[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

You mean, "Not all hits to the head are illegal." But neither are they all legal. And I don't see how the "targeting" provision changes a thing in that regard. It doesn't make all contact with an opponent's head illegal, and it makes no difference as to contact with an opponent's head that was already illegal.

Huh?

Again, show me anywhere that a stiff arm is considered illegal? One reference please, just one.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Of course those actions are not per se illegal. But what we're considering are not stiff arms in general or blows with the shoulder in general. What we're discussing is blows to the head or neck, by whatever technique, that are gratuitous. That is, they could've been avoided, and if they serve a valid tactical purpose (such as fending off a tackler), they could've been served as well by contact at or below the opponent's shoulder. But that was the same under the previous unnecessary roughness provision.

You do not officiate. And right or wrong, the fact that you do not officiate comes out in these kinds of discussions. No rules body, not the NCAA that uses a lot of video to make points or the NFL or the NF has said anything about a stiff arm being illegal even if the contact is with the head. As a matter of fact the NCAA and the NFL have tried to use terms like "defenseless player" or other classifications to allow even contact to the head. And the NF is starting to use the term and if they adopt the NCAA's language, a runner that lowers their head and a tackler that lowers their head will not be considered for a foul if contact inadvertently happens with the head area. Never but on this site have I heard anyone suggest otherwise about a stiff arm being illegal.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Who needs one specifically about a stiff arm? Wouldn't you say it's unnecessary roughness any time any player lands a blow that's gratuitous (by the above criteria) to an opponent's head or neck deliberately? Does the wording of the new targeting provision, applied literally, change that to any degree?

Targeting in other codes usually involves a defenseless player as apart of the action. And if they give and example of a stiff arm, then maybe we can have that debate. The problem is no such example has been given.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

We realize that because players are allowed certain uses of their hands on opponents, that sometimes their aim will be off. We also know that a tackler or blocker will sometimes present a head first, making it hard to avoid. But don't you also see -- or can't you at least imagine -- cases where it's clear that was no mere slip, and that the player deliberately put that hand or arm somewhere it shouldn't've gone, endangering an opponent's neck? In those cases, does it make any difference to you whether the player was legally allowed some use of the hand or arm in contacting the opponent?

No I cannot. Never seen such an action as you suggest in just my years of officiating that would be over the top or not a football related action. There was always a provision in the rules to penalize a player for a spear if they had the ball, but even that is very rare.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

When the rules were revised so that the hands no longer had to be kept close to the body in blocking, was it the intention of the rules makers to change any hits that would've previously been personal fouls into legal actions? (Yes, I know holding used to be penalized 15 yds., but it was not a PF.) Did you think the ballcarrier had any greater privilege in not being flagged for a PF?

OK, what does that have to do with this situation? A BIB used to also be a clip too. What does that have to do with what we are talking about in relationship to a stiff arm?

Peace