The proposal offers that a college football player who delivers a hit to the head of a defenseless opponent could be kicked out of the game. If the penalty occurs in the first half, the player would be ejected for the remainder of the game. If the penalty occurs in the second half or overtime, the player is ejected for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next game.This is pure garbage. I am all for protecting the players if necessary, but there are far too many elements that go into making a tackle for this rule to fly. First of all under this rule, it would be under the discretion of the referees on the field. There wouldn't be any way to keep this consistent.
Second of all there is way too much at stake for the players and the teams for this rule to be implemented. An ejection could cost a team a bowl bid and it could cost a player playing time that could impact his future.
The third reason why this rule is ridiculous is that there are way too many factors that go into the act of making a tackle. If the offensive player ducks and the defensive player hits a little too high, it becomes a hit to the head. The defensive player may have been trying to tackle the chest, but with the last second movement, it becomes a hit to the head. In this case, does the defensive player deserve an ejection? No, not at all.
While I appreciate the fact that everybody is trying to make the game of football safer for the players, the people proposing these rules need to stop and think about what really makes sense. This idea of ejecting or suspending players for these types of hits is absurd. While football is a violent game, changing the integrity of the sport is not the answer.