Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Just an example of a live ball UNR that doesn't involve contact to the head or with the head. You could argue the head being slammed into the ground involves the head but this type of contact is not specifically listed in the PF list. For now it falls under the general "unnecessary" so it's a judgement call.

OK, then if you call that, there are not many people that I know would respect your judgment and then hire you if you call that hit (OP) for UNR when there is no helmet or head contact.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, then if you call that, there are not many people that I know would respect your judgment and then hire you if you call that hit (OP) for UNR when there is no helmet or head contact.

Peace

Based on what I heard was said at Honig's and what I heard at OAFO, the people that hire the officials in the conference you and would both like to work in some day would 100% support a flag on a play like the OP. They may be OK with no flag as well because slow motion replay may show original contact was shoulder to shoulder. Wags showed several plays less than this and said they were fouls and ejections. I'm OK with that. This is crap football.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Based on what I heard was said at Honig's and what I heard at OAFO, the people that hire the officials in the conference you and would both like to work in some day would 100% support a flag on a play like the OP. They may be OK with no flag as well because slow motion replay may show original contact was shoulder to shoulder. Wags showed several plays less than this and said they were fouls and ejections. I'm OK with that. This is crap football.

¨
For helmet contact or just a hard hit? That does make a difference. And do not be so sure what I want to work.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

¨
For helmet contact or just a hard hit? That does make a difference. And do not be so sure what I want to work.

Peace

High hits which this is. Don't split hairs on whether the shoulders contact a split second prior to the helmets. This was not a tackle. This was an attempt by a player to blow up another player and deliver a message. One of the new defenseless definitions is a runner being held up and contact by another player or something to that effect. Not sure if that would also apply in this case but it's something to consider.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

High hits which this is. Don't split hairs on whether the shoulders contact a split second prior to the helmets. This was not a tackle. This was an attempt by a player to blow up another player and deliver a message. One of the new defenseless definitions is a runner being held up and contact by another player or something to that effect. Not sure if that would also apply in this case but it's something to consider.

I disagree that it was not a tackle. It was a tackle. You do not have to wrap people to complete a tackle. Defenders do it all the time. If the claim is the runner got hit in the head fine. But I would not call it a foul for any other reason then a high hit where something hit the player specifically in the head. If this was just shoulders, then it was legal IMO. And the runner IMO was not being held up. The guys were falling off of him.

We are just doing to have to disagree on this one.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

High hits which this is. Don't split hairs on whether the shoulders contact a split second prior to the helmets. This was not a tackle. This was an attempt by a player to blow up another player and deliver a message.

Since the player with the ball was already stood up and held on to by opponents who were mostly behind him, I don't think a lower hit would've been as effective in toppling him. A low hit can be effective in the open field where the runner can be taken off his feet, but when he's more or less supported by both feet and has bodies behind him that would prevent his own feet from being knocked out or his hips from being driven back, a high hit, far from his fulcrum, has more leverage.

In fact, I advocate just such a technique in a kind of combination block I call the horse-fly. One blocker (the "horse") jacks the opponent up from below, and then a lighter crackback blocker comes fly-ing in at high speed from the side hits him shoulder-to-shoulder.

[REFANDUMP]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

High hits which this is. Don't split hairs on whether the shoulders contact a split second prior to the helmets. This was not a tackle. This was an attempt by a player to blow up another player and deliver a message. One of the new defenseless definitions is a runner being held up and contact by another player or something to that effect. Not sure if that would also apply in this case but it's something to consider.

Would it have been better if he'd have went after his knees ??? Not in my opinion !!! This was a perfectly legal play, assuming the contact wasn't helmet to helmet (which the official on the play ruled it wasn't).

[bisonlj]

My last comment on the subject is if you plan on working at the college level this is very clearly the kind of contact they want to get out of the game. If we don't we may not have a game to work much longer. And there is a lot of space to target between the knees and shoulders when a runner is upright. We may not like it or agree but it's the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

My last comment on the subject is if you plan on working at the college level this is very clearly the kind of contact they want to get out of the game. If we don't we may not have a game to work much longer. And there is a lot of space to target between the knees and shoulders when a runner is upright. We may not like it or agree but it's the way it is. Don't shoot the messenger.

If they wanted to get that out of the game, they could easily legislate a narrower strike zone. Or some charging rule that'd say that if you take so many steps in a straight line, then you can hit only a narrow strike zone. Or they could change the rule on forward progress to say that if a runner is in an opponent's grasp and fails to break it before the ball becomes dead, the spot is where that condition was established. Lots of ways they could do it and be clear.