I love it when guys use a 7 or 8 year interpretation to justify any interpretation in today's terms.

Also no one is criticizing anyone for using the rules to make a decision. The issue is an interpretation which has been made by those since 2003. And considering the frequency of helmet contact of players and how this seems to be an issue, many might have been told to include this as apart of the call. If you can find a 2008 interpretation then maybe that would be reasonable. But a lot has happen since 2003 and again this might be what your local association wants you to do or not do. Always check with them first. This is only for discussion purposes in these types of situations.

Peace

I think you nailed it. If it wasn't roughing without the helmet to helmet contact then why is it roughing with it? If you tack on 15 to the end of a long run rather than applying the rule correctly then you've potentially put your thumbprint on the outcome of the game and I think it's our job to try and not do that as much as possible.

One call or interpretation affects the entire game? Really????

Peace

Tacking 15 yards onto a play when you're not supposed to affects the game rather strongly.

You did notice, didn't you, that I used the word "potentially". Late in the game, time running out and your wrong call places A into field goal range to win the game when they otherwise wouldn't have the ability certainly affects the entire game.

Well the player affected the outcome, not the officials. Again call it how you are instructed, we are instructed to include this in RTP. We have even had a discussion if what signal we should give and how that includes RTP signal if at all.

Peace

Maybe you are worried that you are going to get yelled at. But if a player spears a passer I am not concerned what is going to happen with the outcome of the game. And I will consider this RTP until we are told not to call it that way. That has been our interpretation for years.

Peace

If I'm gonna get yelled at I'd rather be right than wrong. Do what your interpretation says to do.

Despite the fact that there's actually a rule already telling us how to administer an illegal helmet contact penalty, and the actions don't fit the definition of RTP. Don't concern yourself that your ruling is wrong even if it affects the outcome of the game.

Seems you defer a lot of the strange un-rulebook-supported interpretations of yours on your local rules interpretor. I wonder if it's the messenger misunderstanding all of these rules, or if it's your interpretor. But SOMETHING is off there.

It's always been my understanding that the entire concept of "roughing the passer" is based on the fact that the passer is considered more vulnerable while in the passing mode, and to further discourage contact during this period of vulnerability a more serious penalty was associated with violations.

Contact with the passer during that protected period may, or may not, otherwise be contact deemed a foul underd different circumstances. Helmet to helmet contact against a runner is a personal foul, helmet to helmet contact against a passer is also a personal foul, but rises to the level of Roughing the Passer because of the increased vulnerability associated with passing.

If the contact occurs after the special protection intended for a passer expires, it would be a personal foul. If it occurs during that special protection status it's Roughing the Passer, which is a deliberate and intentional added level of penalty intended to disuade players from improperly contacting a passer while he is uniquely vulnerable.

It's really not our purpose to decide which penalty is more, or less, appropriate for a specific action, rather our role is to assess the appropriate penalty that fits the actual violation.

Being right depends on who you work for.

We have been told that we can give a RTP for all kinds of illegal hits if that is the passer. I think just only worrying about a late hit is a thing of the past as players do things to punish or hurt the passer. So if that is the IHC is the kind of hit on the passer, I have been told it is OK to have a penalty for this. And that is what I and others have been doing for years.

Peace

Mdcrowder,

For the record I am not just your average official. I am a state final official that happens to have 3 clinicians on our crew. That means that they not only interpret rules but have access to those that can decide what we do is official. My Referee has been a clinician in our state since the program started and happened to be the Official of the Year this past year in football. So if he asked our head guy what to do and he said that is what we do, I would rather do that than listen to some guy on this website on how to call something or not to call something.

I am also a three sport official. I happen to be a clinician in one of those sports. Worked a State Final in one of those other sports as well and one of the things is to be told how things are going to be handled while you are at the Finals. I have learned long time ago because of my association with the IHSA that if we want a ruling we go to our people. I had a friend that is a clinician in football just this year had an issue with a NF publication and asked for clarification. When he contacted the NF they told them to call your local interpreters and they would not give him an interpretation at all. Not the first time that has happen in either of my sports over the years as that is the common wisdom if you know people that have actually sat on the committee and what they tell us. And it is not unusual for my state or other states to take a stance on an issue even when the situation is in the Casebook or online with the NF. There is always a conflict with a rule and it needs clarification. Which is why my state took a stance on the horse-collar rule when the interpretations from the NF caused more confusion. Then the NF basically corrected the rule to what we were doing last year for this season, except for the specific foul language. We were still going to call a foul, just not a horse-collar if the runner did not have the ball anymore. And it came up several times over the years and everyone I know got the same interpretation.

And you live in Texas. Texas is not a NF state and does not have anyone that sits on the board or attends those meetings. So I guess maybe you would not know these things now would you? The rules are created by the NF but they will not give personal interpretations to anyone. This is why they ask you to contact your local people who have attended the NF meeting or decides this is how we will handle any number of situations. We do it often and as a clinician in my sport this is how we give out information. Again, do what works where you live, where we live this is RTP and we have asked for that clarification and were given such clarification. Maybe if you knew the right people you might figure out how the system actually works.

Peace

A fall guy is a must-have for people who are never wrong. ;)

How many times have you let a defender wrap up a passer and tackle him and not throw a flag or do you flag every hit on every passer regardless? If you don't have a flag on a hit on a passer then why not? What separates hits on passers that draw flags from hits that don't?

You're right that it's not our purpose to decide which is more or less... it's our purpose to rule on what actually occurred and penalize as we're told. You're advocating the opposite.

The difference here is that the hit occurred at some moment where it was LEGAL to hit the passer. But since there was HTH contact, we must penalize the HTH. We should not penalize more than HTH by calling this RTP. The foul does not fit the description of RTP. The ONLY illegal act by the defender was the HTH - and his team should be penalized accordingly. Anything else is putting your personal feelings of fairness ahead of the rulebook. If the rulesmakers wanted this to be penalized as RTP, they would have put it there.