Personally, I think this is a bit harsh, but I'm only a sophomore fb official.
If I thought the kid was disoriented and only standing because he couldn't figure it out, I'd kill the play. If I thought he was trying to advance, I'd let it play out.

I'm not sure I'd judge someone harshly for killing it, though. Do you really think the NFHS rule writers took the possibility of a sideways/backwards helmet into account when writing the rule? If so, ok. I'm just not as confident.

You know that they never come up with every possible scenario to cover a situation. But that does not mean we change rules just to satisfy some personal fear. Just like in basketball we do not automatically kill the play because a player goes down and is hurt. We wait until either they are in immediate danger or the opposing team has completed an opportunity to complete the play. Well this player in this video could have stayed down or went down. And in football we do not kill plays because a player in in danger or even hurt. Not sure why this is any different.

Peace

And the rule was put into place becasue of.........

SAFETY

We penalize them because the rule says to penalize them.

The rule says to penalize them because it's not safe, in the eyes of those in charge, for them to continue.

This is an important distinction that you are failing to comprehend.

Trust me.... I'm not alone

There's a reason why the ball is dead when a runner loses his helmet. If you can't see the correlation between this and the play in question, then I am "sorry to hear that about you."

And you know every scenario cannot be covered in a rule book, case book, official's manual...etc... so that excuse doesn't wash.

As stated prior, the inadvertent whistle hurts nobody as the penalty will certainly be accepted by A.

It prevents potential serious injury not inherent to the normal activity associated with football.

I think that I've seen it before (Ok, sideways, not backward). I think that if I've seen it before it can't be completely unheard of.

But more importantly, asdf seems to be wanting to add his own determination as to when to kill a play out of a concern for safety. The rules makers do this for us. Anything more is not proper or appropriate. I could name 20 scenarios where someone is not "safe", depending on one persons viewpoint of what "safe" is... if we were to all make our own determinations regarding what is safe - and kill plays accordingly, we'd have a mess on our hands.

This play happened to my crew about 10 years ago.....

A32 catches a froward pass at B's 17 yards line. He takes three steps and is sandwiched between two defenders with a simultaneous hit. The hit not only forces a fumble, but it causes a compound fracture to A32's right arm in the process and he is bleeding profusely. B56 recovers the fumble and advances uninhibited towards A's goal line.

Seeing A32's compound fracture, the crew kills the play so that he can be attended to immediately.


There is nothing in the book that tells us to kill the play, yet we killed it anyway. B's head coach, irate at first, understood fully when he saw A32's injury, not that it made a difference to us.

MD.... you gonna swallow the whistle on this because the rules don't tell you to blow it?

Most plays take no more than 7 seconds and you stopped a play that probably would not take much more then this.

And if my crew did that and gave that example, we would be in a lot of trouble here.

And I have players with many fractures, concussions and many ambulances on the field and never felt like I could or would stop play just because someone had a serious injury. As a matter of fact the play is usually over before anyone realizes a player is that hurt. And if I did notice, I would keep officiating. Just because your crew did something once upon a time ago (and it is telling it was 10 years ago) does not make it right. Glad I am not on your crew. ;)

Peace

Baloney


The feeling is mutual.

Applying your own rules when there is rules support for specific action gets you in trouble here. And messing up a rule and certainly calling an IW is not seen in a great light either. And if I gave your justification, I would be in bigger trouble. Certainly would be the case at the NCAA level as the coaches would send such tape to the supervisor and then I would have to answer for such a thing. I have had to answer for less then this and things not on tape. I would have to answer for this.


No, it is not. ;)

Peace

If you want to consider an IW it will be ignored because A will accept the penalty. You argue that you are taking away the ability for B to make a play and strip the ball or gain an advantage. Even if they do, A will accept the penalty and keep the ball.

If you have been paying attention, I am not arguing just this specific play.

Peace

First, this play is a High School play, so the NCAA level means nothing to me. (A typical response from you when you know you are wrong, just change the rule set to suit your response)

Next, I would be able to defend to any superior, my decision to kill the play citing a real danger to the runner. (apparently you think no danger existed)
I would not be able to defend to any superior, judge, or jury my decision not to stop the play that resulted in serious injury to said runner.

Finally, we are both glad that you are not on my crew, thus making the feeling mutual.

Yea sorry about that, I didn't get to the second page of the thread before responding. Now I see you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I recall why I don't visit this site much anymore because of all this B.S. between fellow officials. Rut, you are a Hoot. I wish you and Big John would get it rolling again, was always a good read. Well back to the Best Officiating Forum I go. :D

Well just so you know these recent rules about the helmet came directly from the creation of the NCAA, not the NF. It is one of the rare occasions that the NF adopted an NCAA rules and they did not make the wording so ambiguous or come short of the actual intent. That is why I reference the NCAA because that is who though of how to handle these situations.

Also in the situation you referenced a play that involved a fracture. And then you acted like it was no big deal to stop play all together.

Again, that play you described has happened many times in football. You are not the first to deal with a compound fracture as an official, let alone a football official. I have seen that happen many times over my career and never did anyone discuss to stopping the play dead in the middle. I am not trying to be funny, but with games with an ambulance on site and trainers on each sideline, it is hard to imagine a football field not being one of the safest places to have such an injury. And most of all the play will be over in seconds if not already over when the injury is discovered. I do not see this rush to stop things or better yet, I would like to know how you even realize there is such an injury if you are doing your job? The main reason I also say I am glad I am not on your crew, because these kinds of situations where people have tried to "Do what they feel is right" is the reason crews get fired or they do not get other opportunities. And it is certainly the case here as you are applying a standard that has no rules support. What is to say there are not other situations where the minute someone is hit hard and acts like they are hurt more then usual and you stop play because you have projected a safety issue onto the situation? Only to come to find out they were not as hurt as it first appeared? Sorry, I just have issue with that thinking. This is not like basketball or soccer where the play is continuous and we must stop play to address injuries.

Peace