The Official Forum
Page 4 of 14 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Good Block or penalty? (https://forum.officiating.com/football/54078-good-block-penalty.html)

bigjohn Sun Jul 26, 2009 07:09am
My stance is this. If done while tackling it is face tackling, whether the head is up or down. While blocking, it is butt blocking, head up or down. Spearing covers all other hits not included in Blocking or Tackling. The S&I supports me on this and it is a small thing but it may get IHC called more if all officials had the mind set that all helmet initiated contacts are fouls and all should be strictly called.

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

JRutledge Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 616872)
My stance is this. If done while tackling it is face tackling, whether the head is up or down. While blocking, it is butt blocking, head up or down. Spearing covers all other hits not included in Blocking or Tackling. The S&I supports me on this and it is a small thing but it may get IHC called more if all officials had the mind set that all helmet initiated contacts are fouls and all should be strictly called.

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
Actually the S&I book does not support you at all in the example that you showed and some would say the rulebook says something else (which is ultimately the definition we go by). The example you showed could only be a spear if you judge that there was contact with the helmet first. But if there is contact with the shoulder, then spearing is not a likely possibility.

You keep saying it over and over again and I think you believe that the more you say it will become true, but that is not how it works. That being said, the actual definition is irrelevant because face tackling, butt blocking and spearing are all the same thing in the penalty spectrum. And you cannot Butt Block a ball carrier (but you keep saying it can).

Peace

bigjohn Sun Jul 26, 2009 08:25pm
I have never said you could butt block a ball carrier. I said you could face tackle him.

Now you are making stuff up.

JRutledge Sun Jul 26, 2009 09:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 616977)
I have never said you could butt block a ball carrier. I said you could face tackle him.

Now you are making stuff up.
Face tackling involves the face (You know the thing where your nose and mouth and eyes are located, not the top of the head).

Peace

bigjohn Mon Jul 27, 2009 07:20am
and butt blocking the butt? How can you tell the difference?

JRutledge Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 617044)
and butt blocking the butt? How can you tell the difference?
Every time you say something........I will leave that alone. ;)

Peace

FredFan7 Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:51pm
I've got nothing.

bigjohn Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:36pm
helmet to earhole is not IHC? AMAZING STUFF!

JRutledge Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 617177)
helmet to earhole is not IHC? AMAZING STUFF!
No, if it is not the first contact. No if there is contact with the shoulder first. You obviously do not know what IHC is. Just like there is not going to be a horse collar foul if a player is not dragged to the ground based on interpretations. The next thing you are going to say that any contact between helmets is a foul.

Peace

TXMike Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:42pm
Perhaps this is a case of YOU seeing what YOU want tosee cause there are others who do NOT see that action here

umpirebob71 Mon Jul 27, 2009 02:48pm
Guys, he does this nonsense on other forums, as well. Whines and cries like a six year-old child when it doen't get its way. Your act is getting old, bigjohn. Time to retire it.

bigjohn Mon Jul 27, 2009 03:14pm
anyone that looks at that clip and doesn't think the kid led with his head should retire.

it doesn't say a thing about first in this description of butt blocking.

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

Mike L Mon Jul 27, 2009 03:30pm
John,
the problem is NOT that many officials here fail to acknowledge what is IHC and the importance of calling it. We are all pretty much in agreement on that.
What is the problem is the videos you've submitted do NOT meet that standard in our eyes. We get it that in your eyes it's clear. But from our view, it must be a clear no doubt about it foul. The contact must be initiated by the helmet. Not that he simply drops his head, not what we think he intended to do, not what probably happened. It's what we can clearly, and that's CLEARLY, see.
Perhaps you might consider since you are in the very small minority here that the problem is not what we are failing to see but what you are imagining to see.

mbyron Mon Jul 27, 2009 04:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn (Post 617195)
it doesn't say a thing about first in this description of butt blocking.
You're not interpreting the definition of IHC correctly, as everyone else has said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2009 NFHS Football Case Book
2.20.1 SITUATION A: From a four-point stance on the offensive line, interior
lineman A1: (a) initially contacts an opponent by driving his face mask directly
into the opponent’s chest who is not the ball carrier; or (b) contacts an opponent
with his shoulder so that his head is to the side of the opponent’s body and the
helmet does not make initial contact; or (c) attempts to block an opponent with a
shoulder, but because of a defensive slant, primary contact with the opponent is
made with A1’s helmet. RULING: The block in (a) is illegal butt blocking. In (b),
even though there was some contact with the helmet, the block is legal because
the helmet or face mask was not used to deliver the blow. In (c), the covering official
will have to judge whether or not it is a foul. Because of defensive slants and
stunts, there will be instances in which the blocker attempts to make a legal
shoulder block, but inadvertently contacts an opponent with either his face mask
or helmet. When this is the case, contact does not result in a direct blow and is
legal. (9-4-3i)
In the clip you posted, everyone else seems to agree that the initial contact was not with the helmet. Thus, no foul.

It's not that difficult.

bigjohn Mon Jul 27, 2009 04:41pm
This is directly from the 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


So you are saying casebook trumps S&I?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04pm.
Page 4 of 14 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1