Grabbing the Helmets??

[mikesears]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
What is being discussed is a defender putting his hands flat on the back/sides of an offensive linemans helmet and controlling the player that way. If I see it I tell the defnders to get off the players helmet. Usually cleans it up.
I do have a hard time calling a penalty on this though. What real difference is there in a defender doing that to control an o-lineman and a running back stiff arming a defender to the helmet/fasemask? Both are flat handed against the helmet and both are using the opposing players head to gain control of the player.

Jim,

Are you going to allow the A1 to stand up and THEN B1 to put a hand ON the facemask (not grasping) or side of helmet and push A1's head to the side or back to control him?

Illegal use of hands by rule.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by mikesears

Jim,

Are you going to allow the A1 to stand up and THEN B1 to put a hand ON the facemask (not grasping) or side of helmet and push A1's head to the side or back to control him?

Illegal use of hands by rule.

I have not had this be a problem. Like I said we use preventive officiating to get it under control and so far (knock on wood) it has not been a problem.

[SoGARef]

I think the key is how the action occurs and I would have to actually see it to determine my call. It is NOT illegal to place a hand on a helmet and push a player down or aside. What makes it illegal is when the hand is placed on the helmet in a striking manner. That takes care of the open hand on the helmet. Key element is how was the hand placed on the helmet.

It IS illegal to grasp an opponents helmet by the facemask or any helmet opening. So if the defensive guy hooks his fingers in the opening of the helmet at the back of the neck and pulls the player down this would be a personal foul.

Again, I would have to see it to know what to call.

[mikesears]

I think we should break this down completely by rule. Here is my attempt at doing so.

Key Rules:

Rule 2-3-1: Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body.

This would include the hand to the helmet.

Rule 2-3-2: In blocking, a player may contact opponents with the arms or hands provided the technique is legal. The legal techniques are:

2-3-2-b: Open hand technique. The hand(s) shall be

(3) Inside the frame of the opponent’s body, except when the opponent turns his back to the blocker during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge. The frame of the opponent’s body is at the shoulders or below other than the back.

A hand on top of the helmet immediately after the snap is not inside the frame as defined by rule but we've got to read further for an opponent who ducks or squats.

(4) (The hand(s) shall be at or below the shoulders of the blocker and the opponent, except when the opponent squats, ducks or submarines during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge.

In the game in question, I envision that the defense was lining up directly over the offense and then pushing the offensive players' heads down toward the ground after the snap before the offense could rise to block.

Does a player meet the definition of squatting, ducking, or submarining if he lines up in a 3-point stance? My contention is that he can't be be ducking, squatting or submarining if he is trying to come up after the snap. I believe the spirit of this rule is to avoid penalizing players who accidentally put a hand on a helmet when a player ducks. I don't believe it is there to protect a player who does this deliberately. If the offensive player stays down or goes down further after the snap, then, I'm confident the action is legal.


9-2-3a: A defensive player shall not use a technique which is not permissable by rule (2-3-2,4).


Then I got to the casebook and they have a ruling that almost seems contradictory to the rulebook.

As the offensive linemen charge on the snap of the ball, B1: (a) grasps guard A1 by the jersey and controls him until he sees where the ball is going; or (b) slaps A1 on the side of the helmet with an open hand and forces his head to the side with what is commonly called the “bell ringer;” or (c) contacts A1 with one hand on his shoulder pad and the other hand on his helmet in fighting off the block; or (d) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side and charges through in an effort to get to the runner; or (e) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side so B2 may charge through to the runner.

Ruling:
It is holding in (a), which will result in a 10-yard penalty administered in accordance with the all-but-one principle, if accepted. In (b), it is illegal personal contact, and (e), it is illegal use of hands by B1, which also carries a 10-yard penalty. The action by B1 in (c) and (d) is legal.


Can someone explain what seems like a contradiction?

[SoGARef]

Mike,
You are approaching this just like a lawyer would. In law school we were trained to use the IRAC method of evaluation. You seem to be using the RIAC method.

IRAC means Issue, Rules, Analysis, and Conclusion. So let’s do it the ole law school way.

Issue - Can a defensive player use his hand on the helmet of opponent in order to move his opponent out of his way?

Rule - 2-3-5. A defensive player may use unlocked hands, hand or arm to ward off an opponent who is blocking him or is attempting to block him. Push, pull or ward off an opponent in an actual attempt to get at the runner or a loose ball if such contact is not pass interference, a personal foul or illegal use of hands.

2-3-6. When a player on defense uses a hand or arm, the hand must be in advance of the elbow at the time of the contact and at the shoulder or below unless the opponent squats, ducks or submarines.

2-3-2b4. At or below the shoulders of the blocker and the opponent, except when the opponent squats, ducks or submarines during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge.

Analysis - Rules allow a defender to use unlocked hands on an opponent who is blocking or attempting to block him. The defender may pull an opponent in an actual attempt to get at the runner if the contact is not illegal use of hands. However, the defender must make the contact at or below the shoulder, except after the blocker is committed to his charge.

Conclusion - Here the blocker is probably committed to his charge as the ball has been snapped. If the ball had not been snapped there would have been a dead ball foul for encroachment by the defender. The blocking technique is key to ruling on this play. If the blocker is charging from a three point stance in a closed hand technique chances are he would have his head ducked to make contact with his shoulder. If the blocker is charging from a three point stance in a open hand technique chances are he would have his head up to make contact with his open hands. Therefore, if the blocker is using the closed hand technique in all probability the defender could use his open hand to the helmet to pull the blocker away in an actual attempt to get at the runner and there would be no foul; however, if the blocker is using the open handed technique it is likely the defend could not use his open hand to the blocker’s helmet as this would be above the shoulder of the blocker who is not squatting, ducking or submarining and would like be a personal foul. Therefore, it would have been necessary for the observing official to have seen the complete action to make the proper ruling.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by mikesears
I think we should break this down completely by rule. Here is my attempt at doing so.

Key Rules:

Rule 2-3-1: Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body.

This would include the hand to the helmet.

Rule 2-3-2: In blocking, a player may contact opponents with the arms or hands provided the technique is legal. The legal techniques are:

2-3-2-b: Open hand technique. The hand(s) shall be

(3) Inside the frame of the opponent’s body, except when the opponent turns his back to the blocker during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge. The frame of the opponent’s body is at the shoulders or below other than the back.

A hand on top of the helmet immediately after the snap is not inside the frame as defined by rule but we've got to read further for an opponent who ducks or squats.

(4) (The hand(s) shall be at or below the shoulders of the blocker and the opponent, except when the opponent squats, ducks or submarines during the block or after the blocker is committed to his charge.

In the game in question, I envision that the defense was lining up directly over the offense and then pushing the offensive players' heads down toward the ground after the snap before the offense could rise to block.

Does a player meet the definition of squatting, ducking, or submarining if he lines up in a 3-point stance? My contention is that he can't be be ducking, squatting or submarining if he is trying to come up after the snap. I believe the spirit of this rule is to avoid penalizing players who accidentally put a hand on a helmet when a player ducks. I don't believe it is there to protect a player who does this deliberately. If the offensive player stays down or goes down further after the snap, then, I'm confident the action is legal.


9-2-3a: A defensive player shall not use a technique which is not permissable by rule (2-3-2,4).


Then I got to the casebook and they have a ruling that almost seems contradictory to the rulebook.

As the offensive linemen charge on the snap of the ball, B1: (a) grasps guard A1 by the jersey and controls him until he sees where the ball is going; or (b) slaps A1 on the side of the helmet with an open hand and forces his head to the side with what is commonly called the “bell ringer;” or (c) contacts A1 with one hand on his shoulder pad and the other hand on his helmet in fighting off the block; or (d) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side and charges through in an effort to get to the runner; or (e) pulls A1’s shoulders to one side so B2 may charge through to the runner.

Ruling:
It is holding in (a), which will result in a 10-yard penalty administered in accordance with the all-but-one principle, if accepted. In (b), it is illegal personal contact, and (e), it is illegal use of hands by B1, which also carries a 10-yard penalty. The action by B1 in (c) and (d) is legal.


Can someone explain what seems like a contradiction?

But to get down in a 3 point stance, the player is squatting. Also, unless there is a poor player/blocker the players will be still in a squat as blockers are taught to stay low. In the case book the players is "contacts A1 with one hand on his shoulder pad and the other hand on his helmet in fighting off the block". Here the player does have a hand on the shoulder pads, as well as the helmet. So this does not truly fit in this case as the defensive player has his hands on the offensive players helnet only.
So based off your research in the rule book, I would say it is legal but there is a fine line on it of making it illegal. That is why I use preventive officiating and tell the defensive players to get off the helmet. It is a lot easier to use the preventive officiating and keep a flag from happening than to try and explain it to a coach/player from some in depth reading experience. Now if the player wants to be hard headed about it, flag him.

[chiefgil]

UNFAIR ACTS:
ART 1: No player or nonplayer or person subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no specific rule coverage.

First, I would tell the defense that they should keep their hand off of the O-Line helmets. Next infraction, 15 yards. If he continues to grab the helmet, then he will be pulling splinters out of his butt from sitting on the bench.

If that doesn't work, then the HC is the next to go. If there is an unscroupulous coach out there, then he should be liable for the actions he is teaching the kids. And don't believe for one second that he doesn't know what is going on.

We administer the rules and the game for the kids. It's all about fair play, and the safety of the kids.