Want to shoot the Sooners? No Monopods Allowed.

http://www.tulsaworld.​com …e7-9ce1-f2f137cc0b69.html

New rules due to the receiver snapping the 400 2.8 in half last week.

Well, break out the 70-200 with the 1.4,tele or the 300 f/4 .
I love how the lady's comment stating that the photographer should have seen this coming. I guess Sean Payton , New Orleans HC, should have seen Jimmy Graham coming when he buckled his knee.

Wow. That is absurd.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. I can see some high schools over-reacting now as well.

First off, I understand that the player safety is the #1 concern and certainly I can see how someone could think this rule change could help.

Still, I see this as a complete overreaction. Is there a way to see how often players (of any sport really) get injured by photography gear?

In football, I've seen players run into benches and stationary bicycles. Are they going to start removing those from the field too?

Don't kid yourself. The #1 concern in NCAA Football is money.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #17228177
http://www.tulsaworld.​com …e7-9ce1-f2f137cc0b69.html

New rules due to the receiver snapping the 400 2.8 in half last week.

i happened to be watching the game when it happened and winced.

Your title is a bit misleading.

If photography gear is being limited due to the possibility of injury, then what about tackles?

Oh, right, clearly lenses cause more concussions than tackles, I get that, but only if we keep hitting people on the head with them.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #17229550
Don't kid yourself. The #1 concern in NCAA Football is money.

Haha, true.

Robogenisis wrote in post #17229619
Your title is a bit misleading.

Hmmm, maybe they added that later. I thought I read no monopods without that last sentence.

But regardless... if you had a 400mm with the monopod attached to the camera instead of the lens, that would be allowed per the new rule? Or are they indirectly saying lenses like the 400mm are no longer allowed since no one would use it with the monopod attached to the camera? Not sure if the people that make those rules understand the distinction between the two.

Robogenisis wrote in post #17229619
Your title is a bit misleading.

Only after the content on the story was changed. It originally said no monopods or tripods.

John wrote in post #17229638
Hmmm, maybe they added that later. I thought I read no monopods without that last sentence.

Other articles I've read at other sources also made it sound like no monopods on lenses too, so if that's wrong then you're not the only person getting mislead.

BastardSheep wrote in post #17229845
Other articles I've read at other sources also made it sound like no monopods on lenses too, so if that's wrong then you're not the only person getting mislead.

Now that it's a fact that the rule was changed after being published, assuming that it wasn't just mistakenly omitted by Tulsa World, I'd venture to guess that whoever is putting these new rules together at OU really don't have a clue what the new rule should be.

The original text was:

I don't know that I have ever seen a monopod that is used to sit at the game, and am not sure how comfortable that would be.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #17229933
I don't know that I have ever seen a monopod that is used to sit at the game, and am not sure how comfortable that would be.

I'll admit I sometimes complain about needing to be on my knees but I'd rather be on my knees that sit on a monopod. Whole another type of discomfort there altogether.