Head to Head contact on pass in End Zone

[Robert Goodman]

JRutledge & MDLonghorn, can't you take the original poster's word for it that it was a personal foul? Why futz around with saying, "If the helmet contact was illegal"? You might as well add all sorts of other caveats, like if there was no offsetting foul or the game wasn't called for lightning. Sheesh.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

JRutledge & MDLonghorn, can't you take the original poster's word for it that it was a personal foul? Why futz around with saying, "If the helmet contact was illegal"? You might as well add all sorts of other caveats, like if there was no offsetting foul or the game wasn't called for lightning. Sheesh.

He said helmet to helmet contact. The wording alone is not something that is illegal. So no I cannot totally take his word for it as he also did not describe anything illegal. The problem is that people have watched too much media and think that any helmet contact is illegal when clearly the NCAA and even the NF has stated that is not the case. That is why I made that comment because there is a reason the rule is called, "Illegal Helmet Contact." You cannot play this game if you think all contact with a helmet is a foul. And yes it might matter to someone that is reading this and thinks there is something illegal about simple helmet contact. Also even the rules about "launching" which I hear applied to all levels is very specific to the NCAA and does not necessarily involve helmet contact at all.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He said helmet to helmet contact. The wording alone is not something that is illegal. So no I cannot totally take his word for it as he also did not describe anything illegal.

He wrote:

helmet to helmet contact and a penalty flag is thrown for personal foul on the contact by the defender.

Meaning the judgment has already been made that it was a personal foul. What do you want, a blow by blow description? Why do you have to go back & question the premises? Are you going to ask, "How do you know it was Fed rules?" too, after the initial poster wrote "Fed rules:"?

Are you sure they were playing football? It could've been hockey or a motorcycle rally.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

He wrote:

Meaning the judgment has already been made that it was a personal foul. What do you want, a blow by blow description? Why do you have to go back & question the premises? Are you going to ask, "How do you know it was Fed rules?" too, after the initial poster wrote "Fed rules:"?

Are you sure they were playing football? It could've been hockey or a motorcycle rally.

Again, that is great. But if you want me or others to assume as such, then use the terminology that puts it in no doubt. It is just like when someone in basketball says it is a "block" because a he/she was not set. You would get a similar reaction from basketball officials stating that is not correct either.

So it must be noted IMO that the terminology he stated is not a good description of an actual foul. And on a pass, players could be diving for the ball and hit helmets. I have seen it happen and not been a foul.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, that is great. But if you want me or others to assume as such, then use the terminology that puts it in no doubt. It is just like when someone in basketball says it is a "block" because a he/she was not set. You would get a similar reaction from basketball officials stating that is not correct either.

So it must be noted IMO that the terminology he stated is not a good description of an actual foul. And on a pass, players could be diving for the ball and hit helmets. I have seen it happen and not been a foul.

Peace

For crying out loud, Jeff. The OP clearly states there was a flag thrown, so let's go ahead and assume the contact was illegal. If he would have questioned the refs throwing the flag, you'd have deferred to the guys on the field. The question was obviously about rule enforcement, not judgment.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

For crying out loud, Jeff. The OP clearly states there was a flag thrown, so let's go ahead and assume the contact was illegal. If he would have questioned the refs throwing the flag, you'd have deferred to the guys on the field. The question was obviously about rule enforcement, not judgment.

Adam ... both Jeff and I read the same thing. I see there's no "edited by" stamp, but I'm relatively certain that when originally posted, the comment about there being a flag was NOT there. Of course, I can't prove it.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Adam ... both Jeff and I read the same thing. I see there's no "edited by" stamp, but I'm relatively certain that when originally posted, the comment about there being a flag was NOT there. Of course, I can't prove it.

I'm sure you all know but if you don't know, it's true that if you're quick enough editing your initial post then it won't be stamped with an edit marquee.

Ask me how I know.

(I've had many mistakes I caught after posting.)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

JRutledge & MDLonghorn, can't you take the original poster's word for it that it was a personal foul? Why futz around with saying, "If the helmet contact was illegal"? You might as well add all sorts of other caveats, like if there was no offsetting foul or the game wasn't called for lightning. Sheesh.

Did he say it was a personal foul? I see no word to take there. He says there is contact. You say we might as well add stuff... I didn't. Assuming that the contact was a foul would have been adding stuff, since he did not say that.

[MD Longhorn]

And now it does.... Hmmm.....

edit edit edit edit...

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Did he say it was a personal foul? I see no word to take there.

Then you're not reading. I know it was in the original post because there's no note below it saying it was edited at a later time, which this software puts in if that's the case.

Just testing that by putting in an edit now.

And it wasn't even a long post! And it was in the same sentence he mentioned the helmet contact!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then you're not reading. I know it was in the original post because there's no note below it saying it was edited at a later time, which this software puts in if that's the case.

Just testing that by putting in an edit now.

Usually....

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Usually....

Hmph. Well, it works for some of us!