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!