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

[jTheUmp]

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:

Christian Young of Viewmont High School had his facemask yanked so hard by a defender on a play that his helmet was backwards, essentially blinding him. The referee threw an obvious flag, but the play wasn't dead since Young still hadn't been tackled. He stumbled blindly while fruitlessly trying to fix his helmet when—oh, now the play's over.

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?

[JRutledge]

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

[asdf]

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.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by asdf

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)

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Adam

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

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

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by asdf

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

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

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.

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.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

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.

Originally Posted by asdf

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.

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

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by asdf

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.....

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.