Ravens/Steelers game

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by pmarz1

First of all, I think in my earlier post to daggo, I referenced the link with the entire rulebook. You are correct about the other subsections, etc. but that particular section dealing with unnecessary roughness(Section 8) subsection g. had the subtitle of "Impermissible Use of Helmet and Facemask". This subsection seems to deal with all players as it initially states, then goes on to state how officials may pay particular attention to defenseless players. Regarding the remainder of your post, if you read my initial post, I was called into question as to the existance of such a rule. Many who post here got very defensive with their comments,some feeling I was a Ravens fan/sore loser. I have no connection with them or the Steelers. If you all are truely impartial, then answer the questions that way. You are one of the few that responded as one would hope an official would. I understand we as fans have the opportunity to see so much more after the fact, things that when witnessed in real time may be hard to detect. Unfortunately, the league doesnt allow the officials to consult a replay to determine whether or not a penalty is in order, and in this case, a change of possession, which most likely had no effect on the outcome.

From what I recall, the NFL does not publish the rule book (at least not yet). The first link you provided was someone's attempt to summarize the rules. It appears pretty thorough but it's definitely not the rules as they are published. The other link does look like an actual rule book from the NFL but as you stated it is 2006. I have no idea if this rule has changed since then.

You were called out because your initial note indicated two penalties preceeded by the numbers 13 and 14. These appeared to come from somewhere so the official asked you where they came from. I now see they came from the summary site and not from the actual rule book. They are high level discriptions used a guide to help someone identify key penalties and their yardage enforcement.

What everyone is trying to tell you as nicely as possible is you don't have the knowledge to apply the rules you found in an actual game. What you are doing seems to be happening more lately than I remember and I think you are receiving the brunt of that frustration.

I think it has been pretty clearly established:

• Just making contact with your helmet doesn't warrant a personal foul for unnecessary roughness.
• Having your helmet be the first thing to contact the runner doesn't necessarily make it a personal foul.
• The rule you quoted (and let's just assume it's still valid today) says "using any part of a player’s helmet or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily". There are probably specific definitions somewhere (I couldn't find them) for the words butt, spear and ram that play into this. They define these terms at the HS level.
• The last 2 words are "violelently" and "unnecessarily". These allow the official to apply judgement if they feel the contact was minor.
• This rule also implies the player was "using" the helmet which implies it was a tool in making tackle. Some have argued on here that they felt he did use his helmet this way and others have argued he didn't. I believe both arguments are valid but that's where the judgement comes into play.

The NFL guys have seen video after video after video of plays like this and have a pretty good feel for what they should and should not call a PF. Sometimes it just has to come down to what they see in real time and applying that judgement. If 10 NFL officials see this play on video and 7 think it was a foul and 3 do not, that does not mean it was a bad call. Could this play cause the competition committee to make it more strict that any contact with the helmet is a foul...you never know.

One of your quotes was "Please don't try and defend the officiating in this league. It's borderline criminal." If you had any idea how crazy that statement was, you would realize why many people on this site started to treat you as a "fanboy". You do not have the ability to correctly evaluate the quality of the officials just like I don't have the ability to correctly evaluate the performance of MLB umpires.

If you have the opportunity, I suggest you attend part of a local HS officials clinic or an association meeting to get a glimpse of the types of things officials discuss. You will be amazed. Then when you consider the types of discussions and training the guys at the NFL level have been given, you'll realize these guys are right almost all the time. There is nothing criminal about that.

Good luck now. Here ends the lesson.

[chymechowder]

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

I think there are two points you are missing here.

There are not a lot of people saying that the call was right. Many of us have been involved in plays like this and we had a hard time determining if there was helmet contact or not. The responses are about as much about the difficulty of the call as it is whether the call was right.

And finally the next leap that a call like this makes NFL officials less competent or less talented is silly. For one the person trying to quote the rule did not even quote the rule properly. And he did not understand what he was posting. You cannot make a claim that something only applies to a defensive player and then miss the word (you quoted) that says "any player" as apart of the rule. If you do not know that, how can you know what should be called or not? Basically this was probably one of the most difficult things to rule on at fast speed as any play during the season. It is possible the officials got the call wrong, but to make the leap they are terrible when you do not know their success rate on calls or how they are evaluated are big points that were commented on.

I know this was not one of the points, but I think it needs to be said. Often during this time of year we have people that come from no where to "discuss" a play or two in a game that seems controversial. Then when they ask the question and people give them an answer, they get mad is if we do not know what we are talking about. Even though they have never officiated or know the basics that they are complaining about. It must be noted that even the media has suggested this play was totally legal (not a good source by the way), but when pressed on the OPer's knowledge, they have little to add when it comes to their experience. The same thing happens during Final Four time on the Basketball Board or during the playoffs or World Series on the Baseball Board. Then we will never see them again after they complained about this situation. Give it a month and we will never see these people again.

Peace

[PSU213]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

I don't necessarily disagree with the main point of your post--that we are less likely to accept the view of someone who is not an official. However, I think you are missing a key point there. The OP went on to say (paraphrasing here): this was a terrible call, how could the officials miss such a obvious call, and (within a few posts) this person went on to say that NFL officials are clearly the worst in sports. I think this person would have been treated a lot differently if he was not so quick to dismiss this as a terrible call made by the worst officials in sports. In addition, when his view was questioned, he became way too defensive, continued to name-call, and ignored everything constructive being said to him.

So, in short, yes, non-officials may be taken less 'seriously' on this forum. However, I have never seen an instance where a non-official is dismissed when he/she has asked a serious, un-biased question. It seems (to me anyway, for what that is worth) that they are only derided when they come here with sour grapes.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by PSU213

I don't necessarily disagree with the main point of your post--that we are less likely to accept the view of someone who is not an official. However, I think you are missing a key point there. The OP went on to say (paraphrasing here): this was a terrible call, how could the officials miss such a obvious call, and (within a few posts) this person went on to say that NFL officials are clearly the worst in sports. I think this person would have been treated a lot differently if he was not so quick to dismiss this as a terrible call made by the worst officials in sports. In addition, when his view was questioned, he became way too defensive, continued to name-call, and ignored everything constructive being said to him.

So, in short, yes, non-officials may be taken less 'seriously' on this forum. However, I have never seen an instance where a non-official is dismissed when he/she has asked a serious, un-biased question. It seems (to me anyway, for what that is worth) that they are only derided when they come here with sour grapes.

I'll add, there are often times when a non-official comes on to ask a question about a play or ruling. The majority of the time they accept the answer and move on. The posts that become controversial are the one where the non-official starts making accusations about the pro or college level officials and disregard the information they were given.

You've heard it before, we're all officials and we'll always stick up for each other. Any regular reader of this forum knows that isn't true and we've had many debates about good or bad calls.

Want an example of a bad call in yesterday's Steeler/Ravens game??? Try roughing the kicker called against Baltimore.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

I'm a sixth-year Massachusetts highschool football official. And I'm new to the forum, which I really enjoy reading. I will say, however, that at times the majority's tone can come across as a bit defensive and dismissive. this is understandable to a point, especially when non-officials discuss the rules or lambast questionable rulings. but here's a hypothetical I'd like to ask:

Say the Clark hit WAS flagged as unnecessary roughness. Also, suppose it happened on the ravens' previous possession, and after the 15 yards the ravens went on to kick a game-winning field goal.

Now lets say someone came on the forum and bemoaned the "awful" call.

Would people deride him as a "steelers fanboy" who doesn't know the rules? Would people look at the same clip and say that McGahee's head clearly snaps back as a result of helmet to helmet contact?

I guess my point is, sometimes we officials can be a little quick to automatically dismiss someone's point, simply b/c the questioner is not an official.

As for the play itself, when seeing the replay, I thought clark led with the helmet. But I also realize that the play--like so many other plays in real-time--happened so fast that it wouldn't have been a "blown call" either way, whether it was flagged or not.

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

I'm not sure where the accusations of me "name calling" came from. I don't think I called anyone on here any names.

Another example was in the Florida/Miami game this year. I can't find the video of it online, but a Florida DB went up to intercept a pass by the sideline. He did come down with one foot inbounds, but he never even controlled the ball while going to the ground. The ball ended up laying on the ground next to him. They reviewed it and somehow ruled that he caught the ball and it was an interception. I wish I could find the video, because it really was inexplicable.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

I'm not sure where the accusations of me "name calling" came from. I don't think I called anyone on here any names.

And I am tired of people like you that have no experience officiating the sport, telling us what we should think. Or better yet when challenged with references, they get mad and claim people are not using their experience or knowledge to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by zm1283

Another example was in the Florida/Miami game this year. I can't find the video of it online, but a Florida DB went up to intercept a pass by the sideline. He did come down with one foot inbounds, but he never even controlled the ball while going to the ground. The ball ended up laying on the ground next to him. They reviewed it and somehow ruled that he caught the ball and it was an interception. I wish I could find the video, because it really was inexplicable.

If I recall correctly, there was debate about that play on this site (it might have been the other site) and I do not recall that people across the board stuck up for the officials. Actually, it is clear you do not read this board very much, because we discuss all kinds of plays and give opinions. Those opinions are almost never monolithic or necessarily coming from the same point of view. And it is pretty clear that you did not read this thread either, because many people made comments about the roughing the kicker call that many of us feel was "kicked" (pun intended). I am not sure what board you are reading.

Peace

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Thank you. I'm just tired of football officials sticking up for their own no matter how badly a call is blown. I can promise you that if they would have flagged this play, everyone would be saying what a great call it was.

That is a terrible misconception. Throughout this thread there are officials who are in disagreement. There are some things you need to understand. First we have a greater respect for someone who has studied the rules and reached the peak of their profession has opposed to someone looking on as a fan. Secondly, we will automatically give some credence to the person who made the call just because of the fact that they were right there on the field in real time and we were not. Another strong factor in this equation is that the league has not issued a fine. Many times there are hits that the officials on the field ruled as being legal, but when reviewed under a microscope by the league officials it may have been deemed illegal.

In my experience no one is more critical of an official than another official. The difference is the training involved. It's like the old adage I can beat the heck out of my brother, but no one else may dare touch him. So in a sense the first reaction will be to defend the official, but the second will be to take another look at the play.

[Adam]

Some people can't seem to see the difference between criticizing an isolated call and calling all NFL officials corrupt incompetent cheaters.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Some people can't seem to see the difference between criticizing an isolated call and calling all NFL officials corrupt incompetent cheaters.

Never mind calling ALL football officials incompetent. I'm sorry but that is such a generalized statement that it's almost comedic.

I think as a whole we're patient with fans and coaches that come in here and ask questions unless they are being disrespectful. I tend to not have a lot of patience on here for people that come in here and act like officials as a whole are incompetent, stupid or are cheaters. We deal with enough of that on the field, why do I want to put up with it here?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

We deal with enough of that on the field, why do I want to put up with it here?

You don't.

Peace

[jjrye22]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

From what I recall, the NFL does not publish the rule book (at least not yet).
...
Good luck now. Here ends the lesson.

First off, Bisonlj - great summary. Covered all the points, was polite and informative.

Second - the second video link that was posted to show that the defender is a 'headhunter' and got flagged on the other play. In the other play, the reciever was no where near the ball and was starting to pull up and look around for where the ball had been thrown. A 'defenseless player' as opposed to the play in this topic where the player had the ball and could reasonably expect a contact.

Third - Everyone here has talked about leading with the helmet and it being a foul. It is my experience that LEADING with the helmet is a lot different than contact with the helmet during the tackle. Question: Who here would classify this contact as leading with the helmet at all?
To me it looked like he was trying to hit tha ball carrier with the shoulder, and their heads got in the way. Look at video where spearing is called and you will usually (please note the qualifier) see a different type of tackle motion.


On a personal note, I hate having plays like this, and always second guess myself afterwards if I didn't throw a flag. Most of the time I feel I was right not to (when I don't throw one), but it is SO hard to see and process these in the time we have on the field.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by jjrye22

First off, Bisonlj - great summary. Covered all the points, was polite and informative.

Second - the second video link that was posted to show that the defender is a 'headhunter' and got flagged on the other play. In the other play, the reciever was no where near the ball and was starting to pull up and look around for where the ball had been thrown. A 'defenseless player' as opposed to the play in this topic where the player had the ball and could reasonably expect a contact.

Third - Everyone here has talked about leading with the helmet and it being a foul. It is my experience that LEADING with the helmet is a lot different than contact with the helmet during the tackle. Question: Who here would classify this contact as leading with the helmet at all?
To me it looked like he was trying to hit tha ball carrier with the shoulder, and their heads got in the way. Look at video where spearing is called and you will usually (please note the qualifier) see a different type of tackle motion.


On a personal note, I hate having plays like this, and always second guess myself afterwards if I didn't throw a flag. Most of the time I feel I was right not to (when I don't throw one), but it is SO hard to see and process these in the time we have on the field.

Personally, I dislike the term "leading with the helmet" because it implies illegality due to the helmet strinking first. Nowhere in any rule book I have seen (Canadian and NAFL at least) does the term "leading" appear and this is because given the position of the head on the body and given that the helmet can legally be involved in contact, it will invariably strike first in many cases and this first striking is not in and of itself illegal.

What is illegal is using the helmet as the primary force of contact so that the contact becomes a ramming action ("butt, spear and ram" do appear in rulebooks).

So long as players tackle by moving forward and bending their bodies, the head (and consequantly the helmet) will lead the way!

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

What is illegal is using the helmet as the primary force of contact so that the contact becomes a ramming action ("butt, spear and ram" do appear in rulebooks).

So long as players tackle by moving forward and bending their bodies, the head (and consequantly the helmet) will lead the way!

When the "Helmet Contacts" (Butt blocking, Face tackling, Spearing) were originally declared as illegal there was a clear and definite reference to the intention and motivation of the player delivering the blow. At the very beginning with "Spearing" I seem to recall the allegation of "punishing the opponent" was included in the definition. Face Tackling and Butt Blocking were terms evolving from expansion and refinement of the original problem called "Spearing".

At that time the rumor was that an alternate approach, of simply removing the facemask, received serious consideration as a means of persuading players to stop using the helmet as a weapon should the "Spearing" prohibition fail to accomplish the objective.

As suggested above, head to head contact in the game is inevitable, simply due to the nature of the game and it's inherent collisions. Unfortunately, head to head collisions are not always predictable, consistent or intentional and really can't be covered adequately by a blanket description.

As no two collisions are exactly alike the final determining factor, as is so often the case, boils down to the judgment of the covering official and what he concluded, based on what he observed.

[Robert Goodman]

What coaches called spearing was what the rules later called butt blocking, while what the rules called spearing was basically just a way to recognize a form of piling on or UR that could've been flagged previously. Both were with the top of the helmet, and the blocking technique originated before face bars, so it's not clear that abolishing face masks would've been effective. However, face tackling could be met with poke-in-the-eye, so removing the fask mask would undoubtedly have worked there.

Seems now they're trying to achieve the same effect on the solar plexus with hand blocking that they had previously with spearing. The coaches even refer to it as punching, although it's delivered with an open hand.

Robert