Targeting - Helmet to Helmet
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0MlyTHFT5M0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How would you call this play? Flag or no flag?

Under the 2012 NFHS rulebook I would rule illegal helmet contact (face tackling), 15 yards (9-4-3i).
I am fuzzy on penalty enforcements but I believe it will be from the succeeding spot (A's 12), so it will be 1st and 10 from the 27.

It looks like all the contact was with the shoulder. I would need the wing's angle on this play to know for sure. But it is certainly close in this day and age.

Peace

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?

On the first clip, at full speed, from a distance, hard to say. I would defer to the covering official, who passed.

Slowed down, zoomed in, running back & forth 3 times, I'd say it should have been called IHC.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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 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.

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. ;)


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.


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.

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

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.

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.

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

This is old wording in NCAA's rules, from long before there was use of video -- probably before video even existed! They could've deleted if it they wanted to.

BTW, NFL's provision states, "There shall be no unnecessary roughness. This shall include, but not be limited to...." So they too say it's open ended, i.e. that just because something's not listed as a form of unnecessary roughness doesn't mean it isn't.

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

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.

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.

Is that a NF Casebook play?

Peace

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

Yes, actually more like commentary/examples.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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.

Those aren't any clearer. Just because someone takes a straight line run at someone doesn't mean they are going to foul. There's a difference between these "blow-up" hits and a tackle. Tackles can be violent as well but they usually involve wrapping someone up and bringing them to the ground.

I don't understand your forward progress comment unless you mean a defender wraps up a runner at the A25 and he never breaks it but goes down at the A27 we're bringing the ball back to the A25? I don't agree with that at all.

TV highlights (Sportscenter gets the brunt of it but they all do it) feature these hits so guys do it. They are dangerous for both the hitter and hittee and they often lead to ineffective tackling. The fact they usually hit high around the head make it even worse.

They're at least clearly stated. All you have so far is "blow-up", which isn't clear at all.
Well, the criteria for making the ball dead could be changed, that's another possibility. The current provision calling the runner down for having some part of the body other than hands or feet touch the ground irrespective of how they got there (other than for an ostensible place kick) was adopted in the 1930s as a safety measure. The previous rule required the runner to be "so held" that he was brought to the ground or (as now) had his progress stopped. However, it was not illegal to block the runner or contact him in other ways that might slow his progress or knock him down. If they wanted to, they could adopt rugby's code that specifies more or less the old type of tackle but in addition has it illegal to knock him over otherwise.
Yes, that's what I mean. It would be to take away the motivation of players of the defense to stop the runner's progress under circumstances when they could be sure he'd be brought down.
When a runner has good contact with the ground and is being held by an opponent as was the case in the video, the best way to stop his progress is with a high hit. Consider him to be a lever with its fulcrum on the ground. You get the most torque on him -- the best leverage -- by hitting him as far away as possible from the fulcrum. Since head and neck hits are illegal (and would not be as effective anyway, considering the neck's ability to bend), next farthest would be shoulder high. The player delivering the "blow-up" hit did just that, maximizing his leverage and counteracting whatever weight disadvantage he might've had.