Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[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.

[HLin NC]

Robert- Juggling Ref is in Canada so he is giving you what Canadian rules would interpret. No need to get snotty with him.

Your applying unnecessary roughness has nothing to do with the play or the ruling that should have been applied Unnecessary roughness is rarely called in NF rules as there are other more specific rules that cover the conduct in question- as it does here.

"Straight lines, tactical value, running fast" are a bunch of blather that have no application in NF rulings that I've ever been party to. You wanted to argue circular logic with Jeff but trying to follow yours is meandering at best.
I think we're at a place where some or most of us who officiate and visit this board aren't even sure what point you are making, or if you even have one; other than you seem to study a lot of rules but have no apparent idea on how to apply them.

Fed is simple- its illegal helmet contact. The fact that this covering official didn't flag it is understandable. As I said, on first look, I had doubt and probably would have passed on it too. Only after seeing multiple, slow motion replays, did I have enough data to change my mind. In that game, that official didn't have that luxury.

[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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

This is the example from last year of one such play. I remember reading something following the game that the conference supported this. We also had a discussion at our local conference meeting wanting a flag for this kind of tackle.

Alabama player goons Missouri Running Back with following 2 plays - YouTube

I don't remember seeing many like this before last year but I remember seeing 4 or 5 last year and we had one in a HS game that was close. It's not specifically listed in the rule book. The ball is still live so the hit isn't late. I thought we would see something in this year's rule book or at least in clinic presentations but I haven't seen anything. I assume it's still supported since it was last year but it wasn't emphasised.