Facemask foul on runner

[tskill]

Under NFHS high school ball, Looking for opinions on how much lattitude you give the runner in using his hands to ward off an opponent when he contacts the opponents helmet or facemask?

Example, during a play, running back A34 has the ball and is getting wrapped up by B50, as A34 is falling to the ground, he reaches up grabs B50's facemask and B50 falls on top of him. Question: 15-yard facemask on A34?

[MJT]

If he puts his hand on it and stiff arms it is not a problem, but if he grabs and pulls or twists, you have to call a major FM foul.

[RonRef]

It is no different than when the defense does it, it is a safety issue and must be called.

[KBAustria]

Anytime you see the fingers curled around a bar of the facemask, call it. Even if there is no pulling/twisting, there is always the danger of a finger going into an eye.
As long as the hand is open and stays on the outside of the FM, no foul.

[tskill]

Yes I agree any pulling, grabbing or twisting has to be called. But what about the runner giving a stiff arm to the defense right on the facemask. Had a coach go ballastic because that wasn't called, although all he did was give him a stiff arm, no grabbing, twisting, pulling, etc.

[AndrewMcCarthy]

Here's an idea- what does the rule book say?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by tskill

But what about the runner giving a stiff arm ... all he did was give him a stiff arm, no grabbing, twisting, pulling, etc.

No Foul. Play on.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by tskill

Yes I agree any pulling, grabbing or twisting has to be called. But what about the runner giving a stiff arm to the defense right on the facemask. Had a coach go ballastic because that wasn't called, although all he did was give him a stiff arm, no grabbing, twisting, pulling, etc.

There's a reason the book says "Grasping the facemask". No grabbing = no foul.

[tskill]

thanks for the input. If the rulebook was 100% clear on everything, we wouldn't need casebooks.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by tskill

thanks for the input. If the rulebook was 100% clear on everything, we wouldn't need casebooks.

REPLY: Of course if you look at case plays 10.4.5 Sit G and 10.4.5 Sit H you begin to realize that since you have the Case Book, you don't really need the rule book.

[tskill]

very true Bob!