Helmet contact / LSU vs. Miss. State

[l3will]

Watching Sports Center this morning, one of the plays that was highlighted
involved a hit on a defender nearing the the sideline in pursuit of a LSU player.
I believe that the LSU player (#1, I think) initiated contact with his helmet
and laid out the Miss St. defender. This brings up a couple of questions...

1) Did you think that the play was indeed a foul if it had happened in
a NFHS game??? To me it should have been called at the NFHS level.

2) At the rules meeting I attended, the clinician stated that the NCAA was
also emphasizing helmet initiated contact. So, should this have been
a foul in the NCAA game??

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by l3will

Watching Sports Center this morning, one of the plays that were highlighted
involved a hit on a defender nearing the the sideline in pursuit of a LSU player.
I believe that the LSU player (#1, I think) initiated contact with his helmet
and laid out the Miss St. defender. This brings up a couple of questions...

I have to disagree with you. The contact was with his shoulder. The blocker did not lead with this head at all and if there was contact with parts of the helmet it surely was not intentional at all. Most of the contact was with the shoulder. It is football, there is a reason they still wear a helmet.

Originally Posted by l3will

1) Did you think that the play was indeed a foul if it had happened in
a NFHS game??? To me it should have been called at the NFHS level.

The rules are the same at the NCAA level and NF level. It does not matter what level it is, this was not a foul at all in my opinion. If you have to look at slow motion replay to decide, it probably was not a foul.

Originally Posted by l3will

2) At the rules meeting I attended, the clinician stated that the NCAA was
also emphasizing helmet initiated contact. So, should this have been
a foul in the NCAA game??

No, because I personally think you are trying to split hairs.

Peace

[wheels]

I'm going to agree and say it was a foul. The instant replay show helmet to helmet contact. Yes, he did lead with his helmet, but there was and that cause the head to jerk back.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wheels

I'm going to agree and say it was a foul. The instant replay show helmet to helmet contact. Yes, he did lead with his helmet, but there was and that cause the head to jerk back.

His head jerked back because he was not looking at the blocker.

Not sure you saw the hit from behind the blocker (different camera angle) and you clearly saw his helmet was in front of the defender's body. Contact with the helmet all by itself is not a foul. If this is a foul, you better have a foul on ever violent block then.

Peace

[l3will]

I saw it at normal speed and thought that the LSU player lowered his head just prior to the contact. That is why it popped out at me. Also, perhaps I'm a little biased by the video I saw Quite a few of the plays on the video involved LSU players lowering their heads just prior to contact.

Perhaps I am over-sensitized by that video... I think perhaps in the past I was on the other side of the fence and not sensitive enough about helmet contact.

Heck when I played at the collegiate level, we were taught to initiate blocks and tackles with our helmets.
Face mask in the numbers then shoulder for blocks, face mask in the numbers and wrap for tackling... in
just that order.

Peace back at you.

[wheels]

JRutledge,

So you are saying there was no helemt to helmet contact on that play? And yes, I'll have a flag on every play were that type hit with helmet to helmet contact is made. The LSU player could have had the same effect hitting him lower, like in the chest. That hit was up around the shoulders.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by wheels

JRutledge,

So you are saying there was no helemt to helmet contact on that play?

As far as I can tell my answer is clearly no. BTW, the rule does not completely disallow helmet to helmet contact. The rule disallows for players to lead with their head and to initiate contact with their helmet at the NF level. That is a big difference. If you want to say that under all circumstances there was not contact with the helmet, I cannot say that.

Originally Posted by wheels

And yes, I'll have a flag on every play were that type hit with helmet to helmet contact is made. The LSU player could have had the same effect hitting him lower, like in the chest. That hit was up around the shoulders.

If it makes you happy to call every time there is slight contact with the helmet that is your right to do so. There is a big difference between leading with your head and trying to punish a player than contact that results form violent contact. The MSU player's head snapped because he was not aware of the player coming. No different than a car accident when someone is not prepared to get hit. You do not have to hit something with your head to have a head injury or concussion.

Peace

[bigjohn]

We had a play in our second scrimmage where there was a big hit on our punt returner, clearly helmet contact and very loud clack of helmet to helmet contact. The LJ said that he did not have a penalty and said this, one of the funniest comments I have ever heard a wing official utter. "Some times you don't see what you think you see."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by l3will

Perhaps I am over-sensitized by that video... I think perhaps in the past I was on the other side of the fence and not sensitive enough about helmet contact.

Heck when I played at the collegiate level, we were taught to initiate blocks and tackles with our helmets.
Face mask in the numbers then shoulder for blocks, face mask in the numbers and wrap for tackling... in
just that order.

Peace back at you.

I was watching the NFL Network this summer and I caught a show called "Six Days to Sunday." Usually this program deals with players and coaches, but this time it deal with Ed Hoculi the famous muscle bound Referee. In this game the week before during the Detroit-Dallas game, Ed called a Roughing the Passer on a Detroit Defender against Drew Bledsoe. At first glace it looked without a doubt as a foul. When the tape was broken down, Ed clearly erred and called a penalty where the contact was mostly with the shoulder. The NFL told Hoculi that he needed (as well as other Referees) to not call what likely looks like a foul, but to make sure there clearly was a foul. I think in this case you are reacting more to the snapping of the head than what actually happened on the play. Also remember the officials on the field did not call anything. I am sure with 7 officials someone saw the block and likely saw the entire block and they passed.

This is a classic judgment call where you have to decide not only was the intent of the play, but what likely happen. But even if there was some contact with the helmets, I think most of the contact was with the shoulder and initiated with the shoulder. In the angle from behind the blocker, there was space between the blocker's helmet and the defender's helmet. You could make this call, but I think you would have to defend it better than you are now. I also think the issue is not the history of all calls of a team, but what happen on this play. I will admit that I was thinking like you, until I saw both replays and it was clear to me this was not a foul. If there was a foul on this play that would have been extremely technical interpretation if you ask me. You are not going to be able to eliminate all contact with helmets. Football is about angles and violence and it is going to be hard on any tackle or block to not have some contact with someone's helmet.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by l3will

Watching Sports Center this morning, one of the plays that was highlighted
involved a hit on a defender nearing the the sideline in pursuit of a LSU player.
I believe that the LSU player (#1, I think) initiated contact with his helmet
and laid out the Miss St. defender. This brings up a couple of questions...

1) Did you think that the play was indeed a foul if it had happened in
a NFHS game??? To me it should have been called at the NFHS level.

2) At the rules meeting I attended, the clinician stated that the NCAA was
also emphasizing helmet initiated contact. So, should this have been
a foul in the NCAA game??

I saw that play. As soon as I saw it, I was looking for the flag.

CANADIAN RULING: Flagged for Unnecessary Roughness, 7-3-8a. 15 yards.

Helmet to helmet contact.

I don't know of any level of Canadian football where safety fouls are not flagged.

[wheels]

From what I saw, the only official able to make that call was the one facing the play. The official running to catchup can't see it, It would be a stretch for the BJ. If you gentlemen saw it as a no-call, I will yield to the masses. I'm here to learn as well as to offer opinons.

[GPC2]

When shown live it looked like a good clean block, and being an LSU fan I got all excited - HOWEVER, when the replay showed, my excitement was tempered by the fact that it was helmet-to-helmet contact and I was hoping the Miss. State player wasn't seriously hurt.

BUT, I guess I'll be in the minority with JRutledge - I thought the play was clean with no intentional helmet contact. I thought that the blocker led with the shoulder and the helmets collided unintentionally. I don't think I would have had a flag.

[dumbref]

This type of play will always be a judgment call, but in this case I also agree with JR for reasons he so eloquently stated. I thought he lead with the shoulder and subsequently - contact with the helmets occurred. No foul.

[JugglingReferee]

I looked for this video on YouTube for about 10 minutes. Does anyone have a link a video of this play? I'd love to see it again.