Good Block or penalty?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I said before John, there is an easily solution. Either change the current rules, change the number of officials that should be required to work a football game considering how dangerous you consider football to be. Or you could advocate kids not playing football at all. Then you will solve the problem. Then again, that would be too drastic right?

Peace

[bigjohn]

Or change the old school thinking (punishing tool) that keeps officials from calling the IHC as it is meant to be called, now. According to all the publications(NFHS official ones included) it is about the safety of the blocker/tackler but old school thinking is "I have no foul unless it is intentional spearing". That is what needs to change!

[TXMike]

The NCAA rule definitely requires intent. "No player shall initiate contact and TARGET an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Or change the old school thinking (punishing tool) that keeps officials from calling the IHC as it is meant to be called, now. According to all the publications(NFHS official ones included) it is about the safety of the blocker/tackler but old school thinking is "I have no foul unless it is intentional spearing". That is what needs to change!

John, the rule changed. No one is saying it must be intentional. You have not been reading responses. What people have said it must be there and contacting a shoulder in one of your examples does not meet the definition of a foul. And yes, it must be there or if that is not the case, how would you like me to call a holding call that I do not see because of what I think took place? I bet that would not go over well either. You and other coaches cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[bigjohn]

You just said it has to be a punishing tool. All the new thoughts on IHC deal with the the blocker/tackler making a concerted effort to keep the helmet out of the hit. No one wants to call it that way though. I see very clearly what needs to change!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

You just said it has to be a punishing tool. All the new thoughts on IHC deal with the the blocker/tackler making a concerted effort to keep the helmet out of the hit. No one wants to call it that way though. I see very clearly what needs to change!

Yes it has to be used as a punishing tool and the contact has to be initiated by the helmet or by definition you do not have a foul. All contact with helmets is not illegal and never was intended to be. And if you do not like it, too bad for you. Unless it changes that is the way it is. And you still have not changed the rule with all this whining and complaining. The rule is still the same and this year the issue was not a POE either. I guess nothing is going your way.

Peace

[bigjohn]

I did not say it was a POE this year. I said it seems like it is every year. You have made it clear that no matter how many interpretations are made you are not going to call it, except by the book. My case is closed.

[bigjohn]

Do all the rest of you guys feel the helmet must be used as a punishing tool before IHC is (or should be) called?

[TXMike]

I do

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I did not say it was a POE this year.

On the other site you said.....


"Callit, why do you think it is a POE every year?"


You are a real gem.......

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I did not say it was a POE this year. I said it seems like it is every year. You have made it clear that no matter how many interpretations are made you are not going to call it, except by the book. My case is closed.

Originally Posted by asdf

On the other site you said.....


"Callit, why do you think it is a POE every year?"


You are a real gem.......

This is the reason I made the statement in the first place about the POE.

Peace

[ref1986]

TX,

In general, I agree that the player has to be targeting his opponent. But I can think of at least one exception, and that is the defender attempting an open field tackle who lowers his head and makes contact with the top of his helmet, usually at the runner's thigh or knee. The NCAA put together an excellent video a couple of years on helmet contact/targeting, and this was one they wanted called. It's the most dangerous play in football. It needs to be called whenever we see it, at any level.

Also, the fact that we have rulebooks doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to use some common sense:

A defender is in perfect position to make a tackle: Head up and to the side, butt down. He commits to the tackle and the runner cuts, resulting in the defender making initial contact with his facemask instead of his shoulder. No way that's a face tackle.

Or a blitzing LB or safety launches himself helmet-first at the side of the QB's head, delivering a classic helmet-to-helmet shot. But just before the helmet contact, he made contact on the QB's shoulder with his hand. Is he getting a flag? You betcha, and in HS probably an ejection too.

[bigjohn]

Many years makes it seem like every year, not this year, OK. Seems like it always is a POE.

From the
http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/PositionStatement.pdf

The helmet-contact penalties are unique in football because
they are the only action penalties that penalize a player for his
own protection. However, many officials and coaches
erroneously perceive the primary purpose of the penalties as
protecting the athlete who gets hit. This is reflected
by one group’s findings that nearly one third of high school
players did not know that it was illegal to tackle with the top
of the helmet or run over an opponent head first.

[Mike L]

John,

in NFHS an IHC does not require anything about using the helmet as a punishing tool. But it does REQUIRE the contact is INITIATED by the helmet. It's the basic defintion of illegal helmet contact. We as officials don't get to make up rules or change them to suit our personal beliefs.
If you don't like the rule as written, berating officials about it is not going to do you a bit of good. If you truly feel the initiation requirement is unreasonable, you really need to work on the NFHS to change the definition, because you are not going to achieve anything here by what you've stated in this forum.

[bigjohn]

I have no problem with that thinking. But, When the shoulder and head hit at the same time it is still initial contact. To say a helmet contact is legal because his shoulder hit just a millisecond before the helmet then you are looking for a reason to not call it. That is all I am saying. Guys need to call these close ones on the side of safety.