Ravens/Steelers game
 

Steelers DB lights up Willis McGahee after he makes a reception over the middle. McGahee fumbles and it's ruled as such (right call). Looking at the replay, it was CLEARLY a helmet-to-helmet hit and there was no flag. Why no flag on this, but NFL referees will throw flags for much more minor things? (D-lineman's hand accidentally brushing a QB's head while trying to deflect a pass) I thought football referees have time to "Watch the play develop"? If they have so much damn time, why can't they get stuff like this right?

Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfS9KQsExgs

(This one really takes the cake!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9KmXAmMTjw

Well QBs are treated differently in the NFL. That is just the way it is. And to say the McGahee hit was "clearly" helmet to helmet is a bit of an overstatement. The Steeler player turned his head and shoulder away from the McGahee. If the players got up, you would not have thought a single thing about the hit. And CBS had to show two different angles before it was clear that player touched helmets illegally in any way.

Peace

Who would you call the penalty on? It appeared to me that the defender tried to iniate contact with his shoulder, but the runner turned and lowered his head at the last instant.

Stop acting like some idiot fanboy.

1. What the NFL considers roughing the passer has nothing to do with this play. They are totally different situations.

2. Give it up about having time to get it right. Maybe it was a foul, maybe it wasn't but you know that things happen fast on the field. It is a lot easier to make the call after 10 slow motion replays from mutiple angles.

In real time, I felt the hit was illegal as the defender appeared to target the opponent's head and I threw my flag from my recliner.
Upon replay, I felt that the defender initiated contact with his helmet to the head of the opponent and confirmed my flag.

I just hope that McGahee will be ok.

I agree with daggo66 that the defender was trying to lead with his shoulder and the action of the runner caused the helmets to collide. I would probably go with no foul. This is definitely a good play for video review and league discussion.

In addtion, there were several other helmet-to-helmet hits by both teams that were unpenalized. Also, you are ignoring the blatent roughing the passer by the Ravens in the first half that was not called. IMHO, both teams were the victims of suspect calls and non-calls. Then again, there is a reason these men were calling the AFC Championship Game, and I was on the couch at home. In the end, this game certainly did not come down to a few quesionable calls.

Wow, this place is becoming fan boy central. :D

Peace

They got it right. This was a play downfield, not helmet to helmet contact on a QB, not spearing and McGahee lowered his head, not the defender.

You're clueless.

What does it matter if it was a hit on a QB or not? They routinely penalize contact against QBs that is VERY minor, but let this stuff go?

I knew this thread would get a rise out of the "Must defend NFL referees at all costs" crowd.

Football officials are clueless.

Edit: For the record, I'm not a fan of either of these teams. I just think NFL officiating is probably the worst of any major sport.

The runner had just caught the ball and was getting absolutely plastered by the Steelers defender. McGahee had no idea what was going on.

Looked to me like the contact was primarily shoulder to shoulder, and that their heads met only because each player had enough momentum in his head that their necks bent toward each other. In other words, any head to head contact was incidental to a legal hit by both players.

Robert

QBs are considered in a more venerable position and the marquee players of the game to those in the NFL. And the competition committee has made it clear they want to keep QBs from getting hit unnecessarily or when they are easily hurt. People do not want to see the Indianapolis Colts without Payton Manning or the NE Patriots with Tom Brady. BTW, kickers are protected in ways that running backs or wide receivers are not. So to compare what happens to a running back running a route over the middle is kind of silly to what happens in other positions is silly. You do not have to have much contact on a kicker and have a personal foul. Should we start comparing offensive lineman and how they contact defensive players and how they cut block them? I see more linemen that cannot walk straight after they retire than I do a QB, but cut blocking is a very acceptable practice and rules allow for such contact.

I think many of us have actually been in the same situation and seen players do things that we were not sure about, with fewer officials on the field. And if you knew anything, we do not sit here and defend officials just to defend them. But the play was not clear in a couple of replays and you needed the right angle to conclude that there was any helmet contact with another helmet. I saw the play at full speed and thought the contact was all shoulder (which is not illegal in this play).

Then get your sorry azz out there and do a better job. Since it is so damn easy you should be out there. I bet you would be peeing down your leg if confronted with the very same play. Just like it is easy here to talk about how bad this player is or that player is, but if put in the very same situation you would not know what to do with yourself.

Peace

As of earlier this year 97.64% of the downs in NFL games this season were officiated correctly. There are 7 officials on the field, on average one of them makes a mistake every 42.4 downs. In some games the entire crew is graded out at 100%.

And it must be noted that they are not graded on calls they are involved in, they are graded on mechanics, positioning, dead ball coverage and a lot of things none of us could imagine. So the play that goes to the other end of the field that you are not looking at, you are judged on that play too.

Welcome to the NFL Rookie. :D

Peace

You don't expect this chap's opinion to respond to facts, do you? Axe grinding never does. :rolleyes:

It matters because of something called the "RULES". Officials can only flag things that are against the RULES, not just because something went bad for your team.

This made it easy to judge you. NFL officials are the closest to perfection that exist in the officiating world. I could see if someone would say this about NBA officials due to the nature of the sport.

If you talk to NFL officials, they will mention that the players they are officiating are very very quick/fast. They are required to make judgments about situations that occur a lot faster than what we we see with HS kids and college kids. The major difference in any sport as you move up levels is speed/quickness. We have 300 lb. linemen at the HS level but they are not nearly as athletic as NFL guys.

I think fanboy should attempt to be out on the field with 22 of these guys moving at the same time.

Objectivity blurred.....
 

Obviously, the comments here, including yours, are posted by Steeler and Ravens fans. Let me clear things up for you. Watch the replay in slow motion. You will see McGahee clearly being hit on the side of his helmet with the crown of Clarks helmet. There are specific rules regarding this which I'll post:

13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

These rules are specifically aimed at defensive players, not the offense. I'm not saying the outcome of the game would have been different(most likely not)but it would be nice to see the officials make appropriate calls on relatively obvious plays such as this. This may be too much to ask considering they somehow ruled against the Steelers in the first half on whether or not there was a completion/TD by Holmes. After review, I thought the only question would be if he actually got into the endzone yet the officiating braintrust somehow ruled an incomplete pass?????

you may want to check those rules
 

13. A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

14. Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

These are two rules infractions resulting in a 15 yard penatly. The replay clearly shows Clark leads with the crown of his helmet, not his shoulder as some here would like to believe, striking MaGahee between the front and side of his helmet. Those two rules apply to defensive players for those of you wondering why runningbacks/recievers can lead with their helmet and defenders can't.

closest to perfection???
 

How is it these perfect officials continue to screw up. I actually wanted to see the Steelers lose if given a choice, with that said, how did the replay officials come up with the reversal of Holmes catch on the goal line in the first half?? If it were ruled incomplete on the field, the replay showed he clearly caught it. The only question was, whether or not he got into the enzone with it(debatable). Calls like this happen in every game, week in, week out. In the earlier game yesterday, they blew several calls. Roughing the punter comes to mind for one, when the replay showed the punter actually makes the contact by collapsing on top of the defender as if he were shot in the head. Please dont try and defend the officiating in this league. It's borderline criminal. Maybe you should look into the difference in revenue the league generates when small vs. large market teams are in the superbowl. Money corrupts. If you dont believe that then your head it buried deep in the sand.

Two posts and you know of JR's objectivity? LOL.

Directly to your point, read the rule you quoted above and explain how the phrase "any player" applies only to defenders.

Specifically about the play in question - the tackler lead with his shoulder. The fact that there was helmet to helmet contact does not necessarily mean there was a foul. Not all helmet contact is unavoidable. Which, by the way, is why players wear helmets.

Aren't there fan sites where you guys can go and blame someone for your loss?

because this specific rules applies to tackling maybe??? last time i checked, the defense was responsible for that. As I posted earlier, watch the replay then come back and tell me the defender does not lead with the crown of his helmet and makes contact with his helmet before his shoulder. FYI, the objectivity comment relates to all the Raven/Steeler fans here, not just JR's.

I second that...as long as he's wearing pads and standing in the neutral zone ;)

Hmmmm...so what do you call it when the kickoff or punt coverage team brings down the ball carrier? What do you call it when the offense has to stop the thief who intercepted the QB's errant throw?

References please?

Since you are trying to split hairs, in NFL rules the teams in possession is the offense and their opponents are the defense so in your two examples it is the defense who is bringing down the ball carrier and stopping the thief.

Your joking right??
 

ummm, are kickoff or punt coverage teams considered to be playing offense or defense? Once a ball is intercepted, is the team that was just intercepted still playing offense???? Is this concept beyond your mental capabilities??? Comments from refs like yourself kind of prove my point that the game is well beyond your mental abilities and it is time for leagues to allow a bit more technology into the games to assist the poor state of officiating.

Therein lies the problem, you don't understand the rules or their interpretations.

If you watch objectively you'll see the tackler lead with his shoulder. The reason the runner got hit in the head is because he put his head there.

Football is a sport filled with violent contact. Not all of that contact is illegal.

btw - I don't know if JR is or isn't a fan of either team and nothing stated in his post gives reason to believe he isn't being objective.

There...fixed it for ya!

Oh joy! It's idiot fanboy time!

Anybody wanna bets these two idiots are the same person?

references
 

Dagg,

This is the site I initially found when tracking down the rules. http://football.calsci.com/TheRules3.html

I've since found a site that actually has the official NFL rulebook(2006)
http://blogmedia.thenewstribune.com/...20RULEBOOK.pdf

Specifically, Rule 8 item g. page 82, that specific rules reads:

Impermissible
Use of
Helmet and
Facemask

( g) using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/“hairline” parts)
or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily; although such
violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent,
game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those
players who are in virtually defenseless postures (e.g., a player in the act of or just after
throwing a pass, a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass, a runner already in the
grasp of a tackler, a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air, or a player
on the ground at the end of a play). All players in virtually defenseless postures are protected
by the same prohibitions against use of the helmet and facemask that are described
in the roughing-the-passer rules (see Article 11, subsection 3 below of this
Rule 12, Section 2);

Great, you found a rule but it still doesn't back your assertion the the offense can not be guilty of leading with the helmet.

Can you share with is what clinics you've attended where these rules have been discussed and interpreted? (Joe Buck, Troy Aikman, Phil Simms, John Madden and the like are not credible sources.)

Waltjp and RefUmpWelsh....
 

Simple question for both of you. Watch this clip:(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ssVchGUm0)
particularly the part starting at the 50 second point, and tell me how what you just watched was not leading with his helmet. Let's take your spin on it. If MaGahee hadnt "put his head in there", where would Clark's helmet have landed? Oh, that's right, it wasnt his helmet, it was his shoulder, I forgot.

I can't watch Youtube videos from my work computer (probably a good thing). The disadvantage you have (and just don't realize) is the hours and hours of film study the NFL guys have. Even those of us who work HS and small college have likely seen some film study on the difference between leading with your head and leading with your shoulder.

If I recall correctly from watching the reply several times last night, the defender was attempting to deliver the blow with his shoulder and not his head. Leading with the head does look different. That's why you and a trained official can look at the exact same video and see it totally differently. The amount of training and video study ONE of the NFL officials involved in this play has seen possibly exceeds the total of everyone on this board combined.

It's still possible to get this type of play wrong and as you can see there are officials on here who have different opinions on this play. None of them accuse the officials of being incompetent though. This was a tough call that can be debated on slow motion replay either way. That doesn't make the official right or wrong as he has to go with his trained judgement. I bet Pereira probably supports the call either way on this one as well unless there is some specific directive or training on this type of hit that I wouldn't be privvy to. You are entitled to our opinion as well but to state the officials are horrible and totally missed this one is just wrong and only makes you look bad.

Why don't you step up and improve officiating? What are your contribuitions to the profession?

BTW, can we see some film of you at work? We would love to critique your abilities.

And Clark did lead with his shoulder. He turned his body so his right shoulder was leading. Unfortunately he is not a turtle and he can't retract his head back into his shoulder pads. I'm an Eagles fan, leading with the helmet is what Brian Dawkins does so I definitely know what it looks like when a player actually does do it.

Ok, let's pretend this game was played in 2006, since those are the rules you are referring to. The rule you cited pertains to unnecessary roughness on a defenseless player. That means it relies on the official's judgement. I'm thinking the judged the hit was not unnecessary and that the runner was not defenseless. Next.

The video CLEARLY shows the initial contact was with the shoulder and the 2 helmets meeting a split second later. Initial contact is what is ruled on.

Let me give you an example. Under high school rules it is illegal to block below the waist outside of the free blocking zone. However if the defender puts his hands down to ward off the low block, the initial contact was with the hands and therefore it is not a penalty for blocjing below the waist.

Again you need to remember that the officials are limited in what they can call by the actual rules. And by actual rules I mean the actual current rules. They change every year.

When discussing rules, the team on offense is team A and the team on defense is team B. Those designations do not change throughout the down regardless of a change of possession. The same applies to special teams, kickers are team K and receivers are team R.

It is clear you do not know the rules. You did not even realize in your post that the word "any" was used when it talked about helmet contact.

That says it all for me. I will leave you to your fan boy discussion. Because it is clear you know nothing about rules or officiating. :rolleyes:

Peace

Actually, the announcers did an excellent job of explaining why a "no call" was the correct call, and they used the replays to support their observation and analysis.

Please realize that when a tacklers leads with his shoulder the head is usually in close proximity. Like Bison said, this definitely was not 'leading with the head'.

Actually, if you stop the video at 0:53 you will see that the initial contact is shoulder to shoulder. Also you can see the helmet contact does not involve the crown of either player. The receiver takes a hit to the face mask mostly because he "dropped" to protect himself and the defender's point of contact is in the side (just about directly on the team logo). That's probably why you saw both players down. The receiver due to the whiplash effect of the hit (see his head snap back?) and the defender becase a shot like that to the side of the head can knock you out just as easily. So, you don't have a defenseless player (who braced for the hit), you don't have a hit with the crown, and you don't have initial helmet to helmet contact. Why should there be a flag?

too funny....
 

daggo, you obviously skipped over the first part of this rule:
"although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent" and chose to focus on the defenseless part. If you have a link to more current rules, please post them, and while you're at it, reference even in the most general terms where in your rules leading with your helmet while tackling is allowed.

I didn't skip anything. You must apply the rule in it's entirety and you must apply the correct rule. The one you choose deals with unnecessary roughness. You can't pick and choose parts of it. Leading with the helmet is never allowed. Again, as myself and others have stated, initial contact is the key.

okay...
 

daggo, you seem to be breaking your own rules now. You wrote:"The rule you cited pertains to unnecessary roughness on a defenseless player." Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt this rule apply to all players, not just defenseless ones? It goes on to state the officials may place special attention to defenseless players, etc....true?

The initial contact was with the shoulder, period, end of story, sorry your team lost.

If I may speak for daggo66 (I think he will allow me to do that). I think what he was trying to say is the entirety of what you quoted was the section of the rules that pertain to a defenseless player. Your quote had a header titled "Impermissible Use of Helmet and Facemask". The specific item you listed was sub-section (g). I've never seen the NFL rule book but I assume that means there are also sub-sections (a) through (f) and possibly additional sub-sections starting with (h) that you did not include. I also know that the NFL does have rules regarding "defenseless players" that we don't specifically have at the HS level. Based on what you quoted, I believe this sub-section is there to deal with the defenseless player situation which is what daggo66 was trying to point out.

It usually takes an official a couple years to combine the wording of the rules with the philosophy and application of the rules in game action. I don't exect you as a fan to be able to do this at all since you don't have that experience or training. But I would at least think you could listen to the comments on this board and think to yourself, "Oh, there's probably a lot more to this than I realize and the NFL officials probably do know a lot more than I give them credit. Maybe I should change my approach to be more open to the comments the officials on this site provide because there is some experience behind that comment."

I'm not trying to dissuade you from asking questions, looking for clarification, or stating your opinion on a judgement. I'm just hoping to provide you with an opportunity to see the officials on this site (and the NFL) generally know what they are talking about. I hope you take that in a positive light.

According to a statement that the Ravens issued at around 2:30 p.m. Monday, McGahee has been released from the hospital, is resting at home, and is expected to recover fully from his injuries (unspecified).

http://masnsports.com/2009/01/update-on-mcgahee.html

Thank you, my patience was wearing thin.

I agree.

Incorrect. Watch the video is slower motion. . . the head of the ball carrier jerks back ever so slightly before his shoulder does. The only way that this happens is when the initial contact was made helmet to helmet.

While the designations of Team A, B, K and R stay the same, the terms "defense" and "offense" as defined in the NFL rule book CAN change throughout the down as possession changes from one team to another.

This is important for some rules use the terms "defensive player" for example (such as tripping by defense) and they apply to the opponents of the team that is in possession of the ball.

So IF there is a rule that only applies to defenders then it would depend who has the ball.

bisonlj
 

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.

Wait a minute.

You claimed that the officials were wrong and when challenged on the things that you posted, you got upset when people did not agree with you.

And in the game of football there is much more than the written rule, there is also the practice and application of the rules. And what many people are trying to tell you, that it was not cut and dry as to how the contact took place and if you have to watch a slow motion replay to determine what actually happen, it is not an easy thing to call. Just as easily as the officials could have made a call for PF, they could have missed to it (for example the roughing the kicker call earlier in the game). And the pay we were discussing was much faster and would not have been an issue if both players did not get hurt. If both go up, then it would not have been an issue. Then again, I do not know how much experience you have as an official, but these are very hard plays to cover even at the high school level.

Peace

1. I'm one person on here. I have no idea who pmarz1 is.

2. I'm not a Ravens or Steelers fan. My favorite team is the Cowboys. I'm just tired of how bad football officiating has gotten, especially in the NFL. (College is just as bad, but that's another story) You can stop trying to discredit me because you think I'm a fan of one of these teams.

Is it not possible to lead with your head but make contact with your shoulder pad a split second before your helmet? I played football and was always taught to tackle with my head up. Clark made no attempt whatsoever to get his head up. His head was down the entire time.

Hmmmm, watch this video.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxkrgIpxa34
(Looks almost exactly like the McGahee hit. Clark's shoulder hit Welker first, but he was penalized for this hit. I thought if the shoulder hit first it isn't a penalty?)

Clark is going to get a reputation as a head hunter if he's not careful.

Beautiful when non-officials tell the officials what the rules mean.

That is even worse. I think people were giving you credit for being just a fan. But then again, you did not say you officiated either. :D

What is your officiating background? What levels do you work? How many camps have you attended?

With all due respect, I do not care if you were a member of either organization or just watching TV. If you think you know more about the rules than people that actually work multiple games and have worked multiple years, then show us why we should take your word for things. After all, I would not expect someone that is not a doctor to talk intelligently about something specific to a condition or specialization unless you had training in that field. So what are your credentials?

Peace

I guess we're seeing the same thing differently because I see shoulder contact first.

this is why.....
 

this is why officials and officiating in general gets criticized as it does. Officials like yourself think you are the only people on the planet with reading comprehension skills. Still waiting for anyone to post something that resembles a fact that leading with your helmet, regardless of whether the player recieving the hit is defenseless or not, does not constitute an infraction.

Perhaps the tone of responses was adversely influenced by the way the initial few questions were asked and some inflamatory rhetoric added to a totally subjective assessment of the NFL game officials abilities and performance.

As some have tried to point out, the amount of time, training, review and almost constant scrutiny NFL game officials devote to the pursuit of excellence is staggering, and considering the speed and talents of the players they monitor, their production and accuracy is outstanding.

However, despite the significant effort, dedication and pursuit of excellence they are not, and never will attain perfection. You should understand that in addition to the written rules code, that are somewhat different for multiple levels of football, there are reams and binders of official interpretations and approved rulings, clinics and years of intense discussion and debate that further clarify the intent, purpose and details of each rule to assist field officials in better understanding the basic intent and purpose of each rule.

Every official who has reached the level of the NFL has already completed extremely successful careers at each of the High School and, likely, multiple levels of the collegiate game. All that experience, training, study, review and constant critiquing, still does not guarantee automatic perfection, but it does bring this small band of professionals as close to that goal as has been achieved.

However, honest questions do deserve honest answers that are devoid of excessive defensiveness, athough defensive excesses sometimes slip through due to the right provocation. Perfection in the art of responding to questions, is also an elusive objective albeit worthy of pursuit.

I never questioned your reading skills. Listening skills are a whole other matter, but that's not the issue. The problem you have is understanding that there's a lot more to officiating a sport than reading the rule book. It takes many years to understand the meaning of the rules and how they're applied in game situations. It takes years of training and film work to understand the mechanics of the game to know where you're supposed to be and what you're supposed to be looking at.


The first thing I was told after passing my certification test was, "Now that you know the rules we'll take you out on the field and teach you how to be an official."

There are some officials who can recite the rule book, chapter and verse. Some of them are the absolute worst officials you'll ever see on a field. There's a whole lot more to officiating the game than knowing what the rules say.

Officials being criticized have nothing to do with this site or the comments on here. The average fan of public has no idea this place exists. Usually the criticism comes from people like yourself that cannot understand how someone that does this for a living or a great deal of time know more about the game from a rules standpoint than you do. Also I am sure there is much more to the philosophy of how things are called than in the rules you referenced. Usually rules like this that involve personal fouls are listed in other areas along with definitions of those acts. But you know more than everyone, so I guess you have those references too?

Peace

Here is what I don't comprehend about this 'discussion'...

Someone comes on this website (a website for officials to discuss issues, not for fans to complain about the outcome of a game), and they ask a question about a particular call in the game. There are given a fair, unbiased response. It is not the answer they want, so they call us clueless, rip the NFL officials, and refused to listen to anything constrctive any of us have to say.

The truth is: (1) no matter how much they complain about a call or we discuss it, criticize it (if necessary), etc.--the call does not change. I know it is hard to believe, but what we say on here on Monday, will not affect a call made Sunday evening. (2) We have no control over NFL officiating. NFL officials make some bad calls and a lot more good ones. Even if the officials on the field were to make bad calls on 50% of the plays, that does not give us (or any of the fans) control over the NFL when they make decisions about their officials. It might make fans feel better to argue with officials on this board, but it does not have any influence on this board. (3) Fans who want to keep up a silly argument about a play at the end of the game yesterday (and, yes, as a safety issue it is a valid debate--on a fan site) can go somewhere else to do it.

The irony is that the parts of the body contacted by an opponent's helmet in a manner like this are rarely injured seriously thereby. Injuries delivered by head hits are more commonly of the fluke kind, like head-on-knee. It's the player delivering the hit via the head who is in the far greater danger, because of what that can do to that player's own neck.

Robert

You have to look not only at what the player hits with, but also at what the player hits. This was shoulder-to-chin and deliberately so.

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.

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

What I haven't seen mentioned is the numerous memos and meetings that the NFL officials receive and attend in regards to the rules. You see, you first have a printed rulebook. When it comes to officiating and everyone that has ever officiated knows that there is only so much you can actually put into words and oftentimes a rule gets printed but its not really what was intended when the rule comes out. So, the NFL issues their memos and has meetings with the officials to discuss these rules. I can assure you that there have been numerous memos and meetings when it comes to helmet to helmet contact hits. The NFL officials have all the guidance they need to properly make the calls the way the NFL wants it done and no ammount of wording would give any outsider a true idea on the rule. Yeah, you got the book, but do you have the notes from the meetings or memos that the NFL sends to their officials. Highly unlikely. I trust that the officials working that game new exactly how the rule is supposed to be officiated. They are human and aren't perfect so its also entirely possible that they missed the call. That doesn't mean the end of the world and is no reason for anyone to get their panties in a wad. Life goes on.

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.

JRut and PSU, I completely agree that it's the height of knuckleheadedness for anyone, especially a non-official, to take a bang-bang play/ruling and offer it as proof of the officials' incompetence...when someone might have an otherwise fair question, it hurts their overall argument when the conversation degenerates into claims like that.

I have a question on a ruling in this game:

When the Ravens successfully challenged the ruling of a Steeler completed pass down by the goal-line.

after review Carollo said the receiver failed to maintain possession while going to the ground. this surprised me. I've only got the NCAA rules (Massachusetts highschool) to go on, but my understanding is that this applies to plays when a receiver LEAVES HIS FEET to make a catch. when he subsequently comes to the ground (either all on his own or being hit/pushed while airborne), he must maintain possession throughout the process.

but in the steelers/ravens game, it looked as thought the WR leaned, made the catch, took two steps, GOT HIT ON THE LEG by ravens DB, THEN fell, arm outstretched. where the ball was jostled upon contact with the ground.

what do others think? does the NFL have a different rule about "going to the ground"? because unless I missed something, it looked like a catch, two steps, a tackle, then down by contact.

(ALSO: Major kudos to the wingman who correctly spotted ball mere inches from the goal line! in real time--and even in some replays--it looked like the ball was on the line.)

First off all I must state that I did not see the play. But the common interpretation at the NFL and NCAA levels are that a receiver attempting to catch the ball must maintain control through the ground. In other words if the ball is not controlled after hitting the ground, then it is not a catch. That is the interpretation from both the NFL and NCAA. And frankly at the high school level is a common practice where I live to require the same thing.

Did not see this play either, but I will take your word for it.

Peace

I believe you are correct in your understanding of making a catch while the defender is in contact with the receiver. In this case, I recall he was not in contact with the receiver. chymechowder described it as I recall so I didn't think the "control through the ground" would apply in this case. On another forum someone pointed out he thought the contact was pretty immediate with the catch so then I guess it would apply. I thought it also had to be an airborne receiver but I've been told that is not a factor in this type of play in the NFL.

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.

That is why I said I did not see the play. But the contact with the ground usually applies to falling on other players and then hitting the ground. Now if I saw the play I might be able to better comment on this situation specifically. I just know that in one of my associations we have a few NFL Officials (one is a deep wing) and several D1 Officials and they show a lot of tape from those levels at camps or meetings that constitute what a catch is or is not. And in a few cases we have access to actual NFL tapes on passing plays and Mike Perreira (sp?) is commenting on those tapes about many things. It is very clear by those tapes that the NFL (and NCAA) wants a catch to be maintained through going to the ground. And that does involve plays where they are falling on other players sometimes.

Peace

You need to make up your mind - are they incompetent or are they cheating to favor certain teams? And who are these "replay officials" that you make reference to?

You have zero credibility. Sorry.

I'll chime in here.

I say this call is a simple coin toss, my first reaction, from behind (BJ) angle, looked like his legs cleared to the Right right at the hit (which would suggest that his body was turned to the side at contact), the view from the side was blocked by McGhee's ducking of his head, now if there was 50 officials on the field hovering with HD camera's and looking at super slow motion on every play they may have seen contact that was very close, I would lean toward helmet to helmet (since that has been a POE in our state/NFHS/ and my HS crew). So I would have probably thrown the flag from the FJ or LJ position (if I had a clear view of the player getting tackled's head).

But the fact that after 6 pages of discussion we are still divided just shows that it was a simple tossup. if the flag was thrown and things worked out differently, (like someone suggested) we would probably have the same response. We can all learn something from this discussion, we hopefully will further define in our own minds our standards for HTH contact and will be on the lookout (in 8 months or so, except for a lucky dozen or so) I digress

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.

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.

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

I know you did not see the play. I am just looking for clarification. Consider these three hypothetical situations:

1. A80 goes up to catch a pass while airborn where he is immediately contacted and tackled
2. A80 catches a pass with both feet already on the ground. He is contacted as he catches the ball and is immediately tackled
3. A80 catches a pass with both feet on the ground and runs another 3 yards before he is contacted and tackled

In each case, A80 maintains possession throughout the catch until his arms contact the ground and the ball comes loose.

My understanding was this was an incomplete pass in situation (a). Someone else has told me it's also an incomplete pass in situation (b) but not (c). Those who have seen the play debate whether (b) or (c) is what happened. I leaned toward (c) but I would have to see it again. Regardless of what actually happened on this play, do you know if the rules support situation (b) as complete or incomplete?

Why aren't you a football official? Still waiting on that answer from you and zm. I know zm is a basketball official.

I'd rule incomplete in (a) and (b), complete in (c).

This is consistent with Mike Pereira's ruling for the NFL.

Thanks Walt and Juggling. That seems to be the consistent answer so I will believe it's true. Now those of you who saw the play, do you think situation (b) or (c) applies on this play. From what I recall, I thought (c) applied. The R had the opportunity to review it on replay so it must have been pretty clear to him that (b) applied. He's a conference final official so I think his abilities are slightly above mine. ;)

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.

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?

You don't.

Peace

Exactly.

BTW, it has been reported on ESPN that they Steelers player will not be fined for the hit on McGahee.

It is clear that the NFL feels that the hit was legal and nothing malicious. It must be noted that the NFL fines players all the time for hits not penalized.

Peace

I have to admit when I saw the play at my mother-in-law's house, I assumed a fine would be coming even though the officials "missed" it. Apparently, my brother-in-law was right. :)

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!

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.

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

Unfortunately, the problem often lies within the very nature of the beast. With most rules, as soon as the rule is written creative minds focus on finding exactly what the very edge of legality permits, and where that line is drawn.

I recall, with the original "Spearing" rule there was such an intense effort to reduce the type of catostrophic injury, the suggestion that removal of all face masks even being considered as an alternative solution was intended to underscore the seriousness of the problem and the commitment to solve it.

The inference was that removing face masks, although parhaps not directly addressing contacts with the top of the head, would absolutely cause most players to reconsider leading with any part of the head, with the face unprotected.

There was a time, before facemasks, where football players were recognized by the number of directions the bridge of their nose turned in, which is doubtfully a period today's players would want to revisit.