Head to Head contact on pass in End Zone

[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.)

[JRutledge]

Absolutley TJ, I have done it myself a few times.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by tjones1

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.)

Actually I didn't know that, thanks, but since the original post was listed as having been at 9:45AM and the 1st response to it at 9:58, I don't think that applies! I got the "edit marquee" in a lot less time than that.

Here I go 2 min. later.

(And here someone else goes ... hack edit - proving mbc's point)

[Robert Goodman]

It'd help if Robert E. Harrison would come back and write whether he remembers having edited that part of that post.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Actually I didn't know that, thanks, but since the original post was listed as having been at 9:45AM and the 1st response to it at 9:58, I don't think that applies! I got the "edit marquee" in a lot less time than that.

Here I go 2 min. later.

(And here someone else goes ... hack edit - proving mbc's point)

Actually it can be done in a matter of seconds. If a few minutes go by then it will show you edited your points. I have many times hit "Submit" too quick only to realize that I forgot a word in a sentence or forgot a specific point. So if 4 minutes go by, changes are it is too late. But MD and I read the same thing.

And the fact still remains, helmet to helmet contact is not illegal by rule. Illegal Helmet contact is a foul, which may involve contact with any part of the body.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

(And here someone else goes ... hack edit - proving mbc's point)

Neat!

Who's mbc?