Driving the head, encased in a hard and unyielding helmet, into an opponent is
Part Five Officiating Page 71
probably the most dangerous tactic used in football today. The hazards of
spearing, butt blocking or face tackling are not limited to the hardness of the
helmet. The player initiating the contact is in more danger than his opponent.
When the head, in an improper position, is driven into a player, it may result in a
weak position for the neck. A blow to the head when the neck is in a vulnerable
position can cause injury to the spinal cord possibly resulting in paralysis from
the neck down.
All groups concerned with football, including the rules makers, coaches and
officials are involved in a cooperative campaign to eliminate these unnecessary
injury hazards. There is no excuse for these techniques to be employed as part of
the game. Players who are aware of the extreme danger of injury and who
continue to practice these techniques, use poor judgment and take unnecessary
chances. Coaches must not tolerate such techniques to be used or developed

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.

John, want a radical idea? You can help prevent head and neck injuries by getting rid of the face mask. Hell, get rid of the helmet all together. If the players didn't feel so safe they wouldn't be so willing to stick their heads in places where it shouldn't be.

or you could just call all IHC and reduce the use of the helmet. :)

I have some pretty high end video software and equipment here and by slowing down and cleaning up Vid #1 you can see helmet leading to helmet and the blocker readying himself and then leading with the head....when I slow it wayyyy down and pause and rewind to just the right millisecond. Should it have been called?..probably. Is it called even close to enough? No..and I think must of us would agree with that. Review clip 1 and pause it and try it a few times...even on the grainy clip you can see the initial contact of H to H. Vid #2 I was able to clearly see shoulder contact prior to any head contact prior to the player getting knocked on his arse. The argument that the player getting knocked and spun to his hind end could only mean a shot to the head is a little much. I've seen tons of hard blocks and shots on receivers across the middle who have ended up in the same condition and few, if any, have been IHC, face tackling, or any similar form.
Vid #3 of the Pop Warner/Youth kids is just a product of the game at that age. A bigger, taller tackler versus ball carrier (or vice versa) makes things look more vicious than they are and it's the unfortunate nature of the game at that age level.

I see John's point and argument, but I'm in the same boat as the rest of the majority. It wasn't completely clear cut from the angle I saw (in #1) and I don't have the luxury of slow-mo replays in a split second on the field. The game of football has progressed to the point at almost any level that pancake blocks and hits are a big energizing part of the game and would say that even if most of us thought we may have seen something bordering on an illegal hit on a play like this....would rarely ever call it. Unless it was incredibly blatant and judging by the overall vote here....it's nothing of the sort. Good day.

How do you propose we start calling fouls we don't see?

Do you really think there are any officials (on this forum at least) that see a clear IHC foul and pass on it?

I think we need to see a few more IHC calls based on what the Handbook calls IHC and not technical BS like the shoulder got there a hair sooner so it is not IHC.. The kid lowered his head and delivered a hit with his helmet in all of the clips I posted. I get laughed at when I say something about what you hear, but the sound of a helmet hitting someone has a distinct sound. What happens after the hit does matter because if a kid gets up staggering he probably hit with his head.


The committee recognizes that occasionally a player’s helmet makes inadvertent
contact with an opponent without significant risk of injury to either player.
The committee also recognizes that there are degrees of severity in illegal helmet
contact, and that all types of such contact should be penalized uniformly.

Do you really think any of the ones I posted were inadvertent helmet contact?

Yes.

The passages from the handbook and manual that you've posted do not supersede the rule. If the initial contact is not with the helmet, the block is legal and helmet contact is incidental. That's what we look for, and that's how we call it. If you're not satisfied with that, you'll need to talk to the rules committee.

Do you really think that it's impossible for a player to be injured on a legal play?

MB, didn't you post this?

My sources are the NFHS Football Handbook and the NFHS Football Officials Manual.


So you are saying that casebook and handbook and S&I don't matter, only the rule book?

All these interpretation meetings and memos and news releases mean nothing?

The pics in the S&I show hands hitting same time as helmet.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2eg709f.jpg

John, it seems the opinion of the majority is that contact is initiated with the shoulders and that the helmet contact comes after the initial contact, not at the same time. This is, by definition (and by illustration in the comic book known as S&I), not a foul.

For there to be an illegal helmet contact foul, the helmet has to be the first part of an offender's body that makes contact with the opponent. That is the rule, if you don't like it, lobby to have it changed.

Lobby to get 7 officials on the field while you're at it, because Jeff's point is exactly right. In a five man crew, nobody is going to see the possible IHC in the second video because it is during an interception return. Both wings, the back judge and the umpire are all behind the play. The referee might see that but it is highly unlikely.

John, if we called everything that looked like a foul, not only would the game last 5 hours long, but you would be in an apoplectic rage on the sideline.

I see, so if everything hits at the same time, there is no first. The players were all leaning forward with the helmet getting there first or milliseconds apart. It is very easy to see that officials are looking to not call it.Talk about splitting hairs.

The games would not last any longer if IHC were called, that is a cop out. I can stand on the sidelines and see these fouls but 5 trained officials can not. That is also a cop out.

Saw those pics last night at the state clinic Power Point presentation.

In pic#2, note the white arrow moving upward, indicating the blocker is driving the helmet up into the "blockee's" chin. I can honestly state that I have NEVER SEEN THAT in 15 years of officiating FB.

In pic #1, the driving principal is invaribly is the first contact is with the shoulder, hands, etc. Players clunk masks and helmets together all the time, doesn't mean its illegal.

Are the acts as pictured illegal? Definitely. Do they happen? Maybe, but no where near "all the time".

The primary IHC we see is going to be normally referred to as spearing- using the helmet to "punish" the opponent. Blockers just don't lead with the helmet front and/or facemask very often. Its just too unnatural an act.

Butt Blocking in 1 and 2 and face tackling in 3 are both tactics which involve driving the face mask, frontal area or top of the helmet directly into an opponent in blocking or tackling respectively. both result in a foul for illegal helmet contact.

It doesn't have to be exactly as the picture shows, read the text.

IHC isn't the only foul you want called more, you've been advocating all sorts of fouls being called more. Guess what, it takes time to enforce penalties.

Two things, you can stand where ever you want in the team box. Officials don't have that luxury, and on an interception and return, most of the officials are going to behind the play. Like it or not, that is a fact.

The second is that often times, coaches will "see" what they want to and it is usually NOT what happened. That is the difference between watching the game with a biased perspective and an impartial one.

I don't watch the game, I have my keys just like you do. I watch players.

Yes but you still see what you want to and that is evidenced by the fact that you are routinely convinced that officials are blind, stupid and incompetent.

I'm not sure how many people between here and the NFHS forum have explained this and other things to you, but somehow, you are smarter and can see better than all of us. I haven't been around as long many of these other posts have been but your rants are tired and repetitive. All they do is serve to piss people off and pollute the forums.

Please let me know when you plan on donning a striped shirt and start calling some Pop Warner games. I'd consider buying a plane ticket just to watch this.

I used to be a football coach and at the time, I thought officiating was easy and that the officials were blind, incompetent fools too. Then I put the stripes on and realized how hard it is to actually have to call a game.

I'm done with this thread, please feel free to have the last word.

That's impossible. A static image can't depict time sequences, so it's neither before, after, nor at the same time.

What does the 'S' in "S&I" stand for? Do you know what that means?

The funny part is you did not even understand the question.

Peace

There's a reason why it's called the "comic book."

I understand completely, like simplified means it doesn't really matter. S&I is an interpretation just like the casebook is as far as I am concerned.

From the NFHS website:
RULES SIMPLIFIED AND ILLUSTRATED for basketball and football are published annually. These books make use of cartoons and diagrams to clearly explain situations which might otherwise be difficult to comprehend.

You missed the point. The information out of the S&I book is meant to help simplify the written rules and give interpretations that make it easier to understand what is supposed to happen. You are the only person that can take a simple illustration and turn it into a big debate as to what it says over the rulebook. I do not think I have ever heard anyone have a debate this complicated over what the book says. And you have single handily made everything in this book trump all other books based on language alone which is not the purpose of this book. And you only focus on the wording and the actual descriptions that the book "illustrates." And you have done this on two websites where no one seems to agree with you in principle. I guess you are just a genius and the rest of us are dumber than a box of rocks. How do we ever do what we do without your wonderful leadership?

Peace

Now you get it!

LOL!!!!!!!



I am pretty sure the Football Handbook has 3 pages on this and most of what is written there supports what I have posted.

You keep trying to cherry pick what fits the argument of the time. It is common (before the NF game NASO the Guidebook and S&I the publishing rights) that these books have information that sometimes contradicts each other or muddies the waters. This is very common in all sports to have these wording issues. Most of the time we just point out the problem and move back to the rulebook or casebook. The NF hardly ever goes back and changes the S&I books and even is slow sometimes to change the casebook when the wording does not make sense. But you hold on to a couple of passages outside of the rulebook and you feel everyone is wrong on this topic. It makes me wonder seriously about you when you constantly do this. This is not the first issue you have done this. Again you have every right to feel the way you do, but nothing is going to change because you make this argument. The calls are still going to be made with what an official sees and if you want more calls, add more officials to the game so officials are not looking at such a broad area. Then these blocks could be seen. But it is not going to happen by complaining here or showing videos from games you had nothing to do with that anyone Tom, Dick and Harry posted on YouTube.

Peace

You guys are tho ones have told me a dozen times, we don't call games by the rules book but have lots of interpretations and memos and such to base the way things are called.
What a crock.

Point of emphasis and strict enforcement and all that. Lip service!

John that is not what people told you. If interpretations did not matter, then why does the NF keep giving information to clarify their rules? I guess they feel that their interpretations must matter; they keep using them to clarify their rules and give specific situations in which the rules should and should not be applied.

Then again, you used a memo that was not from the NF in this thread to back up your point of view. Which is it John?

Peace

No, it doesn't. It emphasizes that enforcing the rules as written is important, and that's not what you're encouraging.

Big Johns 5-6 and 3-12
 

In my humble opinion,
While there is arguably some attempt in both of these by the defender to make it appear they are lowering their shoulders, in both cases the defender is still leading with his helmet and arguably is using his helmet to punish an opponent.
So, in a high school or lower game I say Illegal Helmet Contact.
In a small college or higher I wopuld perhaps say, no foul.

OK, go ahead and beat me up...

It least your argument suggested wiggle room and a justification. That is not what BJ did when most of us have suggested what he has shown is arguable at best.

That being said, I will not call something that I do not see. I had a call in the State Finals where I passed on a play I was not sure about. Based on the video replay it probably was likely IHC, but I did not have the angle in 5 Person as a Back Judge. I would have guessed and never would have known unless I saw a replay. If I had 2 other officials on the sidelines then this call might have been made. But that is a better solution then, "Just call it no matter what." And no the level does not matter to me either. If I do not see it, I am not calling it.

Peace

While sometimes it is tough to do...
 

...In this case I have to completly agree with Rut.:cool:

If you throw a flag on my crew, without seeing something with a "just call it no matter what" logic, you won't be on my crew.

Without reviewing every post on this thread, if BJ is advocating for "just throw it not matter what" then BJ is wrong!

I have not said that KWH, I have said that it is possible to use other criteria such as sound and reaction of the two players involved in the contact to judge helmet contact. I have also stated erring on the side of safety and calling a few more IHCs would prevent more than not calling it unless one is 100% sure. I also think it is IHC unless the blocker or tackler makes an effort to keep the helmet out of the contact.

I ran the first couple by some senior officials as well as a few retirees, all with a boatload of years under their belts, and they think you're seeing more than there really is. Like I said, I saw what MAY have been IHC on the first one with the benefit of video editing software. Let it go.

I give you credit for persistence though.

Yeah, those older officials are always good open minded judges of IHC!

2 of the 3 I spoke of raised 3 boys that were fortunate enough and gifted enough to play college football. Those guys have seen more football in the coaching and officiating spectrum than you and as much or more than most anyone else on this forum and are in their mid to late 50's and early 60's. One even witnessed some severe head/neck trauma some years back...that's why I got him involved specifically. Man, these old timers have really lost it. What are you, like 19?

You're not here to get direction, to get insight, or to inform and/or help anyone. You're on here to be a pain in the a$$ and start arguments.

You should approach your superiors and tell them that you could ref and coach your games all at the same time. Less expense to the progarm's checkbook but way more in terms of quality officiating, especially when you can clearly see it all...no matter what the angle or distance.

I can't wait for your next video installment: Block in The Back...or No?

Go get your big red rubber nose and catch back up with your circus act.

Just so you know Canned heat I will be 48 soon and have been involved in football since I was 8. My dad was a coach so I was going to football practice every day and have been a player or coach for 40 years. I have a bit of experience myself. It has been my experience that most of the elder statesmen of the stripes rarely carry a flag much less call IHC.

To experienced officials, you might as well have said you spent the last 40 years watching it on TV. Do you think you could simply buy a shirt and be as good as people who have been doing it well for years? You say something like that on the sidelines and I have to concentrate so I don't roll my eyes at you.

I'm going to disappear from this thread, too. You, sir, are a troll.

(BTW, I haven't had a particular problem in my games with IHC. I did have a spearing foul in a game that resulted in an ejection a few years ago. And my crew isn't shy about using the flags -- we probably averaged about 10-15 flags a game last season at the varsity level. If we see it, we'll call it. The day I guess at something cause I think I hear helmet-to-helmet contact is the day I hang it up.)

Are you seriously suggesting that we go by the way something sounds or the "reactions of the players" to judge IHC? Rather than, you know, what we actually see with our eyes?

Is this some kind of clever/inside joke that I am not picking up on or something?

Kid gets up shaking the cobwebs and you "think" maybe it was not quite IHC.

I really do think there are too many OHC not called and too many excuses as to why they are not.

40 years of playing and coaching and studying the rules makes me a clown. OK, I get it now!

Sorry coach, I am not sure what you mean. Yeah, kid gets up shaking cobwebs - that doesn't tell me anything about whether there was illegal helmet contact. Kids get up looking a bit dazed for any number of reasons, right?

Are you actually suggesting that in fact we should wait until the kid gets up, realize he look a little punch drunk , then throw a flag, even if we did not see any illegal helmet contact, because the kid looks a bit dazed?

I know I am kinda of belaboring the point, but I am kind of assuming you mean something other than what you appear to be saying, hence my comment about this maybe being some kind of inside joke that I am not getting - I don't really read the forum religiously, so I might have missed something.

I am saying, if you are not sure enough to throw the flag but the player who delivers the hit is dazed or someone's helmet comes off or he gets up wobbling and you are not sure that loud clack was helmet on helmet, then it is pretty good bet you should have called IHC. Is it too late? no. Would anyone throw the flag? no. I have had officials tell me that helmet on helmet contact is not a foul. I agree that it could happen incidentally, but most are because a blocker or tackler drove some part of their helmet into an opponent. To say that I don't know what I am talking about because I am just a coach is appalling and to say I am a clown or a troll because I am willing to say that it is not called but a very small percentage of the time is BS. I did post a study by the ATA showing that I am right.

http://admin.xosn.com/attachments1/4112.pdf

I know this is NCAA stuff but I would say the numbers are similar. Read the article on IHC




As demonstrated with
other rules, coaches are more
prone to react to penalties
that are called. For example,
if multiple violations such as
offside or holding occur
during the game, those will
generally be addressed by
the coaching staff the
following week to correct
those mistakes and hopefully
prevent them from occurring
again. However, it is human
nature not to address issues
that may not be brought to
our attention. When headdown
contact and spearing
fouls are not enforced and
addressed, student athletes
develop poor habits in
blocking and tackling. If left
uncorrected, those actions
may lead to potentially
serious injuries.

If I am not sure enough to throw the flag based on what I saw, then I am not throwing the flag no matter what the players look like when they get up.

And no, I would not at all agree that a kid shaking off cobwebs is a a "pretty good bet" that I should have called IHC. Is the reverse true - if I throw IHC, and then the kids pop up and look fine, should I wave it off?

I would hope not. Throwing a flag based on how the players respond to a play rather than what you actually see would turn the game into a drama production, rather than a football game. And I suck at evaluating acting ability.

Helmet on helmet contact happens on most blocks and tackles. Of course it is not a foul. The rulebook certainly does not define helmet on helmet contact as a foul. If it defined it in such a manner, it would certainly make it a lot easier to call, but I think the game of football wouldn't really look much like it does now.

No, mostly it happens because when two people collide with one another, their heads tend to bounce around. I don't think I could make certain my helmet does not hit someone else helmet when I am tackling them if I tried.

I haven't said any such thing.
I didn't say that either.
I do not agree that the study you posted shows at all that your previous comments about how IHC ought to be called is right, in fact, I think it shows the opposite.

Editor’s note: This column was
written by Ron Courson, director of
sports medicine at the University of
Georgia.

This Guy must be a Clown.

I think I am going to pass on this discussion at this point. You seem a lot more interested in making this some kind of personal thing than discussing rules and IHC.

My point all along is that it is not getting called when it happens. I hear excuses why it isn't called. I post data to prove it isn't getting called and that is me being personal? I am the one that has been made light of here.

This, from an officiating stand point, is utter crap. It makes the assumption that a player getting dazed, a helmet coming off, or a loud crack can only happen due to IHC. That is a HUGE assumption that has no basis in fact. You just as well could assume any time a player gets up holding his neck after getting pulled to the ground is because of a face mask grab despite the fact that head can snap around because of hand contact to the helmet or a grab on the inside front of the jersey/shoulder pads rather than grabbing and twisting the mask. The bottom line is we can only call what we see and what we see without a doubt.

The article you posted is revealing in the problem of it not being called enough. We already know IHC is potentially devastating. And the number of times it was called does seem low. Of course the "study" does not tell us how many situations arose in which it could have been called, or how many times the call was passed on because the viewing angle was bad, or the contact was not initiated with the helmet, or the variety of other reasons that you have been told about repeatedly here but refuse to accept why it may not be called.

Do I think IHC is probably not called enough? Absolutely. Do I think the majority of the video examples you have shown us do not rise to the level of it being called for a variety of reasons? Absolutely. You seem to continue with this rant of even if it's close it needs to be called. That's not the way any foul works. Sorry.

If we had 11 officials maybe we could get it called, I guess.

Huh?

Not if the only information they had was:
...the player who delivers the hit is dazed or someone's helmet comes off or he gets up wobbling and you are not sure that loud clack was helmet on helmet...

Restated, if the information you provided is the only information they have avaialable, it is unlikely any of the 11 officials would throw a flag.

BJ - Perhaps you should contact your local officials association and work some saturday youth games as an official.
You might just enjoy it...

I guess we'd need 22 officials then, each watching a single player. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure I've seen anyone disagree with your statement that "it's not called enough"...because it probably isn't. Some of us didn't think your examples didn't fit the bill as to what we believe is IHC...that's all. The fact that you are not an official yet seem more than credible enough to literally berate most of us with 10, 20, or even more years of experience because we don't see eye to eye on your examples is what got this started. I'm not sure anyone has thrown an excuse out as to why they may or may not call it either. Unless you KNOW you saw it, when and where you saw it...the flag stays put.

The 40 years of experience on the field and from the sidelines isn't what makes you the clown. The fact that you've slammed everyone here who didn't agree with your every word is. Your incredibly confrontational demeanor must pay big dividends on game day.

I do not say a word on game day unless I know there is a misapplication of the rules. I have learned that officials who are not going to call IHC are not going to call it and tell them on game night does not help the situation.
I do not try to show up officials on the field and I will not question calls during a game that are judgment calls.

I have not attacked any one person but I have proven that IHC doesn't get called very often yet I am a bad guy for saying it.

Actually you have not proven that either. Giving NCAA situations do not apply across the board and you have only shown a couple of YouTube videos that may or may not apply in the first place. I guess if I show a video of someone jumping out of a pool on the deck of the pool, I can say that everyone can do that because of what I saw? The only thing you have proven it that it is dangerous which was already well known.

Peace

So you have stats to show me that more IHCs are called in NF games?

No, your problem is you've formed an opinion on how and when this type of foul should be called and despite being shown by several experienced officials how that opinion is in error you continue to stick to your opinion and berate those with snide comments who don't agree with you.

I can tell you are a coach. You are only worried about the number, rather than if it is properly called.

And no John I do not have any specific stats of how much it is called, just like you had no evidence this happens all the time and is not ever called (you forgot that claim didn't you). And all I ever asked for was example from your games where this happens but is never called. You have shown nothing but YouTube videos which could come from anywhere and show no more than one play. But this is what you do, say things and never back them up. I should not have expected any less.

Peace

As demonstrated with
other rules, coaches are more
prone to react to penalties
that are called. For example,
if multiple violations such as
offside or holding occur
during the game, those will
generally be addressed by
the coaching staff the
following week to correct
those mistakes and hopefully
prevent them from occurring
again. However, it is human
nature not to address issues
that may not be brought to
our attention. When headdown
contact and spearing
fouls are not enforced and
addressed, student athletes
develop poor habits in
blocking and tackling. If left
uncorrected, those actions
may lead to potentially
serious injuries.


As R Courson said in the article.


This has been my point all along but I have no idea what I am talking about or back up what I say.

OK, now we must agree because someone wrote it in an article. I know I have called IHC and no one ever said anything to me about calling it when I threw the flag. As I have said before, when I have called it, I took more grief for the call rather than a pat on the back. So what part of this little statement applies to my experiences? And when I was a WH, I remember multiple times this was called and my crew came to me. I do not recall that coaches were calling for this to be called and then there was a flag. Even penalties like encroachment and holding is called all the time without a coach saying anything. As a matter of fact I remember a coach going nuts in a semi-final playoff game when the first holding call was made in the second half against his team. So this little comment does not hold any water outside of a personal opinion. It does not prove anything is or is not called. It does not make him an expert on what everyone has been calling. It is an opinion. Not that I completely disagree with the opinion, but it is not an across the board application.

But then again, BJ you have officiated before. So you are intimately aware of the process that an official goes through to make calls. After all, you have sat on the sidelines for several years as a coach. I guess I can fly a plane because I have been on many flights in my lifetime too (yeah right). :rolleyes:

Peace

So is R Courson's and Big John's entire point that these players who "develop poor habits in blocking and tackling" are doing so because they have not been penalized?

A reasonable person might conclude that these players "develop poor habits in blocking and tackling" simply because they have been poorly coached!

Both are guilty and need to do better. No doubt about that.

No KWH, BJ made a claim in this entire discussion (on two different websites) that he had a kid that would stop committing IHC but he could not get his player to stop because. He only kept this player in the game to "protect" his QB and did not ever teach the kid not to commit an "obvious" foul in BJ's mind. Then he put it all on the officials for not throwing flags on the kid. Now I would not be surprised if there is some truth to this story, but if he is the coach and he is knowingly playing a kid that is committing a dangerous act, but does not take action like take the kid out of the game or teach better technique, I find that outrageous. Especially when the kid that is likely going to get hurt the most, is the kid committing the illegal act. But this is the logic of BJ and how officials are all at fault.

Peace

and I subsequently through my head coach under the bus. I told him we should not play the kid because he was a danger to himself. I have other assistant coaches that would vouch for me here. He said it was his call and he would take the heat. That part is 100% true.

1 kid in 25 years. and that is what is being rehashed.

This was the claim you made, no one brought this up but you. If you felt that strongly about it, you should have retired in protest. I guess the kid's safety was not that important (whether he could walk or function on his own), but protecting a QB was more important.

Peace

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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

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

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. :D

Peace

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

I do

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

the NCAA changed the
spearing rule effective for the
2005 football season. The
word “intent” was removed
from the rule. In reviewing
statistics from the season
following the rule change,
there was essentially no
change in enforcement in
collegiate football. According
to the 2005 NCAA Football
Consolidated Foul Reports,
21 total spearing calls were
made and 21 calls for
butting, ramming with the
helmet.

So this article is incorrect?
http://admin.xosn.com/attachments1/4...DB_OEM_ID=8800

Some causes are worth tilting Windmills!

Catastrophic cervical spine
and close-head injuries are
among the most devastating
injuries in all of sports. The
primary mechanism for those
injuries in football is axial
loading, which occurs when
contact is made with the
crown or the top of the helmet.
Whether that occurs
intentionally or
unintentionally, the axial load
mechanism or spearing
significantly increases the risks
of both permanent cervical
spine injuries as well as closehead
injury.

You realize this makes no sense, right? What does it meant to call a cause a "windmill"?

"Here is when I see butt blocking. Traps, guards run down the line and hit defensive players with the front of their helmets and drive their mask into them, often. I had a kid that did it so bad his helmet looked like it had stripes on it. Couldn't get him to stop, because it was NEVER called."


"Yeah, it was all my fault and I should not have played him. I just could not place my QB in that kind of danger. Had I had anyone else to play the kid's position, that could pass block, I would have done exactly what you say. The kids know it does not get called so they hit with their helmet."

"I pull a kid like that and then the parents come in and want to know why. I say, he is using his helmet illegally."





And apparently, some are not. :rolleyes: