Good Block or penalty?

[bigjohn]

guess so. you got me rut. I am a non-caring jerk! Wow.


I made my stand and it was duly noted.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

guess so. you got me rut. I am a non-caring jerk! Wow.


I made my stand and it was duly noted.

Isn't that what you accused everyone that does not agree with you about this the same thing?

Do not try to get sympathy now.

Peace

[bigjohn]

My only accusation has been that most IHCs don't get called. I just use the word never when the stats show that less than .01 of 1% of all penalties called are IHCs!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

My only accusation has been that most IHCs don't get called. I just use the word never when the stats show that less than .01 of 1% of all penalties called are IHCs!

And that's not correct.

In your other thread you stated correctly that if the rule book had the same language as the comic book, IHC might be called more. That's true, since the comic book does not use the correct definition of IHC, and the one it uses is more expansive.

Since the rule book is the controlling text, it's false to claim that "most IHCs don't get called." Aside from this being an empirical claim for which you have no evidence beyond your own experience, you are basing it on the wrong definition of IHC.

[bigjohn]

Talk about cherry Picking!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Talk about cherry Picking!

If it's cherry picking to give priority to the rule book over the comic book where the two diverge, then I'm guilty as charged.

[bigjohn]

The comic book gives more information than the rule, it is not in conflict with the rule.
My point is it doesn't matter what part of the helmet is used it should be called a butt block or face tackle. Spearing can be called any other time and be the more flagrant form of IHC. I really feel that is what is intended but no one will say it.

[bigjohn]

MB, I posted this before but it is from the handbook, on face tackling. Notice it talks about using the top of the helmet.



Face Tackling
The danger in face tackling is greater to the tackler than his opponent because
the tackler’s head is often not in a protective, stable position when contact is made.
In these positions the cervical spine area is most vulnerable to injury. A blow to
the top of the head when the neck is in flexion may result in permanent injury. Face
tackling is defined as an act by a defensive player who initiates contact with a ball
carrier with the front of his helmet. Players must refrain from using this technique,
not only because it is costly to the team through a penalty of 15 yards, but also
because it is dangerous to the individual using the technique.

[JRutledge]

BJ,

Unless I have missed something, since when does it matter what part of the helmet hits if the contact comes first? Is this not all the same penalty? But the contact has to come from the helmet first, not a shoulder, not an arm, not a hand (by rule).

If you call it face tackling, butt blocking or spearing, when did the penalty change?

Peace

[bigjohn]

and talk about splitting hairs. When the helmet hits at the same time as any other body part then it is first the same as the shoulder or hand. This timing thing is a cop out. If the head and shoulder all hit at the same time and the blocker or tackler drives his head or face into the opponent he should not get off with a warning or an official say, his head wasn't clearly the first thing that hit so I can't call it IHC. IHC is not off because another body part hit a milisecond first it has to do with the driving of the hard plastic thing into the opponent which can in turn hurt the head and neck of the driver. That is the point being missed by all this INITIAL CONTACT BS! Talk about being hung up on one word!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

and talk about splitting hairs. When the helmet hits at the same time as any other body part then it is first the same as the shoulder or hand. This timing thing is a cop out. If the head and shoulder all hit at the same time and the blocker or tackler drives his head or face into the opponent he should not get off with a warning or an official say, his head wasn't clearly the first thing that hit so I can't call it IHC. IHC is not off because another body part hit a milisecond first it has to do with the driving of the hard plastic thing into the opponent which can in turn hurt the head and neck of the driver. That is the point being missed by all this INITIAL CONTACT BS! Talk about being hung up on one word!

The helmet has to strike first or be used as a punishing tool in order to have a foul. If a shoulder hits and then there is some contact with a helmet after that, that is not a foul by definition.

With that all being said, all those examples you want to split hairs with are all the same penalty under the rulebook. And the definition of those suggest that the contact is with the helmet first. And the fact that you keep trying to make issues out of what we call face tackling or spearing is even sillier and lowers your credibility on this issue. They all carry the same penalty. And you have not found a single person on either site say that either definition was not a foul or that they would not call it if they saw it. All that has been done is people disagreed one what you called fact tackling or butt blocking and said that the example shown were spearing and should be called if the action took place. But then you wanted to argue the definitions, rather than listen to why people felt there was or was not a foul in these videos you showed. Then you gave a bunch of videos that were never from a game you participated in, but claimed it was not called all the time properly. And to our knowledge you have never reported to your state organization examples of plays where this was not being called.

Now I worked a game several years ago as a Back Judge and I called a dead ball illegal substitution call, where the offended coach was so mad he sent a tape suggesting that I should have either let the play go or potentially call a bigger 15 yard penalty and he sent video to whomever he would listen. Now my situation was not a safety issue or wrong when you apply the rules.

You on the other hand are constantly complaining that the most dangerous situation in football is not being addressed and you have not shown a single video of a game you were involved in, which you claim that this is never called. I know we are beating a dead horse, but if this is such an issue, you should have so many examples to back up your claim at least in your games.

Peace

[bigjohn]

I am not going to post any video because I have none on my computer. I will, when I get on a machine that lets me and you guys will nitpick the quality and camera angles and how close it was but not quite IHC. I see now that it isn't called because it isn't seen. Not because it doesn't happen.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I am not going to post any video because I have none on my computer. I will, when I get on a machine that lets me and you guys will nitpick the quality and camera angles and how close it was but not quite IHC. I see now that it isn't called because it isn't seen. Not because it doesn't happen.

With all due respect John, I teach a football class (and I am the founder of a basketball class) that was developed by a football crew member that I worked the State Final with, which we use tape all the time.

The quality of the tape matters and the angles we show often matters. My Referee even showed video of the State Tournament that showed several angles and even some of those angles did not show everything clearly. When we are not showing IHC, we talk all the time in the review of the tape of positioning of the officials, who has coverage and was it an obvious illegal action. So you obviously do not realize how these tapes are broken down and is the reason why D1 NCAA Officiating Supervisors and the NFL uses several angles such as a coach's tape and end zone feeds (that are required to be used in many cases) including the TV feeds to see if an official got a call right or got a call wrong. Even if you show us a tape there is going to be some debate if the angle is not perfect. But remember, that is not really the point. You said that it was not called and I am sure you have some borderline cases where there was no call. But you have not shown anything.

BTW, if you are having a hard time getting these videos on your computer, send me an email I can refer you to a couple of programs that will allow you to easily break down video and clip up tapes. Then show you how to post them. So no excuses OK.

Peace

[bigjohn]

The helmet has to strike first or be used as a punishing tool in order to have a foul. If a shoulder hits and then there is some contact with a helmet after that, that is not a foul by definition.

There in lies the problem Rut. It is not about the punishing tool. That thinking is out, it is about protecting the blockers and tacklers.

[bigjohn]

I have no DVD player on this machine at home, that is my excuse. I know how just not going to add a dvd to this machine I am on. I do that stuff at work.