Good Block or penalty?

[bigjohn]

The helmet has to strike first or be used as a punishing tool in order to have a foul. If a shoulder hits and then there is some contact with a helmet after that, that is not a foul by definition.

There in lies the problem Rut. It is not about the punishing tool. That thinking is out, it is about protecting the blockers and tacklers.

[bigjohn]

I have no DVD player on this machine at home, that is my excuse. I know how just not going to add a dvd to this machine I am on. I do that stuff at work.

[TXMike]

The NCAA rule definitely requires intent. "No player shall initiate contact and TARGET an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

The helmet has to strike first or be used as a punishing tool in order to have a foul. If a shoulder hits and then there is some contact with a helmet after that, that is not a foul by definition.

There in lies the problem Rut. It is not about the punishing tool. That thinking is out, it is about protecting the blockers and tacklers.

As I said before John, there is an easily solution. Either change the current rules, change the number of officials that should be required to work a football game considering how dangerous you consider football to be. Or you could advocate kids not playing football at all. Then you will solve the problem. Then again, that would be too drastic right?

Peace

[bigjohn]

Or change the old school thinking (punishing tool) that keeps officials from calling the IHC as it is meant to be called, now. According to all the publications(NFHS official ones included) it is about the safety of the blocker/tackler but old school thinking is "I have no foul unless it is intentional spearing". That is what needs to change!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Or change the old school thinking (punishing tool) that keeps officials from calling the IHC as it is meant to be called, now. According to all the publications(NFHS official ones included) it is about the safety of the blocker/tackler but old school thinking is "I have no foul unless it is intentional spearing". That is what needs to change!

John, the rule changed. No one is saying it must be intentional. You have not been reading responses. What people have said it must be there and contacting a shoulder in one of your examples does not meet the definition of a foul. And yes, it must be there or if that is not the case, how would you like me to call a holding call that I do not see because of what I think took place? I bet that would not go over well either. You and other coaches cannot have it both ways.

Peace

[bigjohn]

You just said it has to be a punishing tool. All the new thoughts on IHC deal with the the blocker/tackler making a concerted effort to keep the helmet out of the hit. No one wants to call it that way though. I see very clearly what needs to change!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

You just said it has to be a punishing tool. All the new thoughts on IHC deal with the the blocker/tackler making a concerted effort to keep the helmet out of the hit. No one wants to call it that way though. I see very clearly what needs to change!

Yes it has to be used as a punishing tool and the contact has to be initiated by the helmet or by definition you do not have a foul. All contact with helmets is not illegal and never was intended to be. And if you do not like it, too bad for you. Unless it changes that is the way it is. And you still have not changed the rule with all this whining and complaining. The rule is still the same and this year the issue was not a POE either. I guess nothing is going your way.

Peace

[bigjohn]

I did not say it was a POE this year. I said it seems like it is every year. You have made it clear that no matter how many interpretations are made you are not going to call it, except by the book. My case is closed.