Opinions on this play

[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."