Opinions on this play

[bisonlj]

A player who receives a blindside hit is considered defenseless but in the NFHS rule book that only matters if there is illegal helmet contact and you deem it to be flagrant. There is no helmet contact here so you don't have targeting either.

I feel this is a PF for a late hit and also UNR. It's not exactly a pile-picker but pretty close. The runner was being tackled and this player was not involved in that. #31 was looking for someone to hit and found someone who wouldn't see it coming. I flag these types of plays every time I see them.

The coach may not be directly telling his players to play dirty, but he probably tells them to play hard and to the whistle on every play which many players interpret to this kind of hit. They get attaboys for hard hits and the whistle hasn't blown yet so they find someone to hit. This is the result. All we can do is flag it consistently so they hopefully stop doing it. I've been flagging it for 14 years though and it still hasn't gone away.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

A player who receives a blindside hit is considered defenseless but in the NFHS rule book that only matters if there is illegal helmet contact and you deem it to be flagrant. There is no helmet contact here so you don't have targeting either. .

I agree with your philosophy but NOT your explanation. NFHS: 2-32-16 defines a defensless player as; a player, "who because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury". It has absolutely no REQUIRED CONNECTION to either "Targeting" or ANY requirement for "Illegal Helmet Contact".

This rule addition is simply an effort to call attention to what HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OBJECTIVE in preventing deliberate and unnecessary CHEAP SHOTS, and "MAY" extend to include and cover acts that violate any of the "Illegal Helmet Contact" fouls.

You are correct in suggesting "CHEAP SHOTS" have long been a plague, spoiling this game, and added focus on eliminating this behavior is welcome. These new definitions are NOT intended to limit the application of serious penalty, rather they are entended to eliminate "arguments designed to avoid penalty and rid the game of a major type of CHEAP SHOT.

[asdf]

Had the runner been tackled a couple of seconds later, it would have been an IBB and the player still would have the injury.

See these all the time on kick returns. Unfortunately, this one ended up with a player injured.

[Forksref]

There are a couple of applicable fouls that may be used here: 9-4-3b (charge into an opponent who is obviously out of the play or after the ball is clearly dead). This is not a new section of the rules. 9-4-3g (make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary) Again, not a new section.

Had the ball still been live, we could have had an illegal block in the back, but that would have only resulted in a 10 yd penalty.

IMHO, I would have flagged it for 9-4-3b (charge into an opponent who is obviously out of the play)

We have a new definition of a "defenseless player" (2-32-16) but it is only referenced in fouls by the phrase "helmet to helmet contact against a defenseless player" 9-4-3i(3) so the defenseless player would not apply here.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Forksref

There are a couple of applicable fouls that may be used here: 9-4-3b (charge into an opponent who is obviously out of the play or after the ball is clearly dead). This is not a new section of the rules. 9-4-3g (make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary) Again, not a new section.

Had the ball still been live, we could have had an illegal block in the back, but that would have only resulted in a 10 yd penalty.

IMHO, I would have flagged it for 9-4-3b (charge into an opponent who is obviously out of the play)

We have a new definition of a "defenseless player" (2-32-16) but it is only referenced in fouls by the phrase "helmet to helmet contact against a defenseless player" 9-4-3i(3) so the defenseless player would not apply here.

I honestly have a hard time saying this player is out of the play when he is running at speed towards the location the tackle is made.

The hit in the NFL game over the weekend was a hit on a player out of the play. This one I'm not so sure on.

[APG]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The hit in the NFL game over the weekend was a hit on a player out of the play. This one I'm not so sure on.

Assuming you're talking about Washington vs. Eagles game, the NFL came out and said that hit was legal.

[HLin NC]

Runner is down, so technically a late hit but doesn't look that malicious to me. It isn't a BIB either, sideblock IMO.

Best you can do, DBPF. Stuff happens.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by APG

Assuming you're talking about Washington vs. Eagles game, the NFL came out and said that hit was legal.

Personally, I think that was a BS ruling from the NFL. There was one reason that hit was delivered and it was to head hunt a quarterback.

This play is closer but I think a flag for unnecessary roughness is still warranted.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by APG

Assuming you're talking about Washington vs. Eagles game, the NFL came out and said that hit was legal.

And they're on drugs. That was cheap, dirty, and illegal.

I'd flag that crap 100% of the time in a HS/college game and I'm actually shocked that the NFL's VP would come out and say that.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I honestly have a hard time saying this player is out of the play when he is running at speed towards the location the tackle is made.

The hit in the NFL game over the weekend was a hit on a player out of the play. This one I'm not so sure on.

This is not one of those hits 20 yards behind a runner, but I call these pile pickers. The player looks for someone standing/jogging near the end of a run and wants to blind side/decleat him so he gets a huge roar from his sideline. It's a cheap shot and should be a foul.

This is a side block, not a block in the back. As I watch more and more video I see this being the one rule officials get wrong the most. It is missed almost as often as side blocks are called fouls.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Forksref

We have a new definition of a "defenseless player" (2-32-16) but it is only referenced in fouls by the phrase "helmet to helmet contact against a defenseless player" 9-4-3i(3) so the defenseless player would not apply here.

With all due respect, your suggestion that the penalty reference in NFHS 9-4-3-i-note-3 "illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player, somehow limits defenseless player fouls to ONLY illegal helmet contacts, DIRECTLY contradicts 2-32-16, and common sense.

2-32-16 is FAR broader admonition suggesting, "A defenseless player is A PLAYER who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration , is especially vulnerable to injury." There is NO applied, or inferred, limintation to such illegal contacts mandating ONLY helmet-to-helmet contacts.

Although 2014 Points of Emphasis mentions the "importance placed on risk minimization and injuries to the head and neck areas" it goes on to advize, "it is imperative to implement rules that place restrictions on hits to players who are not in a position to defend themselves.", which applies to a far greater variety of contacts than those limited to the illegal helmet-to-helmet variety.

[JRutledge]

I think we do not even talk about the Skins vs. Eagle hit it it was not a QB. I thought the hit was fine and somewhat around the ball. If you do not want to be hit, do not pursue the darn ball.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think we do not even talk about the Skins vs. Eagle hit it it was not a QB. I thought the hit was fine and somewhat around the ball. If you do not want to be hit, do not pursue the darn ball.

Peace

In a league that more safety conscious than ever, especially with its quarterbacks, I think it says something when something that was this visual and out in the open was said to be a legal hit.

I think the closest category that this play can be called under is a simple UNR for a late hit.

I don't think the defender violated any of the UNR provisions for for a hit on a player in a defenseless posture (which the QB is considered after a COP). The block wasn't in the head or neck area and the crown of the helmet wasn't used. The only other question is whether the league considers Foles actions toward the end of play of Foles being a distinctly defensive position. When the hit happened Foles was about five yards from the play and moving toward the runner.

That said, I would expect that kind of play to be flagged more often than not.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by ajmc

With all due respect, your suggestion that the penalty reference in NFHS 9-4-3-i-note-3 "illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player, somehow limits defenseless player fouls to ONLY illegal helmet contacts, DIRECTLY contradicts 2-32-16, and common sense.

2-32-16 is FAR broader admonition suggesting, "A defenseless player is A PLAYER who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration , is especially vulnerable to injury." There is NO applied, or inferred, limintation to such illegal contacts mandating ONLY helmet-to-helmet contacts.

Although 2014 Points of Emphasis mentions the "importance placed on risk minimization and injuries to the head and neck areas" it goes on to advize, "it is imperative to implement rules that place restrictions on hits to players who are not in a position to defend themselves.", which applies to a far greater variety of contacts than those limited to the illegal helmet-to-helmet variety.

We do not use the definitions in rule 2 to call fouls. We use the definitions within the foul descriptions, in this case rule 9-4-3. If you believe there should be a foul called in this situation, then 9-4-3b is a good choice. The thing about the new emphasis on targeting, helmet contact, etc. is that we have always had rules to use in these situations. I tell our crew, "You will know the foul when you see it. Safety is most important and we can figure out how we want to announce the foul and enforce it."