Targeting - Helmet to Helmet

[dvboa]

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

[RulesStudy]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Robert Goodman]

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?

[HLin NC]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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?

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

[bisonlj]

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.

[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.

[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.