NCAA Rule Changes

[Ron Boerger]

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved the experimental video review challenge for conference games only this fall.

Under the rule, coaches will have one video review challenge. If the challenge is successful, the coach will retain the right to challenge one more time for the rest of the match.

If the challenge is unsuccessful, the coach loses the right to challenge for the rest of the match.

In overtime, if coaches have a challenge remaining, they can initiate a video review. Officials also can initiate video reviews in overtime to make sure a call is right, provided the affected team does not have a challenge remaining.

Coaches can initiate video review challenges in the following scenarios:

Fighting/violent behavior.
Violations on penalty kicks.
Straight red cards (not second yellows).
Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity/stopping a promising attack.
Offside.
Potential mistaken identity.
Determining the location of a foul that was called on the field against the defending team near or in its penalty area.
Referees can initiate video reviews to determine whether the entire ball passed over the goal line for a goal, as well as to decide timing issues.

They also adopted two other rules put in place by the IFA Board:

One will eliminate a red card being issued for nondeliberate handling of the ball in the penalty area that denies a goal or goal-scoring opportunity. Inside the penalty area, red cards should be reserved for deliberate, cynical handling that denies a goal or goal-scoring opportunity.

The other rules change amends encroachment by teammates of the kicker or goalkeeper during a penalty kick.

Referees should penalize the encroachment only if the player at fault prevents an opponent from playing the ball, challenges an opponent for the ball and then scores or prevents a goal, attempts to score or prevent a goal, or creates or stops a goal-scoring opportunity.

[EnmoreCat]

If there was consistent, high quality filming taking place at every game, then this could be a good idea.  But right now, based on what I have seen, that's not the case.  On average it may improve a few decisions, but ultimately, if it's going to be the same human being that made the original one, I suspect the general happiness with officials is unlikely to get much more than a marginal bump.