Good Block or penalty?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

In the case of spearing/butt blocking/face tackling, etc. I think the normal philosophy of not calling a foul unless your 100% is a key part of the problem that the NFL, NCAA and NFHS have with these calls not being made.
For the spear, etc. we really need to look at it in the opposite way - unless we're 100% sure it's legal, we should throw the flag. The failure to penalize these hits is so great (death or paralysis) that we can't wait until it's a textbook case with a perfect angle before we call it. If we let these go because we're not 100% sure, then the kid will try it again and again until we either call it or he breaks his neck. We'd be doing the players, coaches and parents a favor to be too quick with the flag rather than hold off.

The reason the practice is to "be sure before you throw a flag" is because guessing (assuming, almost, might be) ultimately creates chaos. We have to trust each other, that we are each mature enough to realize the seriousness of certain fouls and to set our standards appropriately. However, wherever we set our standard, the one absolute must be certainty about what we see before we take action.

It's not a question about being too slow or too fast. It's a matter of being sure and being willing to accept any and all criticism for doing what we know is right.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I doubt that this approach is feasible in practice. There must be thousands of blocks every Friday night that are "almost" spearing or "might be" a butt block. And how many such injuries have you seen in your games?

I agree with the general principle of making calls to promote safety. But this seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

Actually, I see very, very few in my games that come anywhere close to being illegal. Maybe I've been lucky, but I do think the fouls are rare which is why we seldom have those injuries. But I've also seen some clips of really nasty hits (usually labeled as "great" or "awesome" on Youtube) from NCAA games especially that are well covered by an official, but missed. OK, why are these missed? The coverage is there, the officials are well trained and presumably competent, yet they don't call the foul. What's the problem? I think it's the philosophy of we need to be 100% sure it's a foul before we throw. That philosophy works great on other calls, but not for a spear.

[bigjohn]

How about this? Good tackle? No foul?

YouTube - Football: RB knocked out

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

How about this? Good tackle? No foul?

YouTube - Football: RB knocked out

Looks like the runner ducked reacting to the defensive player. No foul.

[Jim D.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The reason the practice is to "be sure before you throw a flag" is because guessing (assuming, almost, might be) ultimately creates chaos. We have to trust each other, that we are each mature enough to realize the seriousness of certain fouls and to set our standards appropriately. However, wherever we set our standard, the one absolute must be certainty about what we see before we take action.

It's not a question about being too slow or too fast. It's a matter of being sure and being willing to accept any and all criticism for doing what we know is right.

I wonder how many calls I've made in my career where I have had the luxury of absolute 100% certainty. Players are moving, I'm moving and the action is fast so there is some degree of uncertainty in most calls. My suggestion is not that we abandon that philosophy for all fouls, and not even for some safety related fouls (clips, block in the back, etc.), but only for spears and other helmet contact. I think that we are too cautious in calling those, and since the consequences are so serious, we are doing the players a disservice by doing so. I don't think being less lenient on these calls will lead to chaos, and I don't advocate guessing, but I do think we need to be more aggressive in calling them. If it were my son playing, I'd rather an official flag him for a potentially dangerous hit and be wrong in calling it than to let it go and have my son try it again later.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

I wonder how many calls I've made in my career where I have had the luxury of absolute 100% certainty. Players are moving, I'm moving and the action is fast so there is some degree of uncertainty in most calls. My suggestion is not that we abandon that philosophy for all fouls, and not even for some safety related fouls (clips, block in the back, etc.), but only for spears and other helmet contact. I think that we are too cautious in calling those, and since the consequences are so serious, we are doing the players a disservice by doing so. I don't think being less lenient on these calls will lead to chaos, and I don't advocate guessing, but I do think we need to be more aggressive in calling them. If it were my son playing, I'd rather an official flag him for a potentially dangerous hit and be wrong in calling it than to let it go and have my son try it again later.

Jim, I agree with you on both philosophy and reasoning for why it might not be called when it should be.

[JRutledge]

Jim,

We cannot call what we think happen. We have to call what we know happen. And unless there is a better angle, I am not going to call what I think just took place. There are a lot of plays I was unsure about only to see tape back me up that I was right to not call something. We have to be careful by just calling something we think happens because we think someone might get hurt. Football is a violent game and there are a lot of ways to get hurt other than this type of contact. I have fortunately never seen a kid get hurt as a result of a helmet to helmet contact. I hope I never will, but I am not going to call a foul on a legal hit and the fear that someone is going to get hurt by that legal hit. That is not our job to protect players from all injuries in the game of football. The game is hard enough for us to take that responsibility and this coach in my opinion is putting too much responsibility on the calling of one foul.

Peace

[bigjohn]

Why not just talk about something more important, like pants?

[Rich]

This conversation reminds me of association meetings where we watch videos showing possible illegal blocks in the back and some people want to flag everything that isn't in front or clearly in the side. And I'll be the one there saying: "Was the block between the shoulder blades, yes or no? No? Then it's not a foul. Next."

And yet there will still be people saying it should be flagged cause it's close enough. And mentally I remind myself that should I need a sub for my crew to *not* call on those people.

I treat helmet contact very seriously. My crew ejected a player for spearing 5 years ago and we haven't worked that conference since. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. But I'm not going to make my standards for throwing a flag lesser. I have to see it and be sure of it before I flag it.

[bigjohn]

This is from page 117 of the 2006 S&I guide.



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.

If the Rule 2 definition was exactly the same as the S&I would Butt Blocking and Face Tackling be called more often?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

If the Rule 2 definition was exactly the same as the S&I would Butt Blocking and Face Tackling be called more often?

It seems you are obsessed with arguing semantics and splitting hairs down beyond the eyelash level. I submit the reason more contacts with head are not called fouls is because they are not judged to be deliberate nor intentional and are simply perceived as being incidental contact produced by two people moving in opposite directions.

The 3 acts defined in NF: 2-20-1-a-c all require someone to "initiate" contact in an illegal way. You don't seem willing to accept the reality that officials are trained and taught to be "certain" a foul has been committed before declaring one. That is a workable, proper focus that has served this game well for over 100 years, and should not change.

The primary protection against such fouls being committed is in the teaching (coaching) of proper technique and attitude. The most effective tool in deterring such behavior is a coach who teaches technique properly and is willing to discipline players, who fail to follow instructions, by removing them from participation whether any foul is called, or not.

[JRutledge]

You guys should see the same argument he is making on the NFHS website. He is mostly arguing whether we are calling it face tackling or butt blocking as opposed to simply IHC, which has the same penalty no matter what you actually call the act. He even showed examples of video that could not be butt blocking, mainly because it was a tackle. Then he wanted to call another play face tackling when there was a block.

BJ sure brings some entertainment to these discussions.

Peace

[bigjohn]

Deliberate and intentional was removed from the IHC rules.

http://www.aiaonline.org/story/uploa...1138725781.pdf

[BGroovy]

The first block seems like a judgement call. If it looks to you like face tackling or butt blocking throw it. Hard to tell with the video but looks as if he hit him straight on with his shoulder first so I wouldn't have thrown it but would have reminded the kid to watch his blocking so he doesn't commit a IHC foul. I didn't see the helmet contact. The second block was just a good hit. Hit his left shoulder first. Good play on the offense.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Deliberate and intentional was removed from the IHC rules.

http://www.aiaonline.org/story/uploa...1138725781.pdf

John, we know. They changed the rule a few years ago. And even then I know I called it a few times when the words "intentional and deliberate" were in the rulebook. Then again you said it was never called either.