IHC on offense?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Those of us who will work 3-man.

Even our youth ball is 4 here. I've haven't worked 3-man in years.

Heck then 2 man would blow your mind.

Well I have worked 3 man and not sure why this would not have been called. And the game at that level is so slow it should have jumped out at you from the Referee position for sure.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Heck then 2 man would blow your mind.

Well I have worked 3 man and not sure why this would not have been called. And the game at that level is so slow it should have jumped out at you from the Referee position for sure.

Peace

It's an easy foul for the R. I find it sad that the wings couldn't keep up with kids that young, though.

[OKREF]

The first penalty is when the right guard is in his three point stance, comes out of it and then returns. Not saying I would call it at this level.

[bigjohn]

Any initiation of contact with the helmet is illegal; therefore, there must be a focus on
enforcing the existing rules. This year, the committee is taking the step to emphasize all
types of illegal helmet contact:

[MD Longhorn]

John, if you're trying to insist that the contact in the video is a foul, you're wrong. Yes, it's an emphasis... but what you see in this video is not a foul.

[asdf]

Clearly, the blow was delivered with the shoulder pad.

Too bad the R on the crew decided to dress like the was working an AAU basketball game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by asdf

Clearly, the blow was delivered with the shoulder pad.

Too bad the R on the crew decided to dress like the was working an AAU basketball game.

Youth ball early in the season that is what a lot of people do. Hardly anyone wears pants in that situation until it gets cold or colder.

Peace

[bigjohn]

I disagree but clearly officials don't want to call it. QB dropped his head and so did defender. blow it dead, make a statement, offsetting penalties, Whatever. Don't let that go.

The INITIAL CONTACT was with the helmet!

[bigjohn]

BTW we had a varsity crew of 5 do a game dressed in same shorts last friday night, it got down in the 40s by 4th quarter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I disagree but clearly officials don't want to call it.

Whether officials want to call it is immaterial. If we did, we'd be out of work quickly because the coaches don't want that called.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I disagree but clearly officials don't want to call it. QB dropped his head and so did defender. blow it dead, make a statement, offsetting penalties, Whatever. Don't let that go.

The INITIAL CONTACT was with the helmet!

Once again your broad brush that you paint with has missed the mark.

We've had 4 IHC's in 3 games so far this season.

This isn't an example of one.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

I disagree but clearly officials don't want to call it. QB dropped his head and so did defender. blow it dead, make a statement, offsetting penalties, Whatever. Don't let that go.

The INITIAL CONTACT was with the helmet!

I think most actual officials seeing this see the contact initially with the left shoulder and left arm. All helmet contact is not illegal. As often as you disagree with the actual officials on this site, you'd think you might eventually take the time to attend a clinic or three. I applaud you for being interested in this side of the equation, but if your only interest is being the antagonist and refusal to believe when you are told universally that you are wrong, perhaps your interest is not worth your own time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Any initiation of contact with the helmet is illegal; therefore, there must be a focus on
enforcing the existing rules. This year, the committee is taking the step to emphasize all
types of illegal helmet contact:

This was a stiff arm and no it is not illegal to stiff arm someone in the head. And you will not find any such statement by the NF or the NCAA. He did not punch the defender, he used his arm to ward off a tackle. Nothing about the rules or POE has changed that fact.

Peace

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

It's an easy foul for the R. I find it sad that the wings couldn't keep up with kids that young, though.

I don't know if it was as much can't as won't. He was trailing fine for a while and then started mailing it in.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I don't know if it was as much can't as won't. He was trailing fine for a while and then started mailing it in.

Many wing officials accept the challenge to cross the goal line WITH the runner, no matter how long the run. However, in a 3 or 4 man configuration there's often nobody following the wing official watching what's going on behind the runner.

On a long run, the Referee and Umpire can be delayed by action around the original scrimmage line, so once the runner appears in the clear, the wing official slows down to observe the trailing action, but often that area 15 yards, or more behind the runner and a long way from the original scrimmage line is likely an expanding "no man's land" to some extent, in 3 or 4 man coverage.

The solution, of course, is adding a 4th, 5th or 6th man, which is a game management decision.