It is arguing to be arguing that we apply a rule that has a clear interpretation? Forgive me, but I cannot even imagine having this discussion off this site, because the people that have experience would shut this silliness down immediately and those would know their place and shut up. We always have "that guy" and "that guy" is anyone that suggest we apply an subjective standard to something like "safety" when there is no rules support to do just that.

Peace

I was "that guy" 10 years ago when I heard the player's scream. That scream told me this was not just an ordinary hit and fumble. A further look and quick observation told me that two bones sticking out of a young man's arm and blood flowing profusely out of the wound was not an ordinary situation. I don't need a manual to know what my job is.

I was "that guy" on that night, I'll be happy to be that guy if it happens again, and I'll certainly be "that guy" if a runner get's his helmet turned around, placing him in jeopardy........

and I'll be working the following week.......and the next week......and the next week......

I said what would happen here.

You are hired first by your crew, then by the assignors(conferences) who gives the crew the actual games and then the state if you make the playoffs.

I did not say you would not ever work for doing such a thing, but being fired or being "that guy" might not be the best thing for your career. In other words when you have to bounce from crew to crew, then there you go. And we have a lot of those guys for doing similar things. And many of them cannot figure out why they are in that situation. And it is not uncommon that many of those that are "that guy" that have a hard time breaking in to places they want to. I am sure you are a good official, but this stuff you are advocating to me is from another universe.

Peace

I know some officials in your area that work HS, college (small and D1) in your area. I ran this by them as well to see if it is a regional thing and it was unanimous that this play should be shut down. It sounds like you are not only alone on this site but also your geographic peers.

If you do want to use rule support, Rule 1-5-1 says the helmet must be properly secured. 1-5-3-c-9 says it must be used as intended by the manufacturer. I would guess backward is not the way it was intended to be used.

Let me ask you this question. If a small child gets away from his parents and goes running on the field while the ball is live. Are you going to shut it down? What is your rules support? Sometimes it's better to do the right thing than do things right.

I will put it to you like this. I work with two individuals that assigns two large conferences in football and I tend to hear the type of things they get phone calls about. This situation would likely have a phone call and if an official stopped play improperly and a coach raised hell, this might not be something looked highly by certain assignors. I am just going to guess, if you cannot support this by rule (which it has not been) then that would be hard to defend. Just like I said, there are a lot of "that guys" that cannot get certain games or work in certain conferences because they make up rules or situations for some subjective standard that is not supported by rules.

OK, neither rule have anything to do with what we are talking about. And if that is the case, the minute a chinstrap comes off, you better be stopping play right? After all it is not worn the way the manufacturer says right?

The casebook supports situations where spectators interfere with the game. There is 4.1.5 and there is a 9-1 has some coverage and talks specifically about "A player or nonplayer or person(s) not subject to the rules shall not hinder play by an unfair act which has no rules coverage"

It even sounds like we can do more than just award an IW in that situation that you describe.

So depending the situation you can award all kinds of things and it would depend on what the kid was doing the play might be or might not be. But there are rules that cover this. There are no rules to suggest we invoke another rule to a situation where a player has a twisted helmet. It is going to be illegal if someone hits that player in the head. It is going to be a penalty if the cause of that helmet being out of place is the cause of a foul. But to suggest that doing the right thing is to invoke some standard that is not covered in the very specific rule because I have some fear. I would think the player that is in a bad situation would have more fear and stop. After all, they know if they can see or not. Heck if safety is the standard, then I should stop play anytime a smaller player is about to get hit by a bigger player. After all safety is the standard you are using right?

Peace

Lead me to the promised land
 

Where is this other Forum? I also get tired of certain egos that can't see another point of view and are never wrong.

Yes. Or moreso because killing this play early does nothing good, and lots bad.

At this point, I know you're not going to listen to anyone telling you differently, so I'm not going to keep telling you how wrong you are here... I am curious, however - what is it that you think you accomplished by blowing the whistle 4-5 seconds earlier than when the play would have ended on its own?

Sorry you feel you must leave. Even when people disagree, this site is a good source for officiating help.

He was not arguing for the sake of arguing.

He (and I) are disagreeing with the idea that plays need to be killed anytime an official suddenly feels conditions for a player are unsafe. A few "extreme" situations have been presented, none of which (to me) justify killing a play before it's done. And as a semi-related aside, in my many years of many sports I've seen more injuries happen as a result of some people stopping play and others not stopping than any other situation. Killing play when it didn't naturally end is more likely (imho) to cause an injury than to save one. Also, in the extreme situations used to justify killing it early - on most of them the injury had already occurred... killing it at that point serves no purpose at all.

Other than that one in a billion situation where a life might be at stake and seconds matter (had an older gentleman pitching hit hard in the sternum who went down immediately once where this applies), I can really only envision one situation where killing a play early would actually help anyone...

that would be where someone is clearly hurt badly (neck or a break perhaps) and on the ground, and something happens in the play to cause it to move back toward that injured player lying on the ground. I've never had that happen or seen it happen, but I can see the possibility.

Trying to find where, in either rule, it says to stop an ongoing play. I can't.

COMPLETELY different situation here, and in several thousand football games, something that has never even come close to happening... ad absurdum logic often doesn't really work in sports.

He's wrong sometimes. So am I. But not on this one.

Do you see any of the other very experienced officials disagreeing here? There's a reason why you don't.

Hmm...good point. Fundamental III.2: No live ball foul causes the ball to become dead. Even if one were to apply 1.5.1 and/or 1.5.3, none would cause the ball to become dead.

The rule about killing the play when a runner's helmet comes COMPLETELY off has been in place for a long time.

It didn't come completely off. I'm not killing the play.

It did come off because of the foul, though. He's not going to have to sit for a play.

There are certain situations in which you'll act, not as an official, but as a human being who happens to have an official's whistle. No reason your role as an official has to usurp your role as a human being. For that matter, a security guard could come onto the field and stop play in some of the situations described. There are considerations that come above the game, and it's pretty silly to discuss them in the context of rules of the game. Some of the situations might involve the players and the game situation, and the game can be resumed and the situation sorted out afterward as a simple interruption of the game by supravening events. First you take care of the fire in the kitchen, then you see about getting the diner's order right.

I would be willing to bet it happens as often as a runner's helmet getting completely turned around while he's still running.

One thing I hope we can all agree on is someone needs to tell the runner that while he gets to stay in the game, he needs to get his helmet tightened. A properly fitting helmet should never be able to do what this helmet did.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. :)

For one I see the other point of view, I simply do not agree with it and have yet to see a rule to support stopping the play when the player is not down by rule or that it fits the situation where the helmet comes off. It is not about being right or wrong, just show a situation where it says that in the rules or in the casebook? If you can do that then OK I might agree. But you no one have found anything like that but claiming what they feel should be done. That is a dangerous standard to broach when numerous people will have different standards by the ambiguousness in the wording.

Peace