Illegal use of hands on a tight end in press coverage

[pjsaul]

I saw this in a varsity game this past weekend, and it has been bugging me. One team had a massive tight end (4 star prospect committed to a Big Ten school), who was being covered by players significantly smaller than him.

On one play with press coverage, he did a technique basically what I would say was similar to a swim move a defensive end might perform on an offensive lineman. As he was trying to pass his arm over the helmet of the player in coverage, he ended up swatting the defender pretty hard in the head. Whether or not it was intentional, the contact seemed to do enough to do the defender to allow the tight end to quickly get in to open space.

At the time, I had no flag.  It certainly wasn't "violent" enough to justify a 9-4 personal foul

In hindsight, I think I could justify an illegal use of hands based on two violations of 2-3-3: swinging the forearm faster than the shoulder, and initiating contact above the head.

Thoughts?

[bigjohn]

“Taking aim with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders to initiate contact above the shoulders, which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball, will be prohibited,” Colgate said.

Effective with the 2014 high school season, new Rule 2-43 will read as follows: “Targeting is an act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.”

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/targeting-defined-in-high-school-football-in-effort-to-reduce-risk-of-injury/

[HLinNC]

I think you're good with 2-3-3 given your description of the action.

[Ralph Damren]

I think you're good with 2-3-3 given your description of the action.

In David/Goliath situations, I usually give the nod to David. Once flagged , he will probably stop that act. If not flagged he probably won't. The Big Ten fans don't usually cheer their players that draw . Better for him to learn now than for him to learn then.

[Atlanta Blue]

Intentional contact - foul.

Unintentional - nothing.

And be damn sure it's intentional before throwing a flag. This happens on the line about 40 times a game.

[FLAHL]

...he ended up swatting the defender pretty hard in the head.   Thoughts?

   That's enough for me.  We are way beyond "I didn't mean it" or "It was an accident" when we have an illegal hit to the head.  Especially when it comes from Goliath.

[bigjohn]

So you agree, targeting??

[AlUpstateNY]

Intentional contact - foul.

Unintentional - nothing.

And be DARN sure it's intentional before throwing a flag. This happens on the line about 40 times a game.

Perhaps it's happening "40 times a game" because nobody has taken the time to explain it's NOT ALLOWED to happen, which is a message that can taught quickly with a flag.

[FLAHL]

So you agree, targeting??

It's difficult to judge the "taking aim" part of targeting without seeing the play.  But at a minimum I have 2-3-3 as the others have said.

[bigjohn]

I think 'taking aim' just means it is intentional, don't you?

[ECILLJ]

So you agree, targeting??

IMHO, we have a personal foul, but this does not meet the criteria of targeting. The training films we have watched this summer often mentioned aim and launch as two considerations for targeting. The aiming and launching examples we saw were with the entire body and not just a hand or arm.

[bigjohn]

ART. 3 . . . The blocker’s hand(s) may not be locked nor may he swing, throw
or flip the elbow or forearm so that it is moving faster than the blocker’s shoulders
at the time the elbow, forearm or shoulder contacts the opponent. The
 blocker may not initiate contact with his arm or hand against an opponent above
the opponent’s shoulder, but he may use his hand or arm to break a fall or
 maintain his balance.


TARGETING ----which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball,

[ECILLJ]

TARGETING ----which goes beyond making a legal tackle, a legal block or playing the ball,

If you want to call targeting in your games, have at it. 

[pjsaul]

Thank you all for your input.  It is obviously hard to describe live plays in text form, but I would be hard pressed to throw a targeting flag.  I will feel confident throwing an illegal use of hands when I see this in the future.

[bigjohn]

KEY ELEMENTS

Target—to take aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with an apparent intent that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Crown of the Helmet—the top portion of the helmet.

Contact to the head or neck area—not only with the helmet, but also with the forearm, fist, elbow, or shoulder—these can all lead to a foul.

Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.


http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342

[AlUpstateNY]

John, most officials understand their role is to understand, observe and identify violations of existing rules THAT THEY ACTUALLY SEE, rather than search for inventive ways to craft violations that they can create based on twisting language to mean what they want. 

[Curious]

I saw this in a varsity game this past weekend, and it has been bugging me. One team had a massive tight end (4 star prospect committed to a Big Ten school), who was being covered by players significantly smaller than him.

Don't penalize an act just because a player is bigger and stronger

On one play with press coverage, he did a technique basically what I would say was similar to a swim move a defensive end might perform on an offensive lineman.

This move, including some contact with an opponent's helmet many times during a game - especially, as you point out, during line play.  Unless the move is used like a battering ram, you wouldn't call it then - so why now? 

As he was trying to pass his arm over the helmet of the player in coverage, he ended up swatting the defender pretty hard in the head.

Whether or not it was intentional, the contact seemed to do enough to do the defender to allow the tight end to quickly get in to open space.

NOW we're talking about your judgement: "swatting... pretty hard" MIGHT very well be a foul - if it is "aimed" at the shoulders or above OR if it were designed to push off to gain an advantage (OPI).  If you felt either of the latter was the intent,  .

At the time, I had no flag.  It certainly wasn't "violent" enough to justify a 9-4 personal foul.  In hindsight, I think I could justify an illegal use of hands based on two violations of 2-3-3: swinging the forearm faster than the shoulder, and initiating contact above the head.

IMHO, if you didn't think it was UNR, it was probably best left alone.  If the movement was no more than part of a "swim move" by a big guy....

Thoughts?

[bigjohn]

CALL-ME-AL

NFHS is the one that keeps adding twisted language to fouls that are already in the books so officials will finally call things that always fell under UNR and they refused to call it,


swatting the defender pretty hard in the head.