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

[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!

[JRutledge]

Scuba_ref,

Well all that stuff you are talking is hyperbole. Blood spattering profusely is something most of us have never seen and something tells me you have never seen it either and never will. I have seen compound fractures and other serious injuries many times and never had an issue come up where stopping the clock is even an issue. As I said before, most plays end in a matter of seconds, even the long ones. You do not need to stop many plays because that extra second that you say is at issue. But then again, we have people to make a point have to pull out of their behinds the most extreme situation when we are only talking about a helmet being twisted and if that applies to the rule about the helmet coming off. Not surprised this would bug you to have someone not agree with you.

Peace

[Rich]

Quick note:

Calling someone a "jerk off" is going to get a poster some time away. Just sayin'.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

Our first responsibility is safety

Herein lies the problem.