Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I guess it was a bit snotty, and I'm not the first to think it funny that he'd chime in with a Canadian ruling on threads not asking specifically for one, or even asking specifically for a non-Canadian one, but this is the first time I think the snot was deserved. The crux of the question being asked about doesn't seem to differ from code to code, but is just a matter of how you see it.

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.

Over the years various specifically detailed types of hits have been added to what's now (AFAIK) covered by Fed as "illegal personal contact", but it's always remained open ended at least as written, with that "other" category. But it seems officials are applying the rule of "the inclusion of one works to the exclusion of others", reading the specific items as exhaustive and ignoring "other".

"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'm just trying to see whether, regardless of whether the hit came under one of the other categories of "illegal personal contact", it was unnecessarily rough. So what are the factors determining whether a hit is necessary?

Where this was previously discussed was a case in NCAA that was penalized, we think, under a provision regarding hitting the head, or hitting with the head, where the video showed it was neither, and then the discussion here turned to whether the hit was unnecessarily rough anyway. Football is substantially the same under these various codes, and since the object of tackling is the same in each (and has been for a long time), the determination of whether a tackle is unnecessarily rough is probably going to be the same in each.

What was the same as this case was that the player on defense was moving fast, and the hit was high. What was different was that in that case it was in the open field with both players moving fairly fast, while in this case the runner was being held by an opponent but still moving forward slowly. I think that's causing a difference in how people are seeing these hits. Maybe it's a justified difference, maybe not. I'd like to see discussion of that.

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.

I find these discussions interesting. If I knew how to apply everything, and everyone else knew as well, the discussion would be boring and superfluous.

I understand most of you are focused on whether you see a head hit here, and that's fine. I'm just saying there's another question related to this case that I find more interesting.

[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.

[HLin NC]

NF 2012 Case Book

FLAGRANT FOUL
*9.4.3 COMMENT: Is there suggested guidance on what is meant by a defenseless player who should be protected from unnecessary roughness? Yes, defenseless players are especially vulnerable to potential injury. Game officials must diligentlyobserve all action and watch for contact against players who are deemed defenseless such as: (a) A quarterback moving down the line of scrimmage who has handed or pitched the ball to a teammate, and then makes no attempt to participate further in the play; (b) A kicker who is in the act of kicking the ball, or who has not had a reasonable amount of time to regain his balance after the kick;
(c) A passer who is in the act of throwing the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to participate in the play again after releasing the ball; (d) A pass receiver whose concentration is on the ball and the contact by the defender is unrelated to attempting to catch the ball; (e) A pass receiver who has clearly relaxed when he has missed the pass or feels he can no longer catch; (f) A kick receiver whose attention is on the downward flight of the ball; (g) A kick receiver who has just touched the ball; (h) Any player who has relaxed once the ball has become dead; and (i) Any player who is obviously out of the play. The game official must draw distinction between contact necessary to make a legal block or tackle, and that which targets defenseless players.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

OK, but that is a body slam. Not sure when anytime that is necessary to make a play on any ball carrier. The play we were talking about was a runner advancing and got hit hard while advancing and still on his feet. The Alabama play the runner was totally in the grasp and surrounded. That is why that was unnecessary, but not if he was just hit hard.

Peace