Opinions on this play
 

There is a long article about a play in a west side of Michigan game.

Muskegon football notes: Controversial hit ends season for North Muskegon quarterback - MLive.com


The video of the play is imbedded in the article, but I don't see it on youtube or anything to post, so this is the best I can do.


My opinion is the only foul on this is for a late hit. I don't think it is targeting, nor do I think this is a hit on a defenseless player. I say he is not defenseless because he is approaching the play, and from what I see the contact is otherwise legal. Has the NFHS's interpretations changed enough to consider this a defenseless player, and if so should this be anything more than a 15 yard penalty?

Sadly, the player who was injured is also the starting QB for the team and is out for the season with a broken collarbone.

Edit by Welpe:

Found the embed code in the article, here you go.

<param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=3800240265001&playerID=243680629100 1&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAQBxUr7k~,PsMaWpexSO0gBGbwp0HC 65I60alsnUQ1&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=3800240265001&playerID=24368062 91001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAQBxUr7k~,PsMaWpexSO0gBGbw p0HC65I60alsnUQ1&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=tru e" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Borderline UNR for a late hit (had I seen it, I probably would've thrown on it, although the fact that this player was the quarterback is irrelevant), otherwise no foul.

And the defenseless player rule only applies to illegal helmet-to-helmet hits, it does not mean that a defenseless player cannot be hit at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

+1

+2.....but I can hear the whining about his head not being in front also.

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.

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.

Ditto and ditto.

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.