IHC on offense?
 

TM vs Ariton 9/7/13 Highlight of the Game - YouTube

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/IYm0r9k_GYU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What's the question?

the title of the post, do you think this is Illegal helmet contact on the QB??

Sorry - couldn't guess your acronym.

And no.

CONTACT BOTH TO AND WITH THE HELMET
Over the years the NFHS Football Rules Committee has repeatedly emphasized the need
to keep the HEAD OUT OF FOOTBALL, due to the potential for catastrophic head and neck
injuries. Some form of helmet review or illegal helmet contact emphasis has been specifically
targeted by the committee in its publications for review by coaches and officials 22
times since 1980. In the past few years, all levels of football have increased the focus on
decreasing the risk of concussion, and it is widely conceded that one of the biggest steps
in this effort is to eliminate direct helmet-to-helmet contact and any other contact both by
and to the helmet.
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:
• Spearing – an act by an offensive or defensive player who initiates contact against any
opponent with the top of his helmet.
• Face Tackling – an act by a defensive player who initiates contact with a runner with
the front of his helmet.
• Butt Blocking – an act by an offensive or defensive player who initiates contact against
an opponent who is not a runner with the front of his helmet.
The committee is encouraging a renewed emphasis by both coaches and officials on
other types of contact with and to the helmet, which are prohibited by the existing three
rules cited above, as well as the unnecessary roughness provisions of Rule 9, which
include:
• Blows to the Head by the Defender – Any act by a defensive player using the hand(s)
to slap the opponent’s head is illegal. A blocker may not initiate contact with his arm or
hand against an opponent above the opponent’s shoulder.
• Initiating Contact to the Head – It is illegal for a member of either team to use any other
part of the body or equipment to initiate contact to the head. Contact to the helmet of
another player could be one of the three specific illegal helmet contact fouls, or it could
also be a personal foul for unnecessary roughness as defined by Rule 9-4-3g. This is
not limited to acts by the defense (such as the defensive back making the “big hit” on
the receiver, or the linebacker making the blow against a back out of the backfield), but
such prohibition against contact to the helmet extends to all players on all parts of the
field. When in doubt, it should be a foul.
• Helmet-to-Helmet Contact – Particularly in light of the recent RIO data findings, initiated
acts of helmet-to-helmet contact must be penalized when they occur in contests,
and must be corrected immediately if observed in practice. Contact initiated by one
2011 NFHS Football Rules Page 84
player with the helmet to the helmet of another player could be one of the three specific
illegal helmet contact fouls, or it could also be a personal foul for unnecessary roughness
as defined by Rule 9-4-3g. While inadvertent contact between helmets may occur
in close line play or as players are closely engaged, all involved must be aware when
the proverbial “line has been crossed,” and an illegal act has occurred. When in doubt,
it should be ruled a foul.
• Making Initial Contact with the Defender while Running with the Head Down – This
act by the runner lowering his helmet to spear an opponent is not legal per Rule 9-4-3i,
but needs special emphasis to help with risk minimization.
The illegal acts noted above have no place in the game, and the committee believes that
renewed emphasis on getting illegal acts out of the game will improve player safety. When
in doubt, these acts should be viewed as illegal.

Is there a question?

Peace

Definitely something to look at but this is not the type of action the helmet contact rules are trying to eliminate. And I'm somebody who wants to see more IHC calls made. This is two players colliding and their helmets contact. There was nothing "punishing" about what the runner did with his helmet.

I'm more concerned about the apparently missed DB PF by A14 behind the play. The wing official won't see that because it's behind him but the R should see this.

Nice stiff arm!

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-R...527-no/IHC.jpg

QB drops his head and makes contact with helmet!

I saw no such foul. I did see a block in the back or dead ball personal foul near the sideline. Not sure what the R was looking at. But then again this is youth football and fewer officials so not surprised this was missed on some level.

Dropping your head does not mean it is a foul either. I thought he was stiff arming as well.

Peace

No illegal helmet contact foul.

Dead-ball PF on White #14 just after the touchdown.

Big John, this is why still photos are worthless. Given just the photo there, I can see why one might think this is illegal. Given the video, though --- it's not even remotely close.

And while I know you're one for pushing the envelope ... I'm honestly kind of surprised you would think this one was illegal.

PS - posting a ton of words doesn't make you more right.

Absolutely. Hopefully in 3-man, ref is trailing and catches this.

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. :D

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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. :mad:

The INITIAL CONTACT was with the helmet!

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.

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

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

This time of year, anything below HS varsity is done in shorts. Next month, when it gets a bit colder....

The two wings on this play are clearly wearing shorts designed to be worn by officials. The R is wearing baggy basketball shorts.

The director of football officiating in Ohio loves shorts and allows them to be worn by varsity crews in August and September, regardless of how silly they look.

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.

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.

Honestly at the HS level, it does not happened that often. Players are have been taught to not do these things. I cannot think of many times I have even seen a launch other then sometimes on a block. Then again, still rather rare. It has been called, but not every game or every other game. Usually a player misses.

Peace

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.

Far be it from me to pile on, BigJohn, but you're 100% wrong. The stiff-arm is legal & the QB did not lower his head to deliver a blow or punish the defender with his helmet.

Remember: Not all helmet-to-helmet contact is illegal.

I agree. Most HS games I work don't see the type of targeting/launching seen at the college and NFL level. There is some, but it won't be as hard to get out of the HS game.

Agreed, the speed of the collegiate and pro game is so much greater than that of the HS game, creating more opportunities for launching/targeting.

I need to move.

I've seen a few launch like targeting fouls in HS games here but they are few and far between compared to college.

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.

I disagree, quite a bit actually. The linesman running with the runner needs to be there with or ahead of the runner. (Signalling a TD while running looks absurd), and should be looking at the trailing action from in FRONT (i.e. with the runner). The opposite linesman can and should trail the action to pick up what you're calling no-man's land. I do agree that R could be far behind the play, especially if there's no U, as he should not pass players to pick up the trail of the play --- he could just as easily miss transgressions behind him were he to do so.

In a 3-man or 4-man crew, I agree. There's nobody on the goal line. The wing has to try to get there.

In 5-man, I'd rather the wing trail the runner unless the pylon's threatened. The BJ has the goal line.

In 6-man and 7-man, there's a deep wing on the pylon already.

I agree with the R hanging back. I won't pass opposing players if I'm the R. If there's just one player from one team, I'll pass him, but remember that he's there.

Speaking from a practical standpoint:

Many youth leagues play multiple games back-to-back using the same 3 officials for all games. If we're working a three-game set in hot weather, and a player breaks for an obvious TD, I don't have a problem with my wings "saving steps".

Would I *prefer* that he lead the runner? Sure. But I don't have a hissy fit if he's a little ways behind as long as he can officiate what he needs to.

I would not want anyone leading the runner in any situation like that or any set of mechanics as a short wing. You are going to get in the middle of the play if you are leading the runner and be more in survival mode then officiating mode.

But you are certainly right about doing multiple games.

Peace