Clean hit or foul?

[Atlanta Blue]

I have no foul, yesterday or today.  I am not convinced, even in slow motion, that the contact was with the crown of the helmet, nor is the suggestion that the blocker launched persuasive to me. 

The K player is engaged in pursuit of the runner, and the R player initiates contact to the front.  I've got a clean block.

The contact by R is initiated to the head of K, and he left his feet to do it.  Yes, if he uses the crown of the helmet, that's IHC.  But even if it's forearm that leads, it is still a violation of 9-1-2-a, as he struck the head of K with his elbow or extended forearm.

[Dakota Dan]

I know that the supervisor in my conference would want that called as a UNR targeting foul... I have seen enough down grades to tell me this player had 'options' when he hit him and did not have to go high.

[Welpe]

It would be helpful if we had a more fleshed out definition of a defenseless player because this player doesn't seem to fit the definition as laid out in the POE.

[Curious]

Let's see if I've got this right...

In the NCAA, on a kick play, you can't block below the waist and you can't block above the shoulders.

It's starting to look like the MLB strike zone!

Does the player hit with the "crown"? Maybe; I'm certainly not questioning the call/non-call.  But moving at the speed of the players these days, it's often pretty hard to tell if a B/R player makes a movement which can make such an A/K player's contact "unavoidable".   

[JKS]

The two things done that warrant a flag in my opinion is he launched himself and he targeted above the shoulders.  If he doesn't launch you give him the benefit of the doubt on the other because players duck, lower their head, etc.  In this case, however, he clearly launched himself.  We were taught always flag those who hit defenseless players such as receivers and those who have "slowed up" and don't flag others unless the player clearly launches himself to strike above the shoulders.  That is what you have here. 

[zebra99]

just my last comment on this - consider that we don't have to worry about precise definitions of defenseless, or targeting or crown, etc.  Ask these questions about the nature of the hit - Was it rough?  And more importantly was it necessary?  If you think that the nature of this hit- launching and going high - was "necessary" to make the football play - i.e. effectuate the block, then you have no foul, but I for one would disagree 100%.  The player had a choice to make - go lower, without launching, use his hands, body or even shoulder in a standard blocker motion, or do what he did.  I have a foul on this play everytime, or I'd better get a bunch of upgrades to offset my big downgrade!

The unnecessary roughness foul stands be itself without any need to couple it with the targeting defenseless player and hitting with the crown, which are separate fouls in the book.

Unnecessary roughness is a catch-all provision where we exercise our judgment.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The unnecessary roughness foul stands be itself without any need to couple it with the targeting defenseless player and hitting with the crown, which are separate fouls in the book.

Unnecessary roughness is a catch-all provision where we exercise out judgment.

Well said. 

[twref]

I was at Dick Honig's Clinic last April in East Lansing.  A NFL LOS guy was speaking to the position group.  His exact phrase was "My League don't want it, Your Conference don't want it.  Light em up!".  His point is obvious-the NFL doesn't want these kind of high hits, the NCAA doesn't want them, The NFHS doesn't want them.  Throw the flag and, even if the call is marginal, your Supervisor will always support you.  Good enough for me-I'm going UR

[TXMike]

The NFL is harder on some contact than is the NCAA.  If the NCAA wants all high hits eliminated, the language would be mich more simpler than the current language.  "Luckily" I do not have a conference supervisor to answer to so until the language is changed......