New Fed rules up

[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

[JRutledge]

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

[HLin NC]

The ignore list function is a wonderful tool.