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

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. :)

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.)

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

Peace

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)

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

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

Neat!

Who's mbc?

And your response was posted almost 2 hrs. after the original post's time stamp.

So?

Helmet to helmet contact is not in itself illegal. And that using of that is perpetuating a myth of the rules and always needs to be corrected.

Peace

maybe it should be illegal to edit a post!

Before I was a moderator, the only time I ever was able to edit a post without it leaving a stamp was when I edited so fast no one could have read it.

Besides, even without that, the question was clearly about rule enforcement rather than judgment.

I believe that would be me... someone remembers my old handle. And yes, any of the mods can do that trick. Not that we would...

Not intentionally, anyway. I've actually gone back and re-edited just to put a reason in there; to make sure there was a record.

No edits made to my post
 

Gentlemen,
I did not edit my post. It stands as I originally posted it. As I stated, I am not a football official.

My issue was still the language that is there. And I would not expect you to know this, but as basketball officials we get caught up in language all the time. That is not an insult to you and not a big deal.

Peace