Defenseless player

[AlUpstateNY]

Coaches are now confused.  Officials are now confused. 

I'm so glad it was so clear to you and all those officials that rely on common sense.  Those of us that read the rule book have just received a new definition that has caused more confusion than it solved. 

I think ONLY those coaches who choose to be confused, and officials who choose to be confused will be at all confused by these new definitions.  Those that have applied common sense, an understanding of the game and what unnecessary and unsportsmanlike actually mean, are likely going to keep on, keeping on and will have no problems with these clarifications.

It's unfortunate that a training film, designed to help clarify these matters, didn't accomplish its objective, but these issues have long been matters of concern and attention.

Forgive me for seeming redundant, but I'm not sure if most coaches have access to, or interest in, the Game Official's Manual which under "Basic Philosophy & Principles; Prerequisites for Good Officiating" advises, "Game officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly.  Game officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules."Authority to exercise that judgment can be found in NFHS 1-1-4 through 9

As a game involving constant, and often aggressive physical confrontations, emotions can run high and eliminating excessive and unnecessary demonstrations of such contacts has been a concern since the game's inception.  These definitions are merely the latest effort to call attention to, and help some identify, behavior that has been clearly understood by most Game officials as prohibited actions that require immediate correction.

[Rulesman]

They have put in a definition of defenseless player and targeting and indicated that contact above the shoulders is illegal. 

Defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury.

Rule 9,Sec 4,Art3,(g): "make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness."

9-4-3g is the whole key to the defenseless player rule. Understand 9-4-3g and you won't have a problem. This is not rocket science.

[bkdow]

Rocket science it is not but the striving consistency and perfection it is. I'm not trying to nit pick but rather understand so I can do my job to the best of my ability and in a manner consistent with the rules. If it were rocket science, I'd have been done before I started.  I do ask so I can know not to stir up trouble. Sorry if I did the later.

[HLinNC]

We've always had flagrant fouls.  We've always had unnecessary roughness.  Rather than creating new rules, the Fed would have been better off emphasizing the ones we have and adding whatever examples they needed to in the case book.  However, it appears they have gotten caught up in the same  wave enveloping the NFL and NCAA.

All in all, we need to so a better job enforcing the rules we have and being more vigilant to players out of the play and blows above the shoulders.

Sadly, as we discussed last night in our local meeting, the poo-poo storm will have coaches squawking targeting just like they holler "that's holdin'"!

[AlUpstateNY]

We've always had flagrant fouls.  We've always had unnecessary roughness. 

All in all, we need to so a better job enforcing the rules we have and being more vigilant to players out of the play and blows above the shoulders.

Absolutely correct, "A rose by any name would smell as sweet".  The decision, however, whether the contact was unnecessary, avoidable, excessive or flagrant continues to rest SOLELY with the covering game official

[CalhounLJ]

I think ONLY those coaches who choose to be confused, and officials who choose to be confused will be at all confused by these new definitions.  Those that have applied common sense, an understanding of the game and what unnecessary and unsportsmanlike actually mean, are likely going to keep on, keeping on and will have no problems with these clarifications.

It's unfortunate that a training film, designed to help clarify these matters, didn't accomplish its objective, but these issues have long been matters of concern and attention.

Forgive me for seeming redundant, but I'm not sure if most coaches have access to, or interest in, the Game Official's Manual which under "Basic Philosophy & Principles; Prerequisites for Good Officiating" advises, "Game officials must have a football sense which supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly.  Game officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules."Authority to exercise that judgment can be found in NFHS 1-1-4 through 9

As a game involving constant, and often aggressive physical confrontations, emotions can run high and eliminating excessive and unnecessary demonstrations of such contacts has been a concern since the game's inception.  These definitions are merely the latest effort to call attention to, and help some identify, behavior that has been clearly understood by most Game officials as prohibited actions that require immediate correction.

I'm confused and I didn't choose to be. In fact I don't want to be.

[FBUmp]

Now to stir the pot even more... do we consider targeting on a defenseless player flagrant and an automatic ejection?

From what I've read, heard and seen, most state supervisors are saying yes.

[FBUmp]

I'm confused and I didn't choose to be. In fact I don't want to be.

What part confuses you? Make a list.

[Rulesman]

From what I've read, heard and seen, most state supervisors are saying yes.

Just be sure it is targeting (by definition). What I fear is a bunch of ejections that won't be supported by film.

[SCHSref]

Coaches are now confused.  Officials are now confused.  I sat in a state clinic last week and the clinician was confused.  A video was produced by a ranking member of the NFHS Rules Committee and his first version of the film (which unfortunately got distributed) had an error, all based on the new "definition" of a defenseless player, and what is and isn't allowed.

I'm so glad it was so clear to you and all those officials that rely on common sense.  Those of us that read the rule book have just received a new definition that has caused more confusion than it solved.  That seems like a pretty good definition of "muddied" to me.

Thank you

[CalhounLJ]

What part confuses you? Make a list.

For starters, doesn't the definition of targeting imply a flagrant act, therefore warranting an ejection? If not, what is the determining factor between a flagrant targeting foul and a "non-flagrant" targeting foul?

[CalhounLJ]

What part confuses you? Make a list.

Number 2:
There is a slide on the rule change powerpoint that illustrates a targeting foul as a fist to the head. Isn't that fighting? If it is, then it carries an auto ejection. Are we now supposed to drop the fighting foul and call it targeting? If so, it is an "auto" flagrant foul with an ejection?

Same thing with the defenseless foul slides. One shows a hit on R before he receives the kick. Isn't that KCI? If so, do we now call it an illegal hit on a defenseless player? Or is it still KCI? With maybe an ejection if flagrant?

[AlUpstateNY]

For starters, doesn't the definition of targeting imply a flagrant act, therefore warranting an ejection? If not, what is the determining factor between a flagrant targeting foul and a "non-flagrant" targeting foul?

Disqualification is a big deal, and should be rare, with "no question about it" conclusions.  When it's necessary there should be no doubt, but each incident requiring that penalty should be judged by itself.  My understanding is that "targeting" at higher levels is an automatic disqualification which may reflect a difference in the maturity of players, leaving the final judgment, at the NFHS level, in the hands of game officials.

[CalhounLJ]

Disqualification is a big deal, and should be rare, with "no question about it" conclusions.  When it's necessary there should be no doubt, but each incident requiring that penalty should be judged by itself.  My understanding is that "targeting" at higher levels is an automatic disqualification which may reflect a difference in the maturity of players, leaving the final judgment, at the NFHS level, in the hands of game officials.

in the Oregon film there was the suggestion at the end that if in doubt, a flagrant foul should be called. Is that the position/suggestion of NFHS, or is that just an Oregon interpretation?

[AlUpstateNY]

in the Oregon film there was the suggestion at the end that if in doubt, a flagrant foul should be called. Is that the position/suggestion of NFHS, or is that just an Oregon interpretation?

I certainly CANNOT speak for either Oregon or the NFHS, but the 2014-15  NFHS "Football Game Officials Manual" suggests in "Guides for "When in Question" (page 82), suggests

Accidental or intentional (for (a) Contact, (b) Touching, (c) Kicking to rule "accidental".

Although the 2014 Points of Emphasis CLEARLY suggest an increased emphasis on "Unwarranted and unnecessary "punishing" of an opponent has become a style of play which is specifically condemned." It further suggests, "The game official must draw distinction between contact necessary to make a legal block or tackle, and that which targets a defenseless player.", seemingly just as CLEARLY, leaving the judgment to disqualify up to the game official observing that specific contact, rather than mandating automatic disqualification.

[CalhounLJ]

So you see why I'm confused?

[AlUpstateNY]

So you see why I'm confused?

Actually, no, this is simply a judgment YOU AND YOU ALONE have to make, which should be based on specifically WHAT you see and HOW specifically IT relates to the rule.  There is no general or blanket answer nor should your judgment be based on what you've seen in a film clip, which only relates to a different SPECIFIC incident.

[SCHSref]

So, any defenseless players calls this year?  Just curious...I had a coach want to introduce me to the guillotine because I didn't throw a flag.  What really steams my turnips is when they tell me that I don't care about the safety of the players.

[CalhounLJ]

I haven't thrown a defenseless player or a targeting flag this year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[swany11]

So, any defenseless players calls this year?  Just curious...I had a coach want to introduce me to the guillotine because I didn't throw a flag.  What really steams my turnips is when they tell me that I don't care about the safety of the players.

A fellow official threw one during a JV game this year. Pass was overthrown, receiver dove for the ball, safety hit the receiver late. Good call.

[Atlanta Blue]

I hope no one has had a "defenseless player" call all year, because there is no such foul!

You can hit a defenseless player.  You can't hit him above the shoulders, or lead with your helmet.  You can't hit him late.  But there is nothing that protects him from a legal block.

The rule did not change!  FED add a meaningless definition that confused the entire situation, coaches, and apparently, some officials as well.

A fellow official threw one during a JV game this year. Pass was overthrown, receiver dove for the ball, safety hit the receiver late. Good call.

May well have been a good call, but it was for a late hit personal foul.  It had NOTHING to do with him being a "defenseless player".  If it wouldn't have been a foul last year, then it wasn't a foul this year.  If it would have been a late hit last year, then that's what it is this year as well.

[bama_stripes]

Our crew has had one targeting flag this year.  No "defenseless player" fouls.  One facemask against the ball carrier.

[AlUpstateNY]

I hope no one has had a "defenseless player" call all year, because there is no such foul!

You can hit a defenseless player.  You can't hit him above the shoulders, or lead with your helmet.  You can't hit him late.  But there is nothing that protects him from a legal block.

I agree, partially, that there is no specific foul for contacting a "defenseless player".  It seems the definition was added in an attempt to clarify and understand what is a not-uncommon example of NF: 9-4-g "Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed (exclusively by the covering official) unnecessary or which incites roughness".

An alternate description might be, "Cheap Shot".

However, such contact is absolutely NOT limited to contact above the shoulders, with the head or late, and may VERY WELL include an otherwise PERFECTLY LEGAL CONTACT delivered under different circumstances.

[riffraft]

I hope no one has had a "defenseless player" call all year, because there is no such foul!

You can hit a defenseless player.  You can't hit him above the shoulders, or lead with your helmet.  You can't hit him late.  But there is nothing that protects him from a legal block.

The rule did not change!  FED add a meaningless definition that confused the entire situation, coaches, and apparently, some officials as well.

May well have been a good call, but it was for a late hit personal foul.  It had NOTHING to do with him being a "defenseless player".  If it wouldn't have been a foul last year, then it wasn't a foul this year.  If it would have been a late hit last year, then that's what it is this year as well.

^^^This

Personally I don't call it any different then I called it last year. I wouldn't allow a "cheap" shot last year and won't allow it this year. NFHS just created confusion rather than clarification with this addition.

[Atlanta Blue]

I agree, partially, that there is no specific foul for contacting a "defenseless player".  It seems the definition was added in an attempt to clarify and understand what is a not-uncommon example of NF: 9-4-g "Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed (exclusively by the covering official) unnecessary or which incites roughness".

An alternate description might be, "Cheap Shot".

However, such contact is absolutely NOT limited to contact above the shoulders, with the head or late, and may VERY WELL include an otherwise PERFECTLY LEGAL CONTACT delivered under different circumstances.

That's fine, IF it was a foul last year.  And if it was, then it's a foul this year as well.  But the fouls didn't change.