The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack (3) Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 24, 2014, 04:14pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
You mean, "Not all hits to the head are illegal." But neither are they all legal. And I don't see how the "targeting" provision changes a thing in that regard. It doesn't make all contact with an opponent's head illegal, and it makes no difference as to contact with an opponent's head that was already illegal.
Huh?

Again, show me anywhere that a stiff arm is considered illegal? One reference please, just one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Of course those actions are not per se illegal. But what we're considering are not stiff arms in general or blows with the shoulder in general. What we're discussing is blows to the head or neck, by whatever technique, that are gratuitous. That is, they could've been avoided, and if they serve a valid tactical purpose (such as fending off a tackler), they could've been served as well by contact at or below the opponent's shoulder. But that was the same under the previous unnecessary roughness provision.
You do not officiate. And right or wrong, the fact that you do not officiate comes out in these kinds of discussions. No rules body, not the NCAA that uses a lot of video to make points or the NFL or the NF has said anything about a stiff arm being illegal even if the contact is with the head. As a matter of fact the NCAA and the NFL have tried to use terms like "defenseless player" or other classifications to allow even contact to the head. And the NF is starting to use the term and if they adopt the NCAA's language, a runner that lowers their head and a tackler that lowers their head will not be considered for a foul if contact inadvertently happens with the head area. Never but on this site have I heard anyone suggest otherwise about a stiff arm being illegal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Who needs one specifically about a stiff arm? Wouldn't you say it's unnecessary roughness any time any player lands a blow that's gratuitous (by the above criteria) to an opponent's head or neck deliberately? Does the wording of the new targeting provision, applied literally, change that to any degree?
Targeting in other codes usually involves a defenseless player as apart of the action. And if they give and example of a stiff arm, then maybe we can have that debate. The problem is no such example has been given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
We realize that because players are allowed certain uses of their hands on opponents, that sometimes their aim will be off. We also know that a tackler or blocker will sometimes present a head first, making it hard to avoid. But don't you also see -- or can't you at least imagine -- cases where it's clear that was no mere slip, and that the player deliberately put that hand or arm somewhere it shouldn't've gone, endangering an opponent's neck? In those cases, does it make any difference to you whether the player was legally allowed some use of the hand or arm in contacting the opponent?
No I cannot. Never seen such an action as you suggest in just my years of officiating that would be over the top or not a football related action. There was always a provision in the rules to penalize a player for a spear if they had the ball, but even that is very rare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
When the rules were revised so that the hands no longer had to be kept close to the body in blocking, was it the intention of the rules makers to change any hits that would've previously been personal fouls into legal actions? (Yes, I know holding used to be penalized 15 yds., but it was not a PF.) Did you think the ballcarrier had any greater privilege in not being flagged for a PF?
OK, what does that have to do with this situation? A BIB used to also be a clip too. What does that have to do with what we are talking about in relationship to a stiff arm?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 24, 2014, 10:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Again, show me anywhere that a stiff arm is considered illegal?
A stiff arm is not illegal. Gratuitously hitting an opponent in the head is illegal.

Do you expect the term "stiff arm" to automatically refer to a head hit? To me it just means fending off an opponent by contact using an open palm and a locked elbow.

Quote:
OK, what does that have to do with this situation? A BIB used to also be a clip too. What does that have to do with what we are talking about in relationship to a stiff arm?
It has to do with the fact that the rules committee has never allowed types of contact by some players that would be unnecessary roughness if done by other players.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 24, 2014, 11:24pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
A stiff arm is not illegal. Gratuitously hitting an opponent in the head is illegal.
Well if you can show me a ball carrier that can do that without trying to score, that will be a first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Do you expect the term "stiff arm" to automatically refer to a head hit? To me it just means fending off an opponent by contact using an open palm and a locked elbow.
No, but it usually takes a free hand to ward off a tackler as a ball carrier has to hold the ball with at least one of their arms. Disabilities aside of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
It has to do with the fact that the rules committee has never allowed types of contact by some players that would be unnecessary roughness if done by other players.
Maybe you are right, but I cannot image an situation where what you are describing is even possible. For one if you are so preoccupied trying to hit someone in the head, the defenders would be trying to strip the ball. And considering that in the game of football the ball is so important, I do not see anything over the top. I have been watching players like Earl Campbell or Walter Payton and other than a spear, I cannot think of a single action they did that i would ever call on a runner. And those were about as punishing a runner as anyone that every played the game.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 25, 2014, 11:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Well if you can show me a ball carrier that can do that without trying to score, that will be a first.
Seems to me that's exactly equivalent to:
Quote:
“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Colgate said.
...which is why I think the new verbiage is superfluous--whether applied to a runner's stiff arm, a tackler's action, or the motions of players blocking or beating blocks. In the past century (conservatively), when has it ever been legal to bring such a blow under the circumstances where you weren't legitimately trying to play the ball or an opponent pursuant to the object of the game? That's why the question, "Does this outlaw a straight arm?" is so easily answered; it doesn't change the legality of any already legal technique. Nor does it change the penalty. So what did it accomplish? Used to be they knew how to write a POE and instruct everyone down the line on it; now it seems they have to act like they're altering the rules.

Quote:
No, but it usually takes a free hand to ward off a tackler as a ball carrier has to hold the ball with at least one of their arms. Disabilities aside of course.
I meant the palm on the same extremity as the locked elbow.

Quote:
Maybe you are right, but I cannot image an situation where what you are describing is even possible. For one if you are so preoccupied trying to hit someone in the head, the defenders would be trying to strip the ball. And considering that in the game of football the ball is so important, I do not see anything over the top. I have been watching players like Earl Campbell or Walter Payton and other than a spear, I cannot think of a single action they did that i would ever call on a runner. And those were about as punishing a runner as anyone that every played the game.
The ballcarrier is not as likely to lay a gratuitous hit as players in position where their action will be inconsequential to play and where it's less likely officials' eyes will be on them, but it's not like it never happens, and it's much more likely to happen with Joe Schmoe in a game where the players outnumber the spectators than it is with an Earl Campbell or Walter Payton. And it's not the stiff arm to the head that a dirty player will attempt, but an uppercut once they're already in close quarters. It looks very natural. The player is running with the ball in one arm and swinging the other, and an opponent is tackling him on the ball side, and the ballcarrier swings that other arm up. He may have already made a fist, but you never noted that because it's natural for players to tense up all their flexors, so it's common for someone running hard to have hands in fists.
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 25, 2014, 12:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
But I have a point, which is that the "targeting" provision is superfluous.

I just happened to go from here to Huey's, where someone had started a thread on the action highlighted by the player in this YouTube. Suppose the offensive left tackle in question had possession of the ball; would his action have been legal? Would the targeting provision have made any difference as to your answer or to the penalty, whether he had the ball or not?
Forgive me, but I was unable to discern anything about the left guard from the 12 second U-tube you reference.

Respondint to your question, if the left guard, or any player, had possession of the ball he would be a "runner" (NFHS: 2-32-13) and subject to any and all restrictions and/or allowances of any other player meeting the requirements of a "runner".
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Fri Apr 25, 2014, 07:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmc View Post
Respondint to your question, if the left guard, or any player, had possession of the ball he would be a "runner" (NFHS: 2-32-13) and subject to any and all restrictions and/or allowances of any other player meeting the requirements of a "runner".
Well, gee, thanks, Tautology Man. Should we get confirmation from the Commissioner of the Obvious?
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 01:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
Well, gee, thanks, Tautology Man. Should we get confirmation from the Commissioner of the Obvious?
Sometimes the most appropriate answer to a silly question, is a silly answer
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 02:50pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,949
And honestly, all of this discussion is silly when you are trying to create a situation to be illegal that has never been addressed as a problem (by any level).

But welcome to the world of the internet.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old Sat Apr 26, 2014, 07:22pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,647
The ignore list function is a wonderful tool.
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 28, 2014, 11:29am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
I think what Robert is trying to describe (and is potentially demonstrated by the LT in the YouTube video) is a punch and that has always been illegal. A punch and targeting are two very different things. If the action by the runner is not a punch or facemask then it's not a foul. I thoroughly expect the rule/philosophy of the NFHS targeting will be very similar to the NCAA rule.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 29, 2014, 10:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,808
What I meant to describe includes punches, but is not encompassed by them. I meant any sort of hit that is outside what is useful to producing tactical football advantage. The way the quoted person describes "targeting" upthread looks like exactly the same concept. But that concept has always been there, as long as there's been a rule against unnecessary roughness. It goes way back to before Fed & NCAA had their own rules.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old Wed Apr 30, 2014, 12:00am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
What I meant to describe includes punches, but is not encompassed by them. I meant any sort of hit that is outside what is useful to producing tactical football advantage. The way the quoted person describes "targeting" upthread looks like exactly the same concept. But that concept has always been there, as long as there's been a rule against unnecessary roughness. It goes way back to before Fed & NCAA had their own rules.
This is all in your mind. This is not as difficult as you want to make it.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/football/97263-new-fed-rules-up.html
Posted By For Type Date
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 04:36pm
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 02:42pm
Going to fast soon to be a penalty? | CoachHuey.com This thread Refback Thu Feb 13, 2014 02:40pm

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When a defender fails to conform to guarding rules, do you apply screening rules? MiamiWadeCounty Basketball 3 Fri Dec 02, 2011 09:55pm
ASA Rules Approved by Playing Rules Committee IRISHMAFIA Softball 2 Wed Nov 09, 2011 03:18pm
NFHS Rules Interpreters versus IAABO Rules Interpreters dpicard Basketball 7 Mon Dec 07, 2009 01:13pm
There are no rules and those are the rules. NCAA JeffTheRef Basketball 6 Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:01pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1