helmetless player

[HLin NC]

Illegal Participation on A, Illegal Contact on B
Double foul
Replay the down 1-10, B20 yl

[JRutledge]

I think this is nothing if B90 was the one that was hit or continued to finish the tackle.

We were told we only penalize the second action that resulted in the helmet coming off.

You might want to be clearer about when the helmet came off and who hit the runner. I also do not see how you penalize the runner when the play is over and they are being tackled.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Illegal Participation on A, Illegal Contact on B
Double foul
Replay the down 1-10, B20 yl

This can't be a double foul. The ball is dead immediately when the runner's helmet comes completely off.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think this is nothing if B90 was the one that was hit or continued to finish the tackle.

We were told we only penalize the second action that resulted in the helmet coming off.

You might want to be clearer about when the helmet came off and who hit the runner. I also do not see how you penalize the runner when the play is over and they are being tackled.

Peace

I'm reading it as if it's not.

Since the ball's dead when A's helmet comes off, at the worst I'm probably thinking delay of game on the runner for continuing after the play is over. Not illegal participation unless there's instructions to the contrary. He can't participate further in the play - the play is over.

The foul on B would have to be a DBPF for UNR.

Likely we'd only have a foul on B, nothing on A.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

This can't be a double foul. The ball is dead immediately when the runner's helmet comes completely off.



I'm reading it as if it's not.

Since the ball's dead when A's helmet comes off, at the worst I'm probably thinking delay of game on the runner for continuing after the play is over. Not illegal participation unless there's instructions to the contrary. He can't participate further in the play - the play is over.

The foul on B would have to be a DBPF for UNR.

Likely we'd only have a foul on B, nothing on A.

That is not how we were instructed if the action that removed the helmet and the player continued to finish the block or the tackle and all of this was legal. Now that is what our state said. I believe the same ruling is the case for NCAA games. That is why I am unclear if this was all in a second action. It was unclear to me if B90 was involved in the tackle or was that a second act or hit.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is not how we were instructed if the action that removed the helmet and the player continued to finish the block or the tackle and all of this was legal. Now that is what our state said. I believe the same ruling is the case for NCAA games. That is why I am unclear if this was all in a second action. It was unclear to me if B90 was involved in the tackle or was that a second act or hit.

Peace

I agree that both players can finish their current engagement / action when a helmet comes off IF the A player is not the runner. On this play, the A player is the runner, which changes everything.

If A is the runner and the helmet comes off, the officials should be blowing the play dead immediately. That's been the rule for a long time. That turns any foul by B into a dead ball foul. Can't be a double foul, then.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I agree that both players can finish their current engagement / action when a helmet comes off IF the A player is not the runner. On this play, the A player is the runner, which changes everything.

If A is the runner and the helmet comes off, the officials should be blowing the play dead immediately. That's been the rule for a long time. That turns any foul by B into a dead ball foul. Can't be a double foul, then.

If a defender is tackling and the initial hit results in the helmet coming off or starting to come off and that continuing action is all in the same act, I do not see how being a runner changes anything because we will kill the ball. And blowing the whistle is not going to stop someone immediately if hit took place no matter how good we think we are in an impact situation. Just like we do not expect a person near the sideline to all of a sudden stop of the impact takes the runner out of bounds. As long as they do not separate and then do extra curricular activity, that would not be a foul either.

I was only told the play was dead for a helmet coming off, not that we penalize actions associated with the tackle or same motion of a normal tackle. That is not what this new rule is in place to penalize as I have read it and instructed by my state rules interpreters at least. Of course second actions or another player coming in after the fact, that is a foul. But if I hit you and your helmet comes off and I have my head down driving you into the ground (no separation), my understanding that is legal and that is exactly what we were told in our Rules Meeting. It is the separation I would think should be penalized because of mostly the wording of the new rule.

This is also why I would like for Ref. Rev to clear up what he is asking as it appears to me this is all in one action.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a defender is tackling and the initial hit results in the helmet coming off or starting to come off and that continuing action is all in the same act, I do not see how being a runner changes anything because we will kill the ball. And blowing the whistle is not going to stop someone immediately if hit took place no matter how good we think we are in an impact situation. Just like we do not expect a person near the sideline to all of a sudden stop of the impact takes the runner out of bounds. As long as they do not separate and then do extra curricular activity, that would not be a foul either.

I was only told the play was dead for a helmet coming off, not that we penalize actions associated with the tackle or same motion of a normal tackle. That is not what this new rule is in place to penalize as I have read it and instructed by my state rules interpreters at least. Of course second actions or another player coming in after the fact, that is a foul. But if I hit you and your helmet comes off and I have my head down driving you into the ground (no separation), my understanding that is legal and that is exactly what we were told in our Rules Meeting. It is the separation I would think should be penalized because of mostly the wording of the new rule.

This is also why I would like for Ref. Rev to clear up what he is asking as it appears to me this is all in one action.

Peace

I read the original play as a subsequent hit.

If it's not, it's just a tackle and no foul, I agree.