Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

I do not totally disagree with that take as most of us never will work a single game under those codes. More of us will work NCAA rules at least. But that is the way it is so just deal with it.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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".

It is not as open as you suggest. Officials know that there are rules and there are interpretations. No interpretations have ever suggested a foul be called on a hard hit on a ball carrier. Of course if there is a hard hit on someone out of the play then yes we could make that case, but not here. We would not call anything on a runner that hit hard someone that was trying to tackle them. Now if that changes, then I would probably see your point, but that is a big stretch.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Maybe I am missing something, but I have never seen anywhere that states that is illegal in NCAA rules either. And I hope you are not listening to the media who has completely bastardized the rules changes or emphasis on plays with helmet contact that is called illegal.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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 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.

It is fine to discuss other issues, but we should also be accurate in our conversations and not suggest something that has never been suggested as fact. Again I will concede on this point if you can show me some kind of suggestion that a hard hit is illegal. But a hard hit is different from a high hit which the contact is primarily with the head. This does not look like it other than if contact took place with the helmet. And the NF did not put the same emphasis on when that could take place like the NCAA. The NCAA often make it clear that ball handlers were not "defenseless players" as other plays would suggest. I will also admit I have not been deep in my books at this time of year considering I work a lot of basketball at this time, but I do not think anything has changed.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Maybe I am missing something, but I have never seen anywhere that states that is illegal in NCAA rules either. And I hope you are not listening to the media who has completely bastardized the rules changes or emphasis on plays with helmet contact that is called illegal.

NCAA 9-1 says, "All fouls in this section (unless noted) and any other acts of unnecessary roughness are personal fouls." So they too keep "unnecessary roughness" open-ended.

It is fine to discuss other issues, but we should also be accurate in our conversations and not suggest something that has never been suggested as fact. Again I will concede on this point if you can show me some kind of suggestion that a hard hit is illegal.

I don't think there's any such explicit suggestion, but if you look upthread you'll see at least one poster who looks at hits like this as UR because they're not bona fide attempts at tackling. I think you have to look at whether the hit is aimed at stopping the runner's progress. In other words, the hardness of the hit is not sufficient to make it UR, but if it looks like it was for no tactical purpose, then it could be.

However, I think there's been a tendency to "see" head hits where there aren't any in the case of hard hits at shoulder level. In this case I don't think we have a good enough view to see whether there was a hit on or with the headgear, even with slow motion, and it looks like the field level officials would've had a better one; but in the previously discussed case with enough review it could be seen clearly enough that there was not a hit on or with the helmet. Yet the call on the field in that earlier case was a personal foul, and many people here at least initially seemed to want to see one. I think people are looking for an excuse to call a high hard hit illegal.

As the game is currently played in all the major codes, it pays for the defense to deprive the offense of every inch of advance of the ball, and sometimes doing so requires someone to take a flying leap at someone else. Slowing down would allow the runner to gain additional ground, albeit in some cases very little, but the way the game is, that very little is potentially decisive. In some cases hitting lower would also be less effective in that regard than a high hit. Such hits may therefore constitute roughness, but not unnecessary roughness. The rules could be changed to disallow high hits against ballcarriers in certain vulnerable circumstances -- such as a player who jumps to gain possession of a ball, or one who is being held as here -- but unless a compensating change of some sort were made, such a change would allow runners in some cases to advance with no legal way to stop them.

[JRutledge]

First of all the NCAA, unlike the NF uses video extensively to show what should be addressed and not addressed. So to suggest the wording is "open-ended" without looking at video from the NCAA is kind of silly honestly. And unless you are an official that subscribes to their site, you might not see their bulletins either as to what is suggested to be illegal. This is frankly where a person that does not officiate lose perspective. The only thing the NCAA has made illegal are hits that are high and to the head and players that are not involved in the play anymore. This was the ball carrier who by rule is considered a player that can defend themselves. You can keep missing that fact, but the NCAA rules are much more clear on this issue as opposed to even the NF Rules and Interpretations. You cannot just make a claim and not show and example that supports your point of view. There is even a casebook in the NCAA.

Peace