For the record, I know who you are. And for the record, I TOLD you I'd get resume whipped vs you actually answering the question. You did last longer than I expected though before pulling this out.

You must not know who I am or who I work with. If you did then you would know it does not take us long to get an answer on a ruling and it did not take us long to get one on this play. Really do not care what you do, just told you what we do. Again, rulings come from your local people, not some guy on the board that has a fake name I will never meet in person.

Peace

I completely agree.

Peace

First, I want to thank everyone for adding their helpful comments to this discussion thread. I have learned a lot about the rules and how local interpretations can vary.

I did some more research and thought I would share it with everyone. Earlier this year, I picked up a book titled "Football Rule Differences 2010" by Whiteside, Demetriou and Stern. I am sure most of you have seen some version of this guide.

The discussion of Rule 7, paragraph 22 (page 169) deals with this exact question and offers additional insight. In the section dealing with NFHS it says, "Personal fouls against a passer that occur before it was obvious the pass was thrown are penalized as personal fouls and not roughing (2003 interp, Sit 3).

The next section on NCAA rules goes on to say, "Personal fouls against a passer that occur before it was obvious the pass was thrown are penalized as roughing (9-1-21 Ex, interp).

So it is interesting that officials in TX that use NCAA rules (I believe) are declining to call the OP as RTP and officials in IL that use NFHS are calling the same play as RTP. It leads to the acknowledgement that this issue is anything but clear cut and that an official's best judgement should be used. In the end, I feel there was justification for my call as RTP and I'll move on to the next challenging play.

Thanks again.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Spearing is a UR foul, 15 + AFD.

If you're calling leading with the helmet, then signal as such.

I've not heard of this book, but wonder where they are getting this. 9-1-21 doesn't exist. 9-1-2-XXI has to do with a back blocking below the waist. Can't find any other 21 at all. 9-1-2-1 is also irrelevant. What rule or interp was this referring to. I've reread the section earlier in this thread, and re-read it again now to make sure I didn't miss anything. I see nothing similar to what is said above. Anyone?

For the record Paul Whiteside is a Hall of Famer in an organization that I belong to in Illinois. ;)

And I work college ball and this is clearly the interpretation under all those that deal with NCAA rules to call any number of actions that are not necessarily late hits to rule as roughing.

I am also very familiar with the book and have read it in the past. I should have bought a copy this year as I am working more college to clear this up. But then again something tells me certain people would say that people did not know the rules even if they have an opinion on this issue. Oh well, what else is new.

Peace

My previous posting should have referenced 9-1-2L Ex. It looked like a one. My apologies for the confusion.

Thanks.

9-1-2 L says "No defensive player shall charge into a passer or throw him to the ground when it is obvious the ball has been thrown. This is roughing the passer. The penalty is added to the end of the last run when it ends beyond the neutral zone, and there is no change of team possession during the down."

Nowhere does this even mention fouls before the ball is thrown or before it's obvious the ball has been thrown. None of the AR's under 9-1-2 do either.

I fail to see where the authors made this connection.

It is called an interpretation, which you read in casebooks, websites and local associations all the time. The casebook alone is a book of interpretations which are not clear in the rulebook. That is why there is a casebook or many rules would have holes in application. And from what I understand this book is researched with the people that actually make the rules. They do not just pull something out of the air.

Peace

Wow, Paul Whiteside. 30+ years ago I got to know him from his involvement in the Northern States Football League, which the Chicago Lions* played in. Although I don't remember if his name was on it -- although I should be able to find it faster now that I've organized my papers from back then...sort of -- they had an extensive paper on the differences between NSFL rules and those of Fed and NFL at the time, not just by rough description (they had that too for the press) but citing every article. So I'm sure his book is thorough.

*That's the American football Chi. Lions, not the rugby Chi. Lions. I followed both.

anyone see any IHC on this play?

Waverly High School Boys Varsity Football Highlight Videos, Schedule & Roster - Hudl

The camera is really a long way away, and the Referee was in much better position to make the call. From this distance it looks like two objects moving in opposite directions colliding. Couldn't see any overt action on the part of the defender to "initiate contact with the helmet".

did you watch it in full screen mode?
BTW the QB is Left handed. He has a concussion.

Thank you, full screen is better, but it looks like the runner veered directly towards the defender, and when both parties are moving towards each other it's difficult to determine who is responsible for the exact point of impact.

Unless the defender is clearly aiming with his head, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt.