting to see. Again, I think this rule is utilized in the NFL. Clearly the rules intent is obvious, in that you cannot jump on someone else to block a kick. I have had some further interpretations sent to me on this ruling. If the initial contact is made by the kicking team, the there will not be a penalty assessed.

Self explanatory. They have to announce the players(s) that have committed a foul.

Now for the most controversial rule change ... which does not impact I-AA, nor most of an level of collegiate football ... yet.

Now, a latter article is planned on this "experiment", so I will not get into much detail. I have already seen two preseason games with replay in use. I was in the stands for one of them & the monitors did give those of use "in the cheap seats" a chance to to see how is to be used. However, it is something that I oppose at ANY collegiate level of play. Not because of the right vs. wrong issue, the time involved in reviews, or the rules in place as to when it can, or cannot, be used. Rather, it is simply the fact that I-AA conferences (or really any non-BCS conference) are already under tremendous financial strain these days. So how could this be an affordable, and justifiable venture? It cannot ... and should not be considered by any I-AA conference.

Pete's greatly appreciated the help of Rom Gilbert in this article.