New Fed rules up

[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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all you keep talking about something that has not been made illegal. All hits to the head are not illegal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

No one has suggested that any blow thrown as apart of a runner holding the ball and advancing, other than a spear has never been considered illegal. I guess if a runner jumps up in the air and kicks the potential tackler like Billy Simms did with Detroit back in the day, I can see that being a foul. But not a forearm like Neal Anderson did in the Super Bowl where he threw his arm up and hit a potential tackler in the upper part of his body should not be considered illegal unless you want to totally change the game.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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?