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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mgussy

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

[mgussy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Peace

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mgussy

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.

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

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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......

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

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

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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?

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

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.

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

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.

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.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by mgussy

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.

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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

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

[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".

[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