Good Block or penalty?

[bigjohn]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

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.

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]

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

So you are saying casebook trumps S&I?

Absolutely.

[bigjohn]

and no flag, walt, Nuttin?

in the one I posted Walt the blocker leads with the head, and the initial contact is with the helmet. How is it not IHC?

You guys are not serious are you?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

and no flag, walt, Nuttin?

in the one I posted Walt the blocker leads with the head, and the initial contact is with the helmet. How is it not IHC?

You guys are not serious are you?

Leading with the head means contact with the head. Not how you duck to hit someone. If that was the case, then all helmet contact would be illegal.

And it is not IHC for the hundredth time because the angles you show do not confirm there was helmet contact. You can keep saying it that there should be a foul, but as I have said before you have never had to make a call in your life. You are a coach not an official, which means it is easy to look at tape, but the angle is not a great angle. And the official in one of the plays was on top of the play and he passed. So yes, we are serious.

Peace

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

and no flag, walt, Nuttin?

Legal hit, John. The overwhelming majority agree with my assessment. I don't say that to pat myself on the back, simply to point out that we, as officials, sit through interpretation meetings and film sessions and are continually told what is and isn't legal. We've been instructed, nay, trained, to rule this a legal hit.

[bigjohn]

Then there should not be rules agains helmet contact at all then. It does not get called and is not being called on hits that cause concussions and injuries. Leading with the helmet is illegal by rule but not called. It is wrong in my opinion.

This is an NCAA survey but interesting.

http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/Coll...eyResults2.pdf

[parepat]

First, thanks to BigJohn for posting the links. It is just these types of close calls and the discussion about them that is helpful about this and other sites.

However, it seems that all too often when folks disagree the discussion breaks down to personal assualts and childish criticisms. I don't get it. That is the sole reason I don't go on NFHS much. Takes the fun out of it.

That being said, I think the first two plays involved clean blocks and I would have a foul for face tackling in the third.