New Fed rules up

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

So, a stiffarm is now targeting??


“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.

Assuming you are referring to the term, "Stiffarm" as a technique usually deployed by a runner, It would seem that's covered by NFHS: 2-4-a which advises; "An offensive player may also use his hands or arms: (a) When he is a runner (NFHS: 2;32;13); to ward off or push any player."

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Assuming you are referring to the term, "Stiffarm" as a technique usually deployed by a runner, It would seem that's covered by NFHS: 2-4-a which advises; "An offensive player may also use his hands or arms: (a) When he is a runner (NFHS: 2;32;13); to ward off or push any player."

But it says that in context of distinguishing between legal and illegal use of hands & arms generally. It is not iicense to commit a personal foul with the hand or arm! Unfortunately Fed went wrong when they started phrasing parts of their definitions as if they were substantive rules, so the above quoted sentence is inherently confusing, because taken literally and out of context it would imply the runner could make any kind of contact he wanted with the hand (Or fist!) in warding off or pushing a player.

We had a discussion here a year or 2 ago re use of the hands above the shoulders in blocking. The consensus seemed to be that you could draw an illegal use of hands for inadvertently allowing a hand to siip too high during blocking, to the opponent's neck or face, but that deliberate hands to the neck or head would be a personal foul ("unnecessary and tends to invite roughness") -- indeed that the cases of 10 yard penalty would be few, with most either being a non-foul (maybe a warning) or a personal foul.

I see no reason to think the runner's use of hands above an opponent's shoulders would be treated any differently, except that the intermediate area of a 10-yard penalty does not exist in that case. Therefore it seems to me that this "targeting" business makes no practical difference at all -- a deliberate hand to an opponent's face was a personal foul both before and after the rule change. A stiff arm at or below the shoulders would similarly be just as legal before and after.

[JRutledge]

Well Robert, this is where common sense comes in. The NF has addressed what a runner can do in many literature. And until they start saying a stiff arm is illegal, then we will worry about calling them.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But it says that in context of distinguishing between legal and illegal use of hands & arms generally. It is not iicense to commit a personal foul with the hand or arm! Unfortunately Fed went wrong when they started phrasing parts of their definitions as if they were substantive rules, so the above quoted sentence is inherently confusing, because taken literally and out of context it would imply the runner could make any kind of contact he wanted with the hand (Or fist!) in warding off or pushing a player.

We had a discussion here a year or 2 ago re use of the hands above the shoulders in blocking. The consensus seemed to be that you could draw an illegal use of hands for inadvertently allowing a hand to siip too high during blocking, to the opponent's neck or face, but that deliberate hands to the neck or head would be a personal foul ("unnecessary and tends to invite roughness") -- indeed that the cases of 10 yard penalty would be few, with most either being a non-foul (maybe a warning) or a personal foul.

I see no reason to think the runner's use of hands above an opponent's shoulders would be treated any differently, except that the intermediate area of a 10-yard penalty does not exist in that case. Therefore it seems to me that this "targeting" business makes no practical difference at all -- a deliberate hand to an opponent's face was a personal foul both before and after the rule change. A stiff arm at or below the shoulders would similarly be just as legal before and after.

C'mon Robert,Now you're just being silly. I'd be surprised if ANYBODY wants, or thinks, a legitimate "straightarm" should start drawing flags.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

C'mon Robert,Now you're just being silly. I'd be surprised if ANYBODY wants, or thinks, a legitimate "straightarm" should start drawing flags.

How'm I being silly? A legitimate straightarm is just as legitimate as before, and an illegitimate one just as illegitimate as before.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How'm I being silly? A legitimate straightarm is just as legitimate as before, and an illegitimate one just as illegitimate as before.

Again, if you can show us a rule or some statement that any blow by a ball handler with their arm is not legal, then maybe I might consider your opinion. Runners have been throwing blows for years and never have I seen anything suggested outside of spearing that these plays are illegal. Now again, show us one interpretation that implies a stiff arm is a foul by the ball carrier and maybe we can talk about that possibility. But until then you are being completely silly.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again, if you can show us a rule or some statement that any blow by a ball handler with their arm is not legal, then maybe I might consider your opinion. Runners have been throwing blows for years and never have I seen anything suggested outside of spearing that these plays are illegal. Now again, show us one interpretation that implies a stiff arm is a foul by the ball carrier and maybe we can talk about that possibility. But until then you are being completely silly.

Are you saying that every blow by a ball handler's arm is supposed to be legal? Deliberately landing it on the neck or head? If a deliberate hit there is not generally illegal, how about more specifically a punch to the jaw, forearm or elbow to the chops, poke in the eye, or grabbing the neck?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Are you saying that every blow by a ball handler's arm is supposed to be legal? Deliberately landing it on the neck or head? If a deliberate hit there is not generally illegal, how about more specifically a punch to the jaw, forearm or elbow to the chops, poke in the eye, or grabbing the neck?

First of all you keep talking about something that has not been made illegal. All hits to the head are not illegal. And a stiff arm has never been seen to be illegal or lowering a shoulder as the ball carrier is not seen as illegal either.

Now again, if you want to show an interpretation anywhere (including NCAA) where a stiff arm is seen as illegal, just because the head is involved, I am still waiting.

And no one (but you) is talking about poking someone on the eye for God's sake. Stop it with that nonsense.

The next thing you are going to suggest that blocking below the waist is illegal too, even with the fact that rules allow it to take place under the right circumstances.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Are you saying that every blow by a ball handler's arm is supposed to be legal? Deliberately landing it on the neck or head? If a deliberate hit there is not generally illegal, how about more specifically a punch to the jaw, forearm or elbow to the chops, poke in the eye, or grabbing the neck?

Sorry Robert, but you are being silly, and arguing for the sake of arguing. If an official (at any level) doesn't understand and can't tell the difference beteween "delivering a blow (any blow) and a legitimate "straightarm", he's not likely to officiating very long.

The difference is based on common sense, an understanding of the intent of the rule and the inherent courage to "call it as you see it". Without the inherent skills necessary to make a solid and reasonable judgment, officiating is not a wise career choice.