Block in BIG 10 Championship

[JRutledge]

I am not in love with this call at all. It does not look like a launch. It does not look like a direct head hit. It does not look like the player is defenseless. If any of those things took place than fine, but this is why I think the "call it no matter how close" is a bad thing. I get they are trying to take head hits out of the game, but sometimes close hits are legal.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not in love with this call at all. It does not look like a launch. It does not look like a direct head hit. It does not look like the player is defenseless. If any of those things took place than fine, but this is why I think the "call it no matter how close" is a bad thing. I get they are trying to take head hits out of the game, but sometimes close hits are legal.

Peace

Looking at the statistics for brain disease among football players, getting head hits out of the game is a good thing.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Looking at the statistics for brain disease among football players, getting head hits out of the game is a good thing.

However, for cases like this I think what you'd want is a collar that immobilizes the neck against forward, backward, or sideways flexion while sill allowing rotation of the head on it. Anyone propose such equipment for the game? Because that's the only thing that'd work here unless you outlawed all hits "above the numbers", which would give you a narrower strike zone than baseball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Looking at the statistics for brain disease among football players, getting head hits out of the game is a good thing.

Then you have missed the point. He could have gotten a head injury by falling, not the actual hit or contact with the blocker. But by rule this does not look illegal. That is the only point I am addressing. And if the hit was a little lower and in his chest, would be be having this conversation?

Peace

[maven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But by rule this does not look illegal.

Which rule? The UNR rule prohibits unnecessary roughness. The game is moving in the direction of judging this hit unnecessary.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by maven

Which rule? The UNR rule prohibits unnecessary roughness. The game is moving in the direction of judging this hit unnecessary.

Why would this be unnecessary? The defensive player was chasing the ball carrier and had a realistic chance to make a play. If this is going to be illegal, I don't like the way football is headed.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Why would this be unnecessary? The defensive player was chasing the ball carrier and had a realistic chance to make a play. If this is going to be illegal, I don't like the way football is headed.

Ask someone of an older vintage about the game 50 years ago. They will undoubtedly tell you that the game isn't the same. The game has changed a lot since the 80s and even the 90s.

The law of conservation of momentum being what it is, players are more suspect to health issues because of today's game. And it has to be taken out.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Ask someone of an older vintage about the game 50 years ago. They will undoubtedly tell you that the game isn't the same. The game has changed a lot since the 80s and even the 90s.

The law of conservation of momentum being what it is, players are more suspect to health issues because of today's game. And it has to be taken out.

I honestly do not care what the game had 50 years ago. I care if a rule has been violated here. If a rule has been violated that is the starting point we should be discussing. If you say he launched at least you have NCAA Rules support and interpretation. But a hard hit is not a very good example or reason to throw a flag here. And you have a player chasing a ball handler with a chance to make a play. Now I do not know of any rule not allowing him to be blocked.

I can ask the crew chief of that game what the official said about the call and what the Big Ten or NCAA might have also said. Maybe they supported the call, but I do not see based on everything I have seen why this was an illegal hit.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by maven

Which rule? The UNR rule prohibits unnecessary roughness. The game is moving in the direction of judging this hit unnecessary.

The phrase I like from CJ is "head or neck area". He wants the target area to be the torso with all contact there.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by maven

Which rule? The UNR rule prohibits unnecessary roughness. The game is moving in the direction of judging this hit unnecessary.

Where is your rules reference?

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where is your rules reference?

Peace

2033 NFL Rule 21.3.4d - The game is moving in the direction of solid hits being unnecessary. Players should merely push players while blocking, hoping that is enough.

[maven]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Where is your rules reference?

NFHS 9-4-3g

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by maven

NFHS 9-4-3g

I do not have my football rulebooks in front of me, but since when did this become a High School Game?

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then you have missed the point. He could have gotten a head injury by falling, not the actual hit or contact with the blocker. But by rule this does not look illegal. That is the only point I am addressing. And if the hit was a little lower and in his chest, would be be having this conversation?

Peace

I haven't missed the point at all. Head hits will be out of the game. Maybe this call is a bad call today. But I don't think it will be for long.

The contact with the head did not occur because of a duck or a slide or other. This will be flagged more often as time goes on.