Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I can't tell from this angle what he actually hit with. He turned in a way that made it look like he wanted to use his shoulder. However, that also put the crown of his own helmet in the line of fire. It might also be considered that he targeted the opponent's head with his shoulder, although it's not clear he made contact that way either.

You might try to make a case for a more general provision of unnecessary roughness being applicable here, but that's not a given either. There was someone attempting a tackle but failing to stop the runner's progress, and who's to say a high, fast hit wasn't necessary to kill his momentum?

I am not sure how you can call UNR if the hit was legal. If the hit was illegal it is only for helmet contact that is illegal. Nothing wrong with just a hard tackle.

Peace

[bisonlj]

This is the kind of crap we need to get out of football. It does appear he may have hit first with his shoulder but he was not trying to tackle anyone. He was only trying to blow someone up with a hit. The fact he was initiating high with his body and hitting the runner high I would go with a foul in real time and live with the call if it was leading with a shoulder.

Players have to start tackling and get away from the blow-up hits.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sure how you can call UNR if the hit was legal.

That's circular, isn't it? The question is, was it UR? Is the clause, "Make any other contact which is deemed unnecessary and incites roughness" still in there?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

That's circular, isn't it? The question is, was it UR? Is the clause, "Make any other contact which is deemed unnecessary and incites roughness" still in there?

The runner is still advancing and is not down until the hit. Once again unless he makes an illegal hit with his head or to the head, I see nothing illegal here. And I have never seen an interpretation that says this is unnecessary other than if the hit is with the head at least the NCAA or NF levels.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Maybe the hit was necessary, as I wrote above, maybe it was just a shot with no tactical value in either stopping the runner or producing a fumble. What I'd like to know is, is the clause referring to "any other contact against an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and incites roughness" a dead letter? Do all the other clauses exhaust the possible cases? In other words, these days can you sustain any case that any hit was "unnecessary roughness" by the plain meaning of that phrase without elaboration or specific coverage in some detail of that rules provision?

[JRutledge]

There is no interpretation in the casebooks or by a interpretation that any non-helmet type hit is illegal. That is what you would need to support that position IMO.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Canadian Ruling:

At minimum, spearing, with a possible ejection.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Canadian Ruling:

At minimum, spearing, with a possible ejection.

In what sense is that a "Canadian Ruling"? Is it just the ruling you think you'd be making, and that you happen to officiate Canadian football games? And that it looks to you like he was hitting with the head? Or is the rule actually different enough in Canadian football that it's not just a question of that fact?

Then analyze a factor if the question of what part of the body he hit or hit with is off the table either because the evidence is inconclusive or is resolved in his favor. I'll address only the issue of whether this is "other contact against an opponent which is unnecessary" as the Fed rule puts it.

The player making the hit went a long way in a straight line to do so. It would've been impossible for him to have gotten there had he not been running fast. If the idea is that he hit too hard, considering how high a hit it was, that'd require him to hold up as he got there. In effect, such an interpretation would prohibit a player's taking a long run into an opponent who was not moving away, unless the resulting hit was clearly below the shoulder.

We saw another clip posted or linked from here a few months ago that was similar, except that the ballcarrier was not being held by an opponent. So I think the fact that this one was being held and relatively easy to target is what's affecting people's judgment about this one.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is no interpretation in the casebooks or by a interpretation that any non-helmet type hit is illegal. That is what you would need to support that position IMO.

Peace

One example of unnecessary roughness that doesn't involve a hit to the helmet of the runner or with the helmet of the defender is the pile drive tackle that started to occur more often last year. It's not specifically listed in the rule book but I saw interpretations from supervisors last year saying that should be a foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

One example of unnecessary roughness that doesn't involve a hit to the helmet of the runner or with the helmet of the defender is the pile drive tackle that started to occur more often last year. It's not specifically listed in the rule book but I saw interpretations from supervisors last year saying that should be a foul.

Can you show the interpetation?

And this is not the play you described. Piling on or driving a player into the ground when the play is over is not what we are talking about here.

Peace