RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: the clown on August 19, 2017, 12:33:20 PM
-
We are currently all screwed up on how to protect a "defenseless receiver" on a curl route - comeback - hook - basically when the defender is making contact from behind. The contact needs to be "Legal" I'm not talking about him getting blown up (speared or targeted) We have been debating that any "Legal" contact that is hard is illegal. 2-32-16 The case book is lacking in examples. please advise..
-
The direction from 2015 regarding unnecessary and excessive contact (9-4-3g) still applies.
Defenders should be making a bona fide attempt on the ball, or should be making a wrapping tackle. Hits that are simply attempts at punishing the defenseless player are not permitted.
-
We have been discussing a similar situation, and I think the kind of contact you are referring to is displayed in the following clip. When is a HDR called even though the technique in question is legal?
https://youtu.be/xp23E1r8o_4
-
This is difficult because it has been left as purely a judgment call. In the clip by WCFB, the only potential foul is UNR. (You could maybe make a case for spearing, but I'm pretty sure the defender's helmet is to the side of the receiver. For the sake of argument, let's say the hit is NOT with the helmet.)
So, this leaves you with: Is it unnecessary or excessive? Does the defender have any other way to make a play? Is there any "extra" action that is mostly about making a hit instead of making a play?
For me, from the angle shown, I would say this one is close - I'm not actually sure what I would do with it in a game situation. Heck, I'm not even 100% sure what I *want* me to do with it in a game situation... but ultimately, I think this should be a flag for the way the receiver is slammed into the ground. (I can hear the coach now: "He's making a tackle - isn't that what we're supposed to be doing?!") The initial hit appears to me to be a hard but legal attempt to prevent the reception; others will certainly disagree with me. (Opposite coach, screaming: "THAT'S A DEFENSELESS PLAYER!")
Ultimately, though, it's a judgment call.
-
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.
-
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.
Agree. From this angle I have nothing but a good tackle. It will take s lot more than this to convince me we have a foul.
-
In the video clip provide by WCB it appears as if the defender is completely wrapping up. I believe this fits within the definition of what is allowable. It appears to be completely proper technique.
-
That's a tackle. This is football. Play on.
+1
-
Assuming we judge that this is not IHC (I don't think it is):
He didn't go high on the receiver; he hit the receiver in the "strike zone" and wrapped him up; and this is to my mind a "football play". To me, this is exactly the hit that Fed is trying to get kids to do rather than go for the Sportscenter highlight "blowup" play. No flag.
-
In the video I can only see a form tackle with the defender wrapping up just like we want. No foul there.