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

A fellow official sent me this this morning:
High School Football Player Gets Helmet Twisted Backwards, Leveled

For those who can't view the video:
When the second defender hit the runner, the runner's helmet came off.

Do you make the runner go out for a play or not?

I say no, because, IMHO, the foul by the first defender was the main cause of the helmet coming off, albeit after several seconds had elapsed.

What say you?

No, the player should not come out IMO. The foul is what caused the problem. And to the the spirit of the rule this was a result of a foul, but not the usual situation.

Peace

Three things come to mind here.

1) Do not send the player out. (can't put myself in the R's position, but if he saw the helmet turned around, he could have killed the play for safety's sake)

2) Coaches need to take a more active role in ensuring that players are properly wearing their helmets. Players are either strapping the 4 points and sliding the helmets on or loosely setting their straps, then buckling up.

3) The FED needs to increase the amount of plays a player sits for the helmet coming off. One play isn't getting it done.

Killing the play in this situation wouldn't be supported by rule... we can only kill it “when the helmet comes completely off the player who is in possession of the ball” (4-2-2k).

With that said, I doubt anyone would raise too big a stink if there was an "inadvertent whistle" in that situation.

And I agree with the rest of you post.

The player has got to be smarter too. He is running without his helmet being on properly. Not smart. And I do not feel our job to save him from stupidity either.

Peace

It's high school. Of course that's our job. ;)

I can't see the video, but from the description, his helmet's being on loosely may have saved him from a serious neck injury.

I've never been sure whether the improvements in helmets and rules to protect the head have been worth the increased danger to the neck. Now that helmets have face masks and 4 pt. attachments, you may be luckier if these items fail than if they succeed at staying on your head.

Our job is to apply the rules, to make up a rule for a kid that cannot properly see. If he could not see, why did he run like he could? Sorry, I totally disagree that this has anything to do with the level.

Peace

For once, I agree with Robert - if he had it on so snugly that it wouldn't have moved when tugged, he might have ended up with a broken neck from the force of the foul.

I have absolutely no problem "making up a rule" in order to save a high school student athlete from potential serious injury.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that in this situation you'd be hard pressed to find any state athletic administrator that thinks otherwise.

Well I don't and I am fine with my stance. Not in something like this for sure. And this is not even close. Again the players have some responsibility for their own safety as well. If they cannot see why would you run like you can? You are also taking away an opportunity from the defense to strip the ball or make another play that benefits them too. Our actions as officials also does not "save" players from injury. They are likely already injured by the time we take action at all. And if you blow the whistle, it better be treated as an inadvertent whistle by rule, not some "The play was stopped" crap which I am reading.

Peace

That really sucks. So sorry to hear that about you.

So ... you're of the opinion that you, a lone official, knows better than the entire NFHS regarding safety? You think that the scenario we're talking about has never ever either happened or even occurred to anyone as a possibility?

If tptb wanted you to stop play if this happened, they'd tell you so.

If I was a coach in your scenario, I'd be demanding you enforce the inadvertent whistle rule (assuming that might benefit me in some way).

The only thing worse than an inadvertent whistle is an advertant improper whistle.

If the players are responsible for their own safety, then why do we penalize
them for continued participation after their helmet comes off? Did they somehow obtain some additional advantage with their helmet off? Of course not.....

We penalize them because it's not safe for them to continue.

Any player is at risk on any play in football. This situation may come up in a career for one out of ten officials, making this not just any play. Now we have a runner that is essentially blind, not able to prepare for contact and wearing equipment that due to a foul by an opponent, may actually cause him catastrophic injury.

An inadvertent whistle hurts nobody here. The penalty will be accepted, the foul enforced from the basic spot, the player remains not only in the game, but is able to attend school tomorrow.

Look at the big picture.

There are a lot of things we do not penalize that players, coaches and schools are responsible for.

And also this is a new rule that came from the NCAA. It was not even an NF Rule until this year. The NF is lazy and came up with a rule from another level. And it was only a rule at the NCAA level after a lot of research of helmets coming off and when they tracked every incident. The NF just adopted an already used rule.

That is great, but what does that have to do with the rule? I have seen many injuries over my career and none actually took place for this specific action shown in the video. Actually I cannot think of a single time where a player was even hurt before the rule when their helmet came off. Players then took actions not to get hit or they continued to play being aware they had no protection on their head. So players have been protecting themselves for years. We now have rules that address these issues specifically and I am fine with them, but not making judgments based on what I think a player might or might not do with their helmet falling off is not my job. Again, you are taking the opportunity away from the opponents to make a play too.

Sorry, it does. It hurts the opponent to make a play. And yes a coach will be upset if you take that away from them too. I am looking at the big picture as well. I am a multiple sport officials that does not completely make up rules to satisfy some silly fear (which has never happen to most of us) of someone getting hurt that did not even take place in this very example used. I have seen players in my entire career get more hurt by following every rule and doing the most routine things. Even these things we have rules for often do not result in injury. And now you want to make up a rule completely because the kid did not get a properly fitted helmet and then decided to keep playing when he could not see? And just because he does not have a helmet does not mean he will be hit in the head or that his only fear he has to worry about. Coaches used to tell our top running back in high school he had to learn when to go down when players where hanging on him. He learned and fortunately avoided some injuries to other parts of his body then his head.

Peace

Actually, we penalize the player in that situation because the rulebook says that we penalize the player in that situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Last year, we didn't penalize the player in that situation because there was no rule basis to support penalizing the player in that situation.

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

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

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

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".

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

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

....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......

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 :D:D:D (Except for IW plays, I hate those, especially when they're mine !!!) :):):)

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

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.


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,

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

Quick note:

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

Herein lies the problem.