New helmet rule
 

SITUATION 1 (3.5.10): Team A has the ball, 1st and 10 at A’s 20-yard line. A31 is carrying the ball when B33 lowers his head and strikes A31 helmet to helmet trying to make the tackle. The contact makes the helmets for both A31 and B33 come completely off with A31 in possession of the ball at A’s 26-yard line. RULING: The ball is dead immediately due to the helmet coming off the runner. B33 is penalized 15 yards for illegal helmet contact making it 1st and 10 at A’s 41-yard line. A31 may remain in the game due to the opponent foul. B33 must leave the game for one play as A31 did not foul and B33's helmet came off during the down. (3-5-10d; 4-2-2k; 9-4-3i)


If no foul is called, both players must leave the game for one play though, correct?

Correct. 3-5-10d

I almost always have the following question on these plays...

If B's helmet hit A's helmet --- didn't A's helmet hit B's helmet? If B lowered himself to lead with his helmet, and hit A's helmet, wasn't A also lowering himself and leading with his helmet?

Does that mean the officials whistle the play dead and bean bag the spot (A's 26) where the helmet came off the runner?

Why would you bean bag this spot?

I'm not saying I would or wouldn't. I'm asking if it is something that should be done.

Not necessarily; I'd say not even usually.

Yes. You bean bag this spot just like you bean bag the spot the play ends on other plays.

Ask yourself ... why do you bag a spot. That should answer your question.

Keep in mind that a player can be fouled, and have his helmet come off, and still have to come out of the game for one play.

For example:
A55 clips B70. B70 falls to the ground, which causes B70's helmet to come off.

Even though B70 was fouled, the foul was not what caused B70's helmet to come off, so B70 still needs to sit out a play.

Thanks, Mike.

A is running south-to-north (12 o'clock).
B is running northwest-to-southeast (5 o'clock).
They collide. If:
1) A makes no attempt to avoid the collision, and B lowers his shoulder into A, first making contact with pad onto torso, we have a perfectly legitimate tackle--B chose to attack A in the chest.
2) A makes no attempt to avoid the collision, and B lowers the crown of his helmet such that his helmet first makes contact with A, you have spearing on B. B chose to hit A with his own helmet, A chose to play football.
3) A makes no attempt to avoid the collision, and B leads with his shoulder such that his shoulder first makes contact with A's helmet, you have a illegal helmet contact on B. B chose to attack A's head. A chose to play football.
4) A makes no attempt to avoid the collision, and B lowers the crown of his helmet such that his helmet first makes contact with A's helmet, you have a helmet-to-helmet hit on B. B chose to attack A's head. A chose to play football.
5) A turns his head and shoulders towards B, lowering the crown of his head into B, and B lowers the crown of his helmet into A, then we have helmet-to-helmet hits on A and B. Both players chose to make contact using their heads.

There have been really good mechanics videos floating around that highlight the differences. But even though A's helmet MUST TOUCH B's helmet for helmet-to-helmet contact to occur does not mean that A moved his helmet into B's helmet. Depending on A's action, there may or may not be a foul on each player.

Under lights, helmets that are shined so as to produce a specular reflection make it easier, because you can actually see a "halo" of lights on the top of a helmet when the crown is lowered enough. If the player voluntarily moved the helmet into that position then you have one of the elements for a foul.

That's not what the rule says.

If the foul is directly contributle to the helmet coming off, he does not have to sit a play. Nowhere does it say there must be a facemask or illegal helmet contact foul in order for the player to stay. End of story.

If he's clipped, falls awkwardly and his helmet comes off, I am not making home sit a play. He was fouled which caused his helmet to come off.

I don't agree with this. If the intention of the rule is to "punish" the player for an improperly fitted helmet, I would like to think that a properly fitted helmet would be able to stay on whenever a players helmet hits the ground.

I'm making him sit.


However, think about the situation in which a player is violently blocked-in-the-back, and the player's head whiplash causes the helmet to come off. If somehow he is not injured, do you make him sit? I think in this case a properly fitted helmet should stay on.

Here's the rule: "The helmet comes completely off during the down without being directly attributable to a foul by an opponent."

I take "directly attributable" to mean that the players helmet was involved, either by being hit, grasped, pulled, punched, kicked, batted, ...... BTW, had the same player's helmet come off twice in my first game. Coach was clueless on the new rule. I was not surprised even though we mentioned it pre-game.

I have to disagree with this as well. The rule to my knowledge has always been about a foul that involves the head or the helmet, not a none helmet related foul. At least that is the case in both college and high school where both have a similar rule in place. The only difference in the college rule is that a player could potentially be penalized for participating without a helmet. Not no where has it said that a hold, clip or a block below the waist would result in not applying this helmet rule.

Peace

In our state:

If the player is fouled, and the foul is called, he doesn't have to sit out a play.

Period.