Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than just getting it called more which would cause fewer kids to do it. Great Idea Rut, just abolish football. Why do you think the Ohio State Patrol hands out speeding tickets, Rut. So people will slow down. I bet they even do that in Illinois.

In the end it saves lives!

Wait a minute; you said that you could not get your own player to stop committing this penalty (IHC) and some reason a flag was going to influence his behavior so much, that he would completely change. So a person that is only going to be around a kid for a couple of hours, has more influence than a coach that not only sees the kid every day, but has control over the kid's playing time and even ability to be on the team, but some stranger's flag is going to change this kid's attitude.

Now you have yet to get many officials that feel the examples you have shown are black and white. And people have even qualified their statement by saying "From the angle....." But you obviously do not have little understanding of video review, because even when you show a video in a room full of people, it is not unusual that everyone is not going to agree. And showing a study just illustrates that either you need more than simply flags to change the problem. Anyone that has a brain would realize you need to do more than one thing to solve a serious problem. But then again, I am not dealing with a person that uses logic. I gave you solutions and if the situation is that dire, then you need to do more than put your hopes on a little piece of cloth coming out. Even speeding tickets do not change people's total behavior. Sometimes you have to suspend or revoke someone's license. And the several times I called it, I had a coach claim it should not have been called. And in at least one case the coach told the player to keep doing what they were doing. Now who is ultimately responsible then? You are right, the official who can pull the kid off the field without a penalty (which we cannot do).

Peace

IHC can be an ejection anytime! I spoke of one kid that used his helmet to block. I think if the IHC fouls were called strictly as the NFHS has suggested then there would be fewer almost and possible helmet contacts. I guess you don't. I will not change my stance as I am sure you won't either.

So if it does not take place, we can eject too? I wonder how they will go over. “I ejected a player for attempting to spear, but he completely missed.” I will have to keep that in mind next time. Do you have a rules reference for that kind of action to support me on this one?

I have said this before; I have seen many players attempt to spear, only to miss. Do you think I have the authority then to eject?

Why not take responsibility that you were worried more about another player and you help promote the illegal behavior of another player by playing him no matter how illegal his technique was in your mind? At some point you are going to have to put your money where your mouth is.

Peace

You seem to be stuck on one kid I have coached in 25 years. One Kid. and we were so thin I didn't have much choice but.... to your question. You can eject a player for swinging a fist if it doesn't connect can't you? or a kick that doesn't land?

John I have been in enough situations where no problem is solved with only one solution. And you have not come up with any other solution but this thought that the magic flag solves all problems. Man, I really wish I was the President of the United States, then I could just throw a flag and the banking issues would be solved, the real estate issues would be solved, and the Health Care issue would be all solved, because those things only have issue keeping them from being functional.

And I am sure every ejection will be taken with no appeal or complaining and will be accepted with little or no fan fare. You know, like holding and passing interference are so widely accepted. Maybe I have missed what NFL Films shows when a call goes against the team.

Peace

John,
I think your problem is you are conducting your crusade in the wrong spot. Everyone here agrees IHC is a problem and needs to be called. We really don't need studies showing us the potential for danger, or some therapists opinion it's dangerous and all the other stuff you keep bringing up. We get it already.
Unfortunately, from what appears to be your point of view, it's not being called enough. And why is that? Probably because you don't agree with the general officiating philosophy that a foul, any foul, must be big, obvious, and no doubt about it before the flag flies. The great majority of the officials here, upon viewing your video examples, lean toward "no call" because the videos don't meet that standard. Yes, they are bad hits. Yes, in some of the examples the player was injured. But the angle, or video quality, or where we see the initial contact does not bring them to the level of being called. Like others have said, we can only call what we can see.
So, if you want to change that philosophy of when the flag flies, if for IHC you want it changed to anything that comes close to initiating contact with the helmet, you really need to start with your local assoc, perhaps your state rules interpretor, and eventually the NFHS itself. Until then, you are not going to convince anyone here to go against what and how their assoc is instructing them to do things.

What is your source for this statement? My perception is that the majority here are calling it as NFHS has suggested, and that you are proposing something different from their suggestion.

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

If you're going by the S & I guide, please remember that this guide is simply a study tool, and not the official manual or handbook.

MB, do you have a 2009-2010 NFHS Football Handbook?


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. The
penalty for spearing, butt blocking and face tackling is 15 yards. If any of these
illegal helmet-contact fouls is judged to be flagrant, the offender must also be
disqualified. Coaches must not teach the use of the helmet in blocking and
tackling and officials must penalize the act. There can be no compromise on this
issue. Coaches must do everything possible to discourage any use of the helmet
except as a protective piece of equipment for each player’s head.
The helmet is designed to protect the player from head injuries,

Read pages 69-73



and before someone posts it I know I am guilty too.

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.


I am not the head coach and I did not make the call on the kid I had that did this. I advised the head coach more than once that I would not be held accountable for his injury. he (HC) would.

As players continue to get physically larger, stronger and faster and as the
forces generated at contact continue to increase, proper head position and the
use of the shoulders and arms in blocking and tackling become even more
important. The NFHS Football Rules Committee urges everyone connected with
the game to continue their sincere, diligent efforts to enforce strict rules opposing
the use of the helmet as the primary point of contact or to abuse an opponent.

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.