Good Block or penalty?

[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

[bigjohn]

http://www.iahsaa.org/resource_cente...n_Football.pdf

Read the section on blocking and tackling. I don't see those hits I have posted and falling under the recommended and LEGAL techniques.

[bigjohn]

http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/PositionStatement.pdf

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

http://www.jonheck.com/Articles/PositionStatement.pdf

You must did not see figure 3?

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

http://www.iahsaa.org/resource_cente...n_Football.pdf

Read the section on blocking and tackling. I don't see those hits I have posted and falling under the recommended and LEGAL techniques.

I must be missing something. Are you from Iowa? Many of us here are not from Iowa either. Who cares what Iowa says other than those that officiate and coach and play in Iowa. These are not guidelines that everyone necessarily follows and I am sure the people in Iowa have more to say on these things than just the references you gave.

Peace

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Then there should not be rules against 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.

The rule is in place for player safety, as you suggest. But football is a contact sport: players get injured all the time on legal hits, most of which have nothing to do with helmet contact, legal or illegal. The rules and the traditions of enforcement aim to compromise between safety and the thrill of the game.

Your opinion seems to be that the current practices of enforcement err on the side of thrill. Most coaches and players with whom I've spoken about safety rules take the opposite view, and regard those rules as overkill. NFHS will continue to tinker with the rules in pursuit of that compromise as they gather data about the way the game is played and the injuries that are most common.

It's one thing to argue that the IHC rule is not as stringent as it should be. It's another to argue that officials aren't enforcing the rule correctly. You're entitled to your opinion about the former (and some might agree with you); you seem to be mistaken about the latter.