It was the flying wedge, football's major offensive formation in 1905, that spurred the formation of the NCAA.

It was restructuring, the NCAA's move to a federated governance structure in 1997, that spurred the formation of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel last January.

Although federation generally has been hailed as a positive move for the Association, the new governance structure complicated the process for approving changes to playing rules, which in most cases must be common among all three divisions.

That led Bernard Muir, senior associate athletics director at the University of Notre Dame and chair of the panel, to conclude that enough important issues had accumulated to justify an in-person meeting between the panel and NCAA staff members associated with playing rules.

The October 22 panel meeting in Indianapolis didn't garner the same attention as President Theodore Roosevelt's call in 1905 for college athletics leaders to change football rules, but it nonetheless was a significant step in streamlining the circuitous path that playing-rules proposals must travel in the federated governance structure.

"As the panel started to deal with playing-rules issues, I think there was some confusion about what our role in the process actually was," Muir said. "We needed to clarify and try to determine what the scope and responsibilities of the panel are, and I think we accomplished what we set out to do."

The panel, which consists of eight members -- four from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet, and two each from the Divisions II and III Championships Committee -- was established to provide guidance on playing rules issues that do not have unanimous approval among the divisions. In addition, the group is charged with providing counsel to the NCAA staff regarding the implementation of rules proposals and related policies.

The so-called "tie-breaking" role of the panel was clear enough: It can recommend a course of action to the NCAA Executive Committee by a simple majority vote. It was the charge of providing counsel to the NCAA staff that lacked clarity.

"I don't think we realized the scope and responsibility that we thought the panel had as compared to what the staff envisioned," Muir said. "We were able to reach an understanding of what our role is, and I believe the panel will be more efficient in the future in pushing playing rules proposals and issues through our governance structure in all three divisions."

The panel spent a significant part of the meeting trying to clarify the broadly interpreted "image of the sport" criterion that has resulted in confusion about which rules proposals are final when acted upon by the playing-rules committees and which proposals are in need of review by the championships committees (see "By the book" in the August 18 issue of The NCAA News).

"In talking with the staff, it became apparent that 'image of the game' can be construed in a variety of ways," Muir said. "A rules proposal the championships committees might consider as falling under the 'image of the game' criterion might not be construed in the same way by a rules committee."

As a result of the discussion, the panel agreed to establish a system that is designed to clarify the approval process for playing-rules proposals by forwarding all prospective changes to the division championship cabinets or committees. Proposals that the rules committees believe do not relate to the image of the game, finances or safety will be regarded as noncontroversial and placed in a consent package. Before each series of championships committee meetings, the Playing Rules Oversight Panel will review the items in the consent package and pull out for separate consideration any items that members believe should be given greater attention by the championships committees.

"The panel will be able to flag proposals that might need further discussion and get prepared to be resources of information for any discussion that may occur at a championships committee meeting," Muir said.

Taken together, the process changes should alleviate the frustration that all parties involved with playing-rules administration have experienced in recent months.

The panel also discussed the possibility and advantages of instituting a two-year cycle for adopting rules proposals. A two-year cycle would allow more time for research and more opportunity for the membership to react to rules proposals as they pass through each division's governance structure. Staff liaisons to playing-rules committees will solicit feedback from each NCAA rules committee about the concept and report findings back to the panel. If playing-rules committees generally favor a two-year cycle, the oversight panel will seek reaction to the concept from the three division championships committees.

The panel also reviewed the status of the soccer rules committee's zero-tolerance profanity proposals (see related story, page 5) and the basketball rules committee's proposal to extend the three-point line.

After a lengthy discussion, the panel voted to recommend to the Executive Committee that the zero-tolerance proposal be adopted. At its October 31 meeting, the Executive Committee considered the panel's recommendation but chose instead to re-emphasize that game officials should enforce existing penalties for foul language.

The panel will meet via conference call in November to finalize its recommendation to the Executive Committee about the basketball rules committee's proposal to extend the three-point line. All three championships committees passed the proposal to extend the line; however, the Division III Management Council voted down the proposal at its recent meeting, a vote that subsequently was affirmed by the Division III Presidents Council.

The panel also discussed:

Ideas about establishing a threshold for establishing a playing-rules committee. The panel agreed that it would request that all championship committees for sports in which the NCAA does not write rules of play (for example, field hockey) determine annually if playing rules written by an outside governing body continue to meet the needs of the collegiate sport.

Rules unrelated to competition. The panel discussed the placement of rules within playing-rules books that do not pertain to the competition itself (for example, temperature of wrestling practice rooms) and rules that pertain to practice as well as competition (for example, the prohibition of the use of tobacco). Currently, these rules have no clear enforcement or penalty mechanism because they are not enforced during competition by the referee, umpire or official. The panel will review a list of rules from each sport that fall outside of the scope of competition to try to determine the best vehicle for the placement and enforcement of such rules.

Surveys used by committees to explore possible rules changes. The panel heard discussion regarding the use of surveys to solicit feedback about possible rules proposals. The panel agreed that rules committees act as stewards of their respective sport and are not bound by survey results. However, the panel asked the staff to further explore suggestions to get better response rates to surveys and to determine how survey results could be better collected and communicated to the panel and championships committees.

Communication of rules committee actions. The panel agreed that information about proposed rules changes should be circulated to the membership before each championships committee reviews the proposals in order to receive feedback and opinions from the constituents who would be affected by the rules changes.

Playing Rules Oversight Panel

Division I

Bernard Muir, University of Notre Dame, chair

Nora Lynn Finch, North Carolina State University

Andy Noel, Cornell University

Julie Ruppert, America East Conference

Division II

Joan McDermott, Metropolitan State College of Denver

David Riggins, Mars Hill College

Division III

Steve Wallo, Lewis and Clark College

John Cochrane, Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference