Roughing the QB or illegal helmet contact
 

Last week, I called B78 for roughing the passer when he used his helmet to spear the QB. However, the timing of the hit was not late. I decided to go with the more accepted roughing call but maybe I should have just called the illegal helmet contact. I realize the only difference is the automatic first down, which in this case did not matter because it was 2nd and 10.

However, I wanted to get some feedback on whether Referees default to roughing on questionable hits on the QB. Also, in terms of mechanics could I have signaled both the Roughing call followed by illegal helmet contact signal to add clarification?

Any thoughts.

Sounds like you had a Roughing the Passer that involved Illegal Helmet Contact ... The Roughing the Passer is a Special Enforcement Penalty that is added to the end of the last run provided there is no change of possession. In the OP, if the pass was completed there would be a big difference in the enforcement between Roughing the Passer and Illegal Helmet Contact (Personal Foul).

Boy I think that your instincts to flag it as a roughing the passer call is correct. At all levels we have to protect the quarterback, and punishing the QB here is unacceptable.

I am an old defensive lineman and so say this with a heavy heart given the protection that the NFL has given to the QB's. At times I feel that I still am too easy on the defense when they put a hit on the QB as he just gets the ball off. Still I try to judge whether or not the defender could have avoided contact with the passer, before putting a major hit on him.

Much of this job is judgement of course. I think that you have to err on the side of safety for the player, and the QB is the main cog in all teams members.

My two cents...JM

I appreciate your effort to protect the QB, but I think you missed this one right down the line.

1. Although it might be unnecessary roughness against a passer, it is not roughing the passer, which is clearly defined in terms of late hit ("after it is clear the ball has been thrown") in 9-4-1:
"Roughing the passer. Defensive players must make a definite effort
to avoid charging into a passer, who has thrown the ball from in or behind the
neutral zone, after it is clear the ball has been thrown."

2. I'm not sure what you mean by roughing being the "more accepted" call: I guess roughing is more common than IHC. That's not a factor in determining what foul to call.

3. As someone has already pointed out, the enforcements of these penalties are quite different and amount to more than just an automatic first down.

The good news is that you'll probably own the IHC and roughing rules!

What MByron said - just because a foul happens to have the QB as a victim does not make it roughing the passer. RTP is a very specific penalty, with, as mentioned, a VERY different enforcement at times. This should be penalized exactly the same as a spearing on a RB or WR.

i. Initiate illegal helmet contact. (butt block, face tackle or spear)
NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be considered a flagrant act. Acts to be considered
flagrant include, but are not limited to:
1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,
2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players,
and/or
3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.


The QB is often defenseless when he is throwing the ball.

I would say that if this had happened in a game for me as White Hat (we work NCAA rules here in Europe) then I would have called it RTP. I would have used the illegal helmet signal after the RTP signal to show that it was due to the helmet contact rather than the lateness.

My understanding is that NCAA want us to call this RTP so that we can add the yards onto a completed pass and thus the penalty to be more punitive

Rarely work Fed Rules (only when on vacation in the USA) but I always understood the NFHS Rules to be even more about protecting players than the College Rules, I'm somewhat surprised that the feeling on this thread is that the Federation would want this called as a P/F and not RTP.

WTF: If you're suggesting that NCAA wants to expand the time-frame for RTP a little, I can buy that.

But what about this play: QB rolls out, throws a screen pass that starts to go 70 yards for a TD. After the runner has gone 35 yards, the QB gets nailed 10 yards downfield with IHC. Clearly a live-ball foul, but are you calling it RTP 15 seconds after the pass has ended?

Even NCAA's suggestion to expand the time-frame of RTP has its limits.

If you would not have flagged this tackle had there not been helmet to helmet, then you can't call this RFP or flagrant IHC.

I would call roughing the passer for IHC all day and that is how it has been called and interpreted for years. Because the hit is unnecessary and a player that should not be hit at that time.

I have no problem with someone calling it that way and we call it that way with the crews I have been on.

Peace

This isn't roughing since it's not a hit "after it's clear the ball has been thrown". I don't think anyone but officials would know the difference between IHC and RTP in a situation like this. If you're comfortable misapplying the rules and awarding a first down when you shouldn't then go ahead and call it RTP. 95% of the time 15 yds will give A a first down anyway.

Did you expect different?

Of course in that case the ordinary personal foul appl'n would be to the end of the run.

How this is applied is like any other rule. This is a local issue. And jurisdiction can instruct their officials how to enforce rules and if this falls into a category. We have asked if this was OK and as far as I can tell this is OK with those that interpret the rules. Just like we can debate all day what is allowed in the FBZ on a shotgun formation, your area is who you have to answer to. I think calling this with IHC that is not late is appropriate where I live and work. Might not be the case where you are. And I have not read any information that suggests that this is not the case from the rules makers or make it clear that this does not apply.

Peace

I also call Illegal Helmet Contact against the passer as Roughing the Passer. But if you want to read what the rule makers say, they side with KDF5.

2003 Interpretations, Situation 3:

A12 completes a pass, and as he releases the ball, he is tackled by B52, who makes helmet-to-helmet contact. It was not obvious the ball was thrown when B52 made contact. RULING: Illegal personal contact.

It usually doesn't matter one way or the other, except if the pass is complete or the LTG was >15 yards away, it becomes a larger penalty. If you have any doubt, I would definitely say RTP. If the defender lowers his head, I would call RTP as the defender is committing to a personal foul without regards to if the pass will be thrown (i.e. I can no longer judge if the defender had the opportunity to judge if the pass is thrown if he lowers his head).

I certainly would not criticize KDF5 as he is calling the foul by the book.

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.

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.

Sure looks like H to H contact...even from that far away. Take it fullscreen...easier to see. White hat looked to be staring right at it.

Got a kid tonight for head butt of the passer. Called it as PF, illegal helmet contact. Add 15 to end of run.

My reward was a pick 6. 103 yards of it. Beat him to the end zone! :)

Did you toss him? I think the QB trying to throw or after, falls under #3


Disqualification also if any foul is flagrant – (S47).

i. Initiate illegal helmet contact. (butt block, face tackle or spear)
NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be considered a flagrant act. Acts to be considered
flagrant include, but are not limited to:
1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,
2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players,
and/or
3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.

From the 2010 NFHS slide show
Illegal Helmet Contact (Point of Emphasis):

In response to an alarming number of head and neck injuries resulting in death or paralysis during the 1960s and early 1970s, all forms of initiating contact with the helmet were ruled illegal in 1976. At the same time, coaches emphasized the illegality and danger of such tackling techniques and taught their athletes proper, safer methods of tackling and blocking. While catastrophic cervical spine injuries are still a danger, rates rapidly declined in the late 1970s and have stayed relatively low since that time.

Concussions have come under increasing attention in football during the past several years, garnering attention from television, newspapers and the United States Congress. The NFHS has been at the forefront of national sports organizations in emphasizing the importance of concussion education, recognition and proper management for the past several years. In addition, High School RIO and the National High School Sports Related Injury Surveillance Study provides the NFHS SMAC with information about concussion rates and mechanisms. Among the most concerning concussion data from the 2009 football season were that concussions accounted for 19.3 percent of all injuries reported and 63.1 percent of all concussions resulted from helmet-to-helmet contact!

Currently, illegal helmet contact is defined under NFHS Rule 2-20-1 as an “act of initiating contact with the helmet against an opponent.” There are three specific types of illegal helmet contact:
1. 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.
2. Face Tackling is an act by a defensive player who initiates contact with a ball carrier with the front of his helmet.
3. Spearing is an act by an offensive or defensive player who initiates contact against any opponent with the top of his helmet.

Clearly, any initiation of contact with the helmet by a player is already deemed an illegal act. However, given the frequency of this type of contact, these illegal methods of initiating contact continue to either be taught or condoned in practices, and are infrequently penalized during games. In light of increasing concerns about the incidence and severity of concussions in football, including the risk of death and long-term disability, the NFHS SMAC and the NFHS Football Rules Committee call upon coaches to insist that players do not initiate contact with any portion of the helmet against an opponent. Furthermore, officials must recognize and penalize all illegal helmet contact. Only through continual repetition of proper technique in practice including the correction of illegal acts when they occur, AND the consistent penalizing of illegal helmet contact in games will athletes lower the risk of concussion for their opponents and themselves.

And sometimes because the stream is smart enough to choose to change it's course and flow around an obstacle rather than waste it's strength trying to beat it's head against it.

Where was the ball when the foul occurrred?

Furthermore, officials must recognize and penalize all illegal helmet contact. Only through continual repetition of proper technique in practice including the correction of illegal acts when they occur, AND the consistent penalizing of illegal helmet contact in games will athletes lower the risk of concussion for their opponents and themselves.

+1!!!

Peace

+54-0

http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371...8cca970c-640wi

and sometimes it keeps pounding!