Helmet comes off during a tackle, due to prior foul?

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

Oh, I'm not going anywhere. There are too many other good officials on this site whose opinions, insight and knowledge are invaluable. After all forums are just like camp…sometimes you simply nod your head and say thank you, while thinking what a pompous know-it-all and sometimes you find something that works for you. I just got excited that there might be another forum from which I can learn.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Oh, I'm not going anywhere. There are too many other good officials on this site whose opinions, insight and knowledge are invaluable. After all forums are just like camp…sometimes you simply nod your head and say thank you, while thinking what a pompous know-it-all and sometimes you find something that works for you. I just got excited that there might be another forum from which I can learn.

And that is all fine. You just sound like one of those guys that when you go to the camp, the clinicians say, "He does not get it" and we move on. And those same guys wonder why they are working JV ball most of their careers as a result. As MD said, you do not see any of the big veterans disagree with this point. There is a reason that is the case.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Who are the "big veterans" of which you speak? There haven't been many different people to post on this topic at all. I looked back through the forum and I counted 10 different people. 7 for the most part said they would kill it and 3 said let the play continue (that includes Rich who had only one short comment). I don't know enough about the others to know if they are "big veterans".

Letting the play go is not WRONG and it is definitely supported by rule. I think what everyone else is saying is this is such an unusual situation that will very rarely happen. When very odd things happen you sometimes have to use good judgement and make a decision that for the good of all participants.

A similar thread is taking place at Should they have killed this?. Counting those posts it is 8 for shutting it down and 1 for keeping it going. I guess a large majority of officials on these two sites are wrong. Or maybe they aren't "big veterans".

[JRutledge]

Good for those that want to shut the play down. But I want to see them actually do it in other situations since safety is so darn important. Something tells me they do not do such a thing in other situations. And in all my years I have never heard anyone suggest we cause and IW for other kinds of plays where someone is hurt. Why no one ever suggested to shut a play down with an player without the ball should have been shut down before this year? I have seen that several times over the years and why was safety not a concern then? Better yet, why not flag someone that engaged said player? Now safety is a concern? OK.

I have seen many more broken bones, concussions and neck injuries and never heard anyone suggest "Safety" in those situations. Now all of a sudden we want to use an expansion of a rule that does not apply. Again if the rules people want to add situations to when we kill the play that is fine with me. But right now, the rule says the helmet must completely come off. Not a loosened helmet or straps coming off during play, but a helmet that comes COMPLETELY OFF is considered dead if that player is the ball carrier. Next thing you are going to tell me we should penalize a player without the ball because they participated if their helmet ends up in a similar manner. We can do this all day with many situations if you like. Better yet, maybe we should have invoked the new rule to the runner for participating for a helmet not being on their head, after all that is a rule too that does not apply to this situation. Why is that not being suggested?

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

Question, perhaps only slightly related.

If the helmet were to simply get turned sideways (or backwards), but doesn't come off, due to reasons not related to any foul (or maybe a foul that none of the officials could see). Do you make him sit?

I'm back into the realm of reason now, though, and buying into the logic of the vets. I get it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

Question, perhaps only slightly related.

If the helmet were to simply get turned sideways (or backwards), but doesn't come off, due to reasons not related to any foul (or maybe a foul that none of the officials could see). Do you make him sit?

I'm back into the realm of reason now, though, and buying into the logic of the vets. I get it.

I will not speak for Rich, but what does the rule say about sitting out a play for your helmet? I think that is your answer. Just like we are not penalizing a player for Illegal Participation for the very same situation. But of course we must now that we are using the "safety rules," rule!!!

Peace

[asdf]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

At this point, I know you're not going to listen to anyone telling you differently,

....and finally, we agree on something....

Well over 30 years ago I worked my first athletic contest at age 13. I was schooled from day one that safety at the High School level down is of utmost importance. I don't care if it's you or any other "big veteran" on this board, you aren't changing my mind.

I've employed this mindset before and nothing "bad" happened after I killed the play. (how the heck can getting immediate medical attention to a student athlete who has two bones sticking out of his arm and bleeding profusely be bad?) I didn't get into "trouble" and I haven't missed a beat on or off the field.

In the play in the video, I say the player is in immediate danger and we as officials have a duty to try to protect him from harm since it's not inherent with how the game is played. You and my other detractor on this subject feel otherwise. I cannot fathom how one could look at a player with his helmet on backwards, vision blocked, still running, and judge this is normal to the game of football......... But that's just me.

This is my final word on the matter. You all can ridicule me all you want or change the scenarios to suit your position as you are want to do.

I can sit here knowing that I've never wavered on my point of view.

Have at it. Have fun......

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

I've employed this mindset before and nothing "bad" happened after I killed the play.

An IW is bad. Pretty much always. Yes, sometimes you get bailed out by a penalty. But the "good" in your scenario is zero. The "Bad" is the IW.

In the play in the video, I say the player is in immediate danger and we as officials have a duty to try to protect him from harm since it's not inherent with how the game is played. You and my other detractor on this subject feel otherwise.

What Jeff and I are trying to tell you is that there are literally thousands of conceivable instances where a player is in "immediate danger" - but we don't kill the play in 99.9% of them (and on the ones where we do, it's because a rule tells us to. "That player is in danger" is not the standard you should be using when deciding whether to kill a live play.

I cannot fathom how one could look at a player with his helmet on backwards, vision blocked, still running, and judge this is normal to the game of football......... But that's just me.

Again, a mistaken standard. "Not normal to the game" is no reason to kill a play either.

This is my final word on the matter. You all can ridicule me all you want or change the scenarios to suit your position as you are want to do.

I don't believe I've been ridiculing you, personally. I'm trying to get you to see reason and back down from the idea that you should kill a play any time a player might not be safe. This is football. Everytime 225 lbs Goliath lines up against 95 lb David - David is not safe. But we don't kill the play when we see it.

I can sit here knowing that I've never wavered on my point of view.

If that's what's important to you - unwavering in the face of logic - more power to you, and enjoy your JV and 2A Varsity games. Perhaps a different approach would help you. You don't know Jeff or I from Joe Internet Referee yet. That's fine. But surely you belong to an association of some sort that allows you to work high school games. PLEASE, I implore you --- don't go ask your buddies, or even your crew chief or mentor ... go ask your rules guy. Or bring this up at the next clinic. Believe them.

[Rich]

The piece that nobody seems to be mentioning is that on this play, I'm not sure that I even *see* the helmet sitting on the player's head backwards anyway.

If I'm the R, I *might* see it, as I'm the one getting the foul. But maybe not as I'm throwing the flag after the face mask foul and turning my attention then to the blocking I'm charged with watching.

If I'm a wing, I'm not looking at the runner, I'm looking at the point of attack blocks and activity.

When the helmet comes completely off, our attention is turned to that and we're easily able to kill that.

It's easy for us to say what we'd do from the safety of our keyboards.

BTW, I would not have a problem with a crew mate killing the play here. I wouldn't consider it an IW (for the purposes of the crew member buying all night at the establishment we visit on the way home). I would have no problem telling a coach or an assignor why it was killed, either.

However, the rule says "completely off." Those words were put there for a reason and I have no problem following that, either.

[REFANDUMP]

Originally Posted by Rich

The piece that nobody seems to be mentioning is that on this play, I'm not sure that I even *see* the helmet sitting on the player's head backwards anyway.

If I'm the R, I *might* see it, as I'm the one getting the foul. But maybe not as I'm throwing the flag after the face mask foul and turning my attention then to the blocking I'm charged with watching.

If I'm a wing, I'm not looking at the runner, I'm looking at the point of attack blocks and activity.

When the helmet comes completely off, our attention is turned to that and we're easily able to kill that.

It's easy for us to say what we'd do from the safety of our keyboards.

BTW, I would not have a problem with a crew mate killing the play here. I wouldn't consider it an IW (for the purposes of the crew member buying all night at the establishment we visit on the way home). I would have no problem telling a coach or an assignor why it was killed, either.

However, the rule says "completely off." Those words were put there for a reason and I have no problem following that, either.

Rich, I agree with everything you say here except I believe you have to treat it as an inadvertant whistle, even though I wouldn't make my crewmate buy either. We'd have a real mess on our hands if we'd have not thrown a flag on this play and then ruled a runner down while he was still running and the offensive team had to take a loss of yardage with no option of replaying the down. Admittedly, this was a pretty obvious foul and I hope that one of us would get a flag on this, but we can't assume that will happen.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Rich, I agree with everything you say here except I believe you have to treat it as an inadvertant whistle, even though I wouldn't make my crewmate buy either. We'd have a real mess on our hands if we'd have not thrown a flag on this play and then ruled a runner down while he was still running and the offensive team had to take a loss of yardage with no option of replaying the down. Admittedly, this was a pretty obvious foul and I hope that one of us would get a flag on this, but we can't assume that will happen.

That's why I said "for the purposes of buying." On the field, this must be treated as an IW -- I'm not arguing against that.

[REFANDUMP]

Originally Posted by Rich

That's why I said "for the purposes of buying." On the field, this must be treated as an IW -- I'm not arguing against that.

Ok, I just wanted to clarify your thinking. Even if I was wrong, I don't mind buying once in a while (Except for IW plays, I hate those, especially when they're mine !!!)

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And that is all fine. You just sound like one of those guys that when you go to the camp, the clinicians say, "He does not get it" and we move on. And those same guys wonder why they are working JV ball most of their careers as a result. As MD said, you do not see any of the big veterans disagree with this point. There is a reason that is the case.

Peace

And you would be incorrect...you know what they say about assumptions!

Our first responsibility is safety and apparently some of us are willing to err more on the side of safety than others. We can go back and forth suggesting different unlikely scenarios that may never be seen in a game or if seen may never be repeated, but ultimately at some point there will be a threshold over which each of us must step with regards to putting the safety of players above the effort to rule the letter of the law.

Per the Basic Philosophy and Principles: Prerequisites for Good Officiating is states that "Game officials must accept the responsibility of enforcing the letter, as well as the spirit of the rules..." Your extreme focus on the letter of the rules holds you back from becoming a truly great official. There is precedence in the rule book for suspending play immediately (not waiting until the ball is dead). It is found in the guidelines for handling lightning. There are other events that threaten players to the same extent as lightning. It is unfortunate that you can't or won't recognize that.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

And you would be incorrect...you know what they say about assumptions!

Our first responsibility is safety and apparently some of us are willing to err more on the side of safety than others. We can go back and forth suggesting different unlikely scenarios that may never be seen in a game or if seen may never be repeated, but ultimately at some point there will be a threshold over which each of us must step with regards to putting the safety of players above the effort to rule the letter of the law.

Our first respoinsiblity are the rules of the game. If the rules of the game say to worry about safety, then we worry about safety.

I ran this play by my crew on Friday and usually I am on the outside when it comes to certain issues as to when to call certain things like this. Everyone on my crew agreed with me. One of my crew members gave an example of another situation where it happened to him. He told me of a scrimmage kick that was kicked badly and the K go the ball behind the LOS and then the recovering player ducked as if to act like he should be down. Well that kid got blown up as the ball was live and there was no reason to stop play. The point my crew member made, "It is there responsiblity to know the rules of the game, shame on them if they do not." Football is a violent game and if a player does something not to protect himself, that is not our issue. Because if we stop play, then someone complains we did something we were not supposed to under the rules.

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Per the Basic Philosophy and Principles: Prerequisites for Good Officiating is states that "Game officials must accept the responsibility of enforcing the letter, as well as the spirit of the rules..." Your extreme focus on the letter of the rules holds you back from becoming a truly great official. There is precedence in the rule book for suspending play immediately (not waiting until the ball is dead). It is found in the guidelines for handling lightning. There are other events that threaten players to the same extent as lightning. It is unfortunate that you can't or won't recognize that.

Peace

This is not about the letter of the law. This is about the rule states that the helmet must come completely off. That is not what happened here. And if you are worried about safety, why are we not flagging the kid for participating after the fact? After all the rule states as well that participating without a helmet compeltely on, is a foul now. Why is that part ignored if safety is your big concern?

We should have two flags in this situation if for no other reason or IMO you are talking out your behind about how much safety you are concerned with.

Peace

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Our first respoinsiblity are the rules of the game. If the rules of the game say to worry about safety, then we worry about safety.

I ran this play by my crew on Friday and usually I am on the outside when it comes to certain issues as to when to call certain things like this. Everyone on my crew agreed with me. One of my crew members gave an example of another situation where it happened to him. He told me of a scrimmage kick that was kicked badly and the K go the ball behind the LOS and then the recovering player ducked as if to act like he should be down. Well that kid got blown up as the ball was live and there was no reason to stop play. The point my crew member made, "It is there responsiblity to know the rules of the game, shame on them if they do not." Football is a violent game and if a player does something not to protect himself, that is not our issue. Because if we stop play, then someone complains we did something we were not supposed to under the rules.

I agree with this enforcement.


This is not about the letter of the law. This is about the rule states that the helmet must come completely off. That is not what happened here. And if you are worried about safety, why are we not flagging the kid for participating after the fact? After all the rule states as well that participating without a helmet completely on, is a foul now. Why is that part ignored if safety is your big concern?

The discussion has moved on to include other acts not the least of which was a compound fracture with profuse bleeding. In a worst case scenario (depending upon which blood vessel was ruptured) the body can pump out enough blood in a few seconds (I think 4 - 5 was the time frame mentioned in the thread above) to be life threatening. Yet you would still let the play run its course and then address the injury. No one in this discussion is advocating for shutting down plays for routine football issues. After all, players put their safety at risk on each play.

Heaven forbid that I should actually see a situation where a player's safety is so at risk that life or limb be threatened - but if I do I hope I have the courage to blow the play dead.

We should have two flags in this situation if for no other reason or IMO you are talking out your behind about how much safety you are concerned with.

Peace

Peace Out!