[Berkut]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I am saying, if you are not sure enough to throw the flag but the player who delivers the hit is dazed or someone's helmet comes off or he gets up wobbling and you are not sure that loud clack was helmet on helmet, then it is pretty good bet you should have called IHC.

If I am not sure enough to throw the flag based on what I saw, then I am not throwing the flag no matter what the players look like when they get up.

And no, I would not at all agree that a kid shaking off cobwebs is a a "pretty good bet" that I should have called IHC. Is the reverse true - if I throw IHC, and then the kids pop up and look fine, should I wave it off?

Is it too late? no. Would anyone throw the flag? no.

I would hope not. Throwing a flag based on how the players respond to a play rather than what you actually see would turn the game into a drama production, rather than a football game. And I suck at evaluating acting ability.

I have had officials tell me that helmet on helmet contact is not a foul.

Helmet on helmet contact happens on most blocks and tackles. Of course it is not a foul. The rulebook certainly does not define helmet on helmet contact as a foul. If it defined it in such a manner, it would certainly make it a lot easier to call, but I think the game of football wouldn't really look much like it does now.

I agree that it could happen incidentally, but most are because a blocker or tackler drove some part of their helmet into an opponent.

No, mostly it happens because when two people collide with one another, their heads tend to bounce around. I don't think I could make certain my helmet does not hit someone else helmet when I am tackling them if I tried.

To say that I don't know what I am talking about because I am just a coach is appalling

I haven't said any such thing.

and to say I am a clown or a troll because I am willing to say that it is not called but a very small percentage of the time is BS.

I didn't say that either.

I did post a study by the ATA showing that I am right.

I do not agree that the study you posted shows at all that your previous comments about how IHC ought to be called is right, in fact, I think it shows the opposite.