Head to Head contact on pass in End Zone
 

Fed Rules: Ball on 7 yard line 3rd and goal. Pass to End Zone where defender and ball arrive simultaneously on incomplete pass with helmet to helmet contact and a penalty flag is thrown for personal foul on the contact by the defender.

A) Half the distance to goal and 1st down

B) Half the distance to the goal 4th down

C) Something else?

Thanks,
Not a football official

Half the distance, replay 3rd down.

I hope these are not fouls simply because of helmet contact? I hope these are fouls because these are illegal helmet contact.

You cannot play football without helmet contact on many cases.

It is still 3rd down as a personal foul in HS is not an automatic FD.

Peace

Something else.

C - Ball on 7 yard line, 4th and goal.
Or, if the helmet to helmet contact is illegal -
C - Half the distance and THIRD down.

Neither A nor B can be right in any case.

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

Or 3rd and goal from the 7. ;) (Very unlikely though.)

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.

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.

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

edit edit edit edit...

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!

Usually....

Hmph. Well, it works for some of us!

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