Good Block or penalty?
 

High (but not too high) and on the side. No foul

Looks good to me. Head in front, didn't touch the player's back. What would the foul be?

it is Butt Blocking as defined by the rules book, casebook and S & I. The helmet was the initial contact. Can't you hear it?

You can't flag a sound. Looks like he hit pads to me.

No but I can see the blockers helmet hit the defender in the earhole.

NFHS Forum: Good Block or Penalty?

The blocker does not seem to have made any effort to initiate contact below the shoulders as he was clearly targeting his opponents head, and it does appear that the initial contact was made with his head, to his oppnents head. From the angle shown on the film, It appears to have deserved a flag ESPECIALLY at the Pop Warner level.

"Hear it" ???? Where in the world did you ever learn to make a call that way?

Maybe some of you have better quality computers and or connections and you are seeing detail I do not see but I do not see the helmets contact intentionally or unintentionally.

intent doesn't matter and it only matters that the blocker is initiating the contact with his helmet.

"Well coach, if it happened like you saw it then it was a foul and a missed call. I can just tell you I did not see it that way"

Maybe he learned this from basketball coaches. After all they want us to make calls too based on what we hear. :rolleyes:

Peace

OK. There is a sound of something contacting something. But we don't base our calls on sound, our calls are based upon light that travels must faster than sound.

So, I did not SEE where exactly the player's helmet hit, therefore, no call.

Legalish
 

The hit looks legal.

At the moment of impact the contact was legal. BUT
Just before contact you can see the blocker lower his head almost into 'ram' mode. And his 'initial charge' would have been illegal helmet contact.

With the possible injuries that can occur, I would have no problem erring on the side of safety and flagging this one for illegal helmet contact at the sub-varsity.

But like I said, it looked technically legal.

and you could tell where he got hit by his feet flying out from under him and his head snapping back as he was hit?

The only way to knock him off his feet that way is a sharp hit to the head. The blockers arms were to low for that to be true. Watch the kid fly off his feet and you can tell he was earholed.

The point is it doesn't matter where his helmet hit the defender, just that he lead with his head, no doubt that is what happened.

OK, how about this one?

YouTube - KNOCK OUT BLOCK!!!

bigjohn couldn't get anyone to agree with him on the Fed board so he's bringing it up over here. According to him, buttblocking happens all the time.


2009 Fed Case book cite
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)

Of course, the title should be "Good Block or foul?" A Penalty is punishment for a foul. Players commit fouls, not penalties.

Having said that, there is no foul in the video. It was shoulder-first from the side.

Also legal. shoulder first, head was in front [I know that's coach-speak and had noting to do with anything but it describes it]

These are all helmet first contact. You guys can not be serious!

First one, it looks to me as though the initial contact was helmet to helmet, and intentional at that. Granted, it's not the best angle. And not to put words in bigjohns mouth, but I don't think he was suggesting that you'd make a call on the field based (solely) on SOUND. rather, that when discussing a close play on video, you could use the sound to help formulate an opinion of what exactly the video shows.

Second one, good clean block all the way, imo.

ADD: based only what we've seen, I'd flag the first one. Not the second one.

Chowder, you seem like a reasonable man. In the second one there is a nice shoulder block but the blocker hits the kid head on head first. You can not disregard that part of the contact. INITIAL CONTACT is what IHC is all about!


ART. 1 . . . Illegal helmet contact is an act of initiating contact with the helmet
against an opponent. There are several types of illegal helmet contact:
a. Butt Blocking is an act by an offensive or defensive player who initiates
contact against an opponent who is not a ball carrier with the front of his
helmet.
b. Face Tackling is an act by a defensive player who initiates contact with a
ball carrier with the front of his helmet.
c. Spearing is an act by an offensive or defensive player who initiates contact
against any opponent with the top of his helmet

We need to hook BJ up with KB.

Both spin words to make their argument. Both are never wrong.

One poster on the FED board put in right....

"It doesn't matter what you think"....... don't feed the troll........

Nothing. Absolutely nothing but a de-cleating.

Yup. Shoulder to shoulder. Good block.

I suspect you may already be aware of this, but just in case; a basic principle of officiating is unless an official is absolutely sure a foul has been committed, he should NOT throw a flag. That principle will not guarantee perfection, but it does help to insure level and equally applied judgment, which is all that should be expected.

Any suggestion that two plays, whether they be in the same game by the same player on the same team, are the same is simply a flawed observation.

Football plays are snowflakes, a lot of them look similar but no 2 are exactly alike. Bang-Bang plays can produce different judgments, even when viewed from vantage points only steps apart. The powers that be found it necessary to establish one level of judgment above all others and, rightly or wrongly, have decreed that the game official's judgment shall prevail over all other assessments.

In the case of spearing/butt blocking/face tackling, etc. I think the normal philosophy of not calling a foul unless your 100% is a key part of the problem that the NFL, NCAA and NFHS have with these calls not being made.
For the spear, etc. we really need to look at it in the opposite way - unless we're 100% sure it's legal, we should throw the flag. The failure to penalize these hits is so great (death or paralysis) that we can't wait until it's a textbook case with a perfect angle before we call it. If we let these go because we're not 100% sure, then the kid will try it again and again until we either call it or he breaks his neck. We'd be doing the players, coaches and parents a favor to be too quick with the flag rather than hold off.

I doubt that this approach is feasible in practice. There must be thousands of blocks every Friday night that are "almost" spearing or "might be" a butt block. And how many such injuries have you seen in your games?

I agree with the general principle of making calls to promote safety. But this seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.

The first one....picture quality is of such cr@p at the pt of impact I can't be sure where the initial contact is, and if I can't be sure I can't throw a flag.

The second one....nice block. Yeah maybe he dropped his head on the way in but the illegal contact rule requires intial contact with the helmet, which doesn't happen here.

The reason the practice is to "be sure before you throw a flag" is because guessing (assuming, almost, might be) ultimately creates chaos. We have to trust each other, that we are each mature enough to realize the seriousness of certain fouls and to set our standards appropriately. However, wherever we set our standard, the one absolute must be certainty about what we see before we take action.

It's not a question about being too slow or too fast. It's a matter of being sure and being willing to accept any and all criticism for doing what we know is right.

Actually, I see very, very few in my games that come anywhere close to being illegal. Maybe I've been lucky, but I do think the fouls are rare which is why we seldom have those injuries. But I've also seen some clips of really nasty hits (usually labeled as "great" or "awesome" on Youtube) from NCAA games especially that are well covered by an official, but missed. OK, why are these missed? The coverage is there, the officials are well trained and presumably competent, yet they don't call the foul. What's the problem? I think it's the philosophy of we need to be 100% sure it's a foul before we throw. That philosophy works great on other calls, but not for a spear.

How about this? Good tackle? No foul?

YouTube - Football: RB knocked out

Looks like the runner ducked reacting to the defensive player. No foul.

I wonder how many calls I've made in my career where I have had the luxury of absolute 100% certainty. Players are moving, I'm moving and the action is fast so there is some degree of uncertainty in most calls. My suggestion is not that we abandon that philosophy for all fouls, and not even for some safety related fouls (clips, block in the back, etc.), but only for spears and other helmet contact. I think that we are too cautious in calling those, and since the consequences are so serious, we are doing the players a disservice by doing so. I don't think being less lenient on these calls will lead to chaos, and I don't advocate guessing, but I do think we need to be more aggressive in calling them. If it were my son playing, I'd rather an official flag him for a potentially dangerous hit and be wrong in calling it than to let it go and have my son try it again later.

Jim, I agree with you on both philosophy and reasoning for why it might not be called when it should be.

Jim,

We cannot call what we think happen. We have to call what we know happen. And unless there is a better angle, I am not going to call what I think just took place. There are a lot of plays I was unsure about only to see tape back me up that I was right to not call something. We have to be careful by just calling something we think happens because we think someone might get hurt. Football is a violent game and there are a lot of ways to get hurt other than this type of contact. I have fortunately never seen a kid get hurt as a result of a helmet to helmet contact. I hope I never will, but I am not going to call a foul on a legal hit and the fear that someone is going to get hurt by that legal hit. That is not our job to protect players from all injuries in the game of football. The game is hard enough for us to take that responsibility and this coach in my opinion is putting too much responsibility on the calling of one foul.

Peace

Why not just talk about something more important, like pants?:p

This conversation reminds me of association meetings where we watch videos showing possible illegal blocks in the back and some people want to flag everything that isn't in front or clearly in the side. And I'll be the one there saying: "Was the block between the shoulder blades, yes or no? No? Then it's not a foul. Next."

And yet there will still be people saying it should be flagged cause it's close enough. And mentally I remind myself that should I need a sub for my crew to *not* call on those people.

I treat helmet contact very seriously. My crew ejected a player for spearing 5 years ago and we haven't worked that conference since. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. But I'm not going to make my standards for throwing a flag lesser. I have to see it and be sure of it before I flag it.

This is from page 117 of the 2006 S&I guide.

http://i31.tinypic.com/2eg709f.jpg

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.

If the Rule 2 definition was exactly the same as the S&I would Butt Blocking and Face Tackling be called more often?

It seems you are obsessed with arguing semantics and splitting hairs down beyond the eyelash level. I submit the reason more contacts with head are not called fouls is because they are not judged to be deliberate nor intentional and are simply perceived as being incidental contact produced by two people moving in opposite directions.

The 3 acts defined in NF: 2-20-1-a-c all require someone to "initiate" contact in an illegal way. You don't seem willing to accept the reality that officials are trained and taught to be "certain" a foul has been committed before declaring one. That is a workable, proper focus that has served this game well for over 100 years, and should not change.

The primary protection against such fouls being committed is in the teaching (coaching) of proper technique and attitude. The most effective tool in deterring such behavior is a coach who teaches technique properly and is willing to discipline players, who fail to follow instructions, by removing them from participation whether any foul is called, or not.

You guys should see the same argument he is making on the NFHS website. He is mostly arguing whether we are calling it face tackling or butt blocking as opposed to simply IHC, which has the same penalty no matter what you actually call the act. He even showed examples of video that could not be butt blocking, mainly because it was a tackle. Then he wanted to call another play face tackling when there was a block.

BJ sure brings some entertainment to these discussions.

Peace

Deliberate and intentional was removed from the IHC rules.

http://www.aiaonline.org/story/uploa...1138725781.pdf

The first block seems like a judgement call. If it looks to you like face tackling or butt blocking throw it. Hard to tell with the video but looks as if he hit him straight on with his shoulder first so I wouldn't have thrown it but would have reminded the kid to watch his blocking so he doesn't commit a IHC foul. I didn't see the helmet contact. The second block was just a good hit. Hit his left shoulder first. Good play on the offense.

John, we know. They changed the rule a few years ago. And even then I know I called it a few times when the words "intentional and deliberate" were in the rulebook. Then again you said it was never called either. :rolleyes:

My stance is this. If done while tackling it is face tackling, whether the head is up or down. While blocking, it is butt blocking, head up or down. Spearing covers all other hits not included in Blocking or Tackling. The S&I supports me on this and it is a small thing but it may get IHC called more if all officials had the mind set that all helmet initiated contacts are fouls and all should be strictly called.

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

Actually the S&I book does not support you at all in the example that you showed and some would say the rulebook says something else (which is ultimately the definition we go by). The example you showed could only be a spear if you judge that there was contact with the helmet first. But if there is contact with the shoulder, then spearing is not a likely possibility.

You keep saying it over and over again and I think you believe that the more you say it will become true, but that is not how it works. That being said, the actual definition is irrelevant because face tackling, butt blocking and spearing are all the same thing in the penalty spectrum. And you cannot Butt Block a ball carrier (but you keep saying it can).

Peace

I have never said you could butt block a ball carrier. I said you could face tackle him.

Now you are making stuff up.

Face tackling involves the face (You know the thing where your nose and mouth and eyes are located, not the top of the head).

Peace

and butt blocking the butt? How can you tell the difference?

Every time you say something........I will leave that alone. ;)

Peace

I've got nothing.

helmet to earhole is not IHC? AMAZING STUFF!

No, if it is not the first contact. No if there is contact with the shoulder first. You obviously do not know what IHC is. Just like there is not going to be a horse collar foul if a player is not dragged to the ground based on interpretations. The next thing you are going to say that any contact between helmets is a foul.

Peace

Perhaps this is a case of YOU seeing what YOU want tosee cause there are others who do NOT see that action here

Guys, he does this nonsense on other forums, as well. Whines and cries like a six year-old child when it doen't get its way. Your act is getting old, bigjohn. Time to retire it.

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

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.

You're not interpreting the definition of IHC correctly, as everyone else has said.

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.

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?

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.

YouTube - KNOCK OUT BLOCK!!!

This one is a clean block? or is this the one you agree is butt blocking

I got nuttin.

Here's one for ya, John. What do you think?

YouTube - The Greatest and Hardest Hit Ever

Absolutely.

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

I have to agree with Walt. When I watched this I saw the shoulders making contact first so this is a legal hit. It's hard to say what I would have seen in real time from the BJ or LJ position but I can see where someone would see PF in real time. On replay from this angle though I think the correct call is no call.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal.

you guys are nuts. It is slowed down for you and while the shoulders do make contact, the blocker clearly hits the defender with his helmet first, in the helmet.
This is very dangerous and should be flagged every single time.

IHC shall be strictly enforced, my behind.

Clearly? From that angle in that video? You, sir, are the one who's nuts.

What angle are you guys talking about the blocker, drops his head and delivers a blow to the defender's head then hits with his shoulder. UNBELIEVABLE!

What do you think spins him around to land on his butt? not the block to his shoulder.

If a player drops their shoulder, their head goes with them. And considering that most coaches teach players to get low on things like blocks or even running the ball, I do not see how dropping the head all of a sudden it a wrong thing. I never see a block where someone goes completely upright. How in the heck does someone block legally below the waist?

Yeah you are right. Only people that are spun around and land on their butt comes from an illegal block. :rolleyes: Of course the fact that he might not have seen the block coming has nothing to do with how he landed. Maybe if he saw him coming, he would have got out of the way. Do you actually coach football?

Peace

Sorry, but that's not how officials call illegal blocks: we don't infer that they must have happened based on the outcomes. We call them when we see them, and only when we see them (as you seem to be slow to learn).

No I have learned a lot from all this.

This statement essentially removes whatever credibility you had left.

How much football have you watched on film? If you have watched much at all you know that people can see the saem clip and sometimes see different things. Most of us do not see what you see. And my belief is that what you "see" is so far from what most "see" that you should examine why you are seeing something different. It goes back to a proven psychological/neurological concept that says people sometimes see things that are not there because issues inteernal to the viewer. I can give you some references/resources on this phenomenom if you are interested.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

You must did not see figure 3?

Peace

I see zero helmet contact in Fig 3. In the blocks I posted there was definitely helmet contact as well as shoulder contact.

That is all there is to it. We cannot call what we do not see.

John, I flag illegal helmet contact, when I see it. If IHC fouls were normally distributed amongst officials in this area, I suspect I call it on the higher end of the bell curve than many others but I still call only what I can clearly see.

Canadian Ruling
 

Definitely a flag!

If you look at it close enough, you will see the defender's head move well before his torso moves.

This is because the blocker blocks his opponent by making helmet to helmet contact before any contact happens to the blockee's torso.

CANADIAN RULING:

INT with clean hands. Ball was at the A-30 when the illegal block happened. Therefore, Team B 1D/10 @ A-45.

If the shoulder contact is first (and honestly you will never totally eliminate any helmet contact) then it is not illegal.

It is interesting that you have tried to show a study, which is interesting, but not relevant. If everyone was really interested in player safety, you would across the board advocate hiring more officials to work games and not pay the chain crew more than you do the game officials on any given night (an issue in our area). You claim that officials do not call anything, but you probably have never advocated for more officials on a particular game. And in these clips you have shown, I bet there were no more than 5 officials at one time on those games (and likely fewer). But guys like you that are so worried about coach's safety, probably never factor this in the equation in your remedy. Instead you just say that we do not call it or we do not care, but you put us in a situation where it is harder automatically to cover the game. And this is why the angle of the video is important, because this few at best would have been from a deep wing. A deep wing likely would have not seen the play any different than most of us, but if the other officials knew they had other areas of the field covered, they would maybe see this play better and make a call if they could. I bet that has never crossed your mind or and it is certainly something you have not said. It is one thing to claim something is wrong, it is another thing to find a solution. And if so many officials based on their actual game experience (something you do not have) are telling you they do not see a foul, then you need to do more to advocate more experienced officials on the field if your main concern is player safety. What this tells me that you have likely done none of this, you are not really concerned with that issue, and you just want us to do your job for you. You have even stated earlier that you could not get a kid of yours to stop doing something because the officials were not calling him for IHC, but you knowing sent this kid out to commit illegal acts and you sat by and did nothing. And the player that usually gets hurt, is the player that is using their helmet (which was the case in Figure 2, from the kid from Ole Miss and not only was in a wheel chair, but later died to complications of his football injury). The player that got hit was fine. It just illustrates that you are full of hot air like many coaches that complain about what is not called. You have at your disposal a lot of tools to change the system but you choose not to.

Peace

yeah, it is my fault it doesn't get called the way it is supposed to be called, I know.

No one said it was your fault. But if you are really, really, really concerned with player safety, you would stop trying to just point a finger; you would do something to change it. Showing us guidelines from a state than you are not from and most of us are not from does nothing to make players safe. That is really the case when everyone does not follow those guidelines and does not change the number of calls. Remember, most officials in this country are not reading your post (and still most officials here disagree with your judgment on this play) which you claim they do not call. Obviously the ball is in your court if you truly are concerned about player's safety. Better yet, just tell kids to stop playing football. That would be the best thing to do. After all you cannot stop them from committing illegal acts and the officials are not going to change their position just by what you posted.

Peace

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.