The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
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.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:26pm
TODO: creative title here
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,250
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 01:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonlj View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 02:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 751
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Sep 24, 2014, 06:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: N.D.
Posts: 1,829
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 25, 2014, 12:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forksref View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 25, 2014, 04:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forksref View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Play at the plate, opinions RKBUmp Softball 27 Wed Aug 01, 2012 07:28am
Opinions, please BlitzkriegBob Softball 8 Fri Feb 26, 2010 02:28pm
Interesting Play, want opinions jkumpire Baseball 8 Mon Oct 19, 2009 07:03pm
Opinions please Chess Ref Softball 15 Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:07am
Need opinions please. DeputyUICHousto Softball 14 Mon Jun 22, 2009 08:54am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:30pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1