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.

Agree completely.....that was a malicious hit, and no need for that crap at any level. Funny they went that way, especially in the wake of all the safety-minded rules they've moved towards and what they're trying to convey, then setting a real piss poor precedent with this explanation and ruling.

Same thing will happen two weeks from now to another QB and they will flip flop entirely.

I bet they wouldn't have ruled a hit like this against a Manning, Brady or Brees to be legal. Just a hunch. :D

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.

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.

Could very well be a "defenseless player" foul and should have been flagged.
Helmet contact has nothing to do with a defenseless player, that is targeting.

Watch the replay of the Foles hit again...play was just about over and Foles had given up on the chase and was within a step of standing still pretty much when he was labeled. Fairly similar to the play in question that started the thread, except Foles was maybe 4 or 5 yards closer to the end of the run/return.

As mentioned...if this was Manning or Brady, I have a feeling this gets a different label on it coming out of the NFL's NY office. That really is the true definition of defenseless player the way he was tagged and according to what they discuss here from the NFL rule book, addressed incorrectly.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-hi...JmMQR2dGlkAw--

The only issue I see, is that it appears Foles is around the ball. He is moving towards the ball. There is even a teammate player of Foles, looking at the ball ready to make a play if needed. If Foles does not want to be hit, then stop running in that direction.

Peace

Interesting in that the call in the Washington/Eagles game was apparently graded as a correct call according to Mike Pereira, yet NFL Executive VP of Football Operations Troy Vincent came out saying the play was legal. The league also did not fine the player for the hit (which would be a minimum fine of $16,537).

This is probably why you should only have your Vice President of Officiating making public statements on officiating and in particular specific calls/plays.

This article isn't quoting the correct part of the rule book if a penalty is to be called on this play. For starters, they quote the rule book from 3 years ago. And while that may have been a blindside block, the defender did not hit cause forcible contact to the head or neck area with his helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. He didn't cause forcible contact with the crown/hairline portion of his helmet. He also did not launch. These are the actions prohibited against a player in a defenseless posture.

The rule to quote is is under roughing the passing provisions.

12-2-9

Roughing the Passer. Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against a player who is in a passing posture (i.e. before, during, or after a pass) which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:

f) A passer who is standing still or fading backward after the ball has left his hand is obviously out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by an opponent through the end of the down or until the passer becomes a blocker, or a runner, or, in the event of a change of possession during the down, until he assumes a distinctly defensive position.

Thankfully here in Canada we have defined defenseless players and protected players by position. This is a foul no matter which position the recipient plays. That it's a QB means that it's a foul for another reason.

At minimum, this is a UR foul. I'm on the train that could easily upgrade this to a Rough Play, which is 25y+DQ.

Agree with AJMC that a defenseless player doesn't need to be hit in helmet or targeted for a foul....though I don't get a full look at this...I wouldn't have a hard time with a IBB foul here either. -1

This PARTICULAR play was clearly a "bang-bang" (could go either way) play, but considering the "principles" Referee's should consider, suggested; The pass was LONG completed, there was a change of possession (interception) and the passer was moving towards the defensive player who intercepted.

Although a passer rightfully deserves additional protection, due to his vulnerability in passing, when he chooses to pursue a play, with an opponent in possession of a live ball, he ASSUMES the same risks, and consequences, ALL pursuing players accept.

My issue is the part you didn't bold.

standing still or fading backward is the opposite of what he was doing.

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."