New Fed rules up

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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

[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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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