Is hands to the face a penalty under NFHS rules?

[PTReferee]

I can't find it in the rule book.

[CalhounLJ]

I can't find it in the rule book.

Bookmark this article

9-4 ART. 7 ... No defensive player may use the hand(s) to slap the blocker’s head.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PTReferee]

I see these as two different fouls.  A slap to the head is different than an upward push to the facemask.

[GA Umpire]

Bookmark this article

9-4 ART. 7 ... No defensive player may use the hand(s) to slap the blocker’s head.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would look at 2-3-2; 2-3-5; and 9-2-1a.
It would be illegal use of hands.  10 yds.

[refjeff]

2.3.2.b.3

"at the shoulders or below"

For me it's kind of like a face mask foul.  Touching the face mask is not a foul.  Grasping the face mask is a foul.

Illegal Use of the Hands. Touching the face mask is not a foul.  Pushing the face mask is a foul.

[PTReferee]

That's what I was looking for. Thanks Calhoun and GAU!

[AlUpstateNY]

I can't find it in the rule book.

You might consider NFHS: 9-4-3-g, "Make ANY contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness". the descriptions included under 9-4-3-g are "examples", NOT a strictly limited or precise, or exclusive list,  The "beholder", in these instances is EXCLUSIVELY the covering Official (subject to potential review by the Referee).

NFHS: 9-4-7, further prohibits this type behavior by a defensive player, but does NOT excuse this prohibited behavior by ANY player (or non-player).

NFHS: 9-4 "Penalty" suggests , Articles 1-8 "Disqualification also if ANY fouls under these articles are "judged by the game official" to be flagrant".

[refjeff]

Although unnecessarily complicated to find, it's in black and white in the rule book,   There is no reason to consider or interpret anything.

9.2.1 and 9.2.3 say that a player shall not use a blocking technique which is not permissible by rule.

2.3.2 defines legal blocking techniques.

2.3.2.b.3 says that the blockers hands must be within the frame of the opponent's body and "at the shoulders or below."

So by rule, blocking an opponent with a hand to the head, or face, is illegal use of the hands.

But, it's like a face mask foul.  A hand on the face mask is not a foul.  Grasping the face mask is.  A hand on the helmet or facemask is not illegal use of the hands.  Shoving or pushing is.

Maybe people get confused and think blocking means the rule only applies to offensive players. 

[HLinNC]

It's IUH.  Trying to extrapolate it to a defenseless player foul or UNR isn't necessary.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Although unnecessarily complicated to find, it's in black and white in the rule book, there is no reason to consider or interpret anything.

But that goes to the root of the NFHS problem for new officials:  there is way too much " .... unnecessarily complicated to find .... " stuff.  And in IMHO it's critical to stress to new officials the need to be rock solid on Rule 2 otherwise many of the other rules that build off of Rule 2 become unnecessarily complicated to understand.

[AlUpstateNY]

But that goes to the root of the NFHS problem for new officials:  there is way too much " .... unnecessarily complicated to find .... " stuff.  And in IMHO it's critical to stress to new officials the need to be rock solid on Rule 2 otherwise many of the other rules that build off of Rule 2 become unnecessarily complicated to understand.

Actually it's not rocker science and there is a straightforward, practical process:

NFHS 1-1-9: The game officials SHALL have the authority to make decisions for infractions of the rules. The use of any replay orTV monitoring equipment by the game officials in making ANY decision relating to the game is prohibited, unless used in compliance with rule 1-3-7.

NFHS 1-6-1: The Referee has authority to rule promptly , and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, ON ANY SITUATION NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN THE RULES.  The REFEREE'S DECISIONS ARE FINAL IN ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE GAME."

NFHS 3-5-2-C: (when) A time-out is granted for the purpose of reviewing a game official's application of a rule which may have been misapplied or misinterpreted. The time-out remains charged to the requesting team, if no change in the ruling results.

NFHS 3-3-5: After a team has used  it's permissible charges time-outs for the half, any subsequent request shall be denied, UNLESS IT IS FOR (C) The review of a possible misapplication or misinterpretation of a rule.

NFHS 3-5-11: A player, directed by his Coachor the Head Coach, may request & be granted a time-outfor the purpose of the Coach and Referee reviewing a decision that may have resulted from the misapplication or misinterpretation of a rule......When a time-out is so granted, the the Referee will confer with the Coach AT THE SIDELINE IN FRONT OFHIS TEAM BOX IN THE FIELD OF PLAY. If the conference results in the Referee altering the ruling, the opposing Coach will be notified, the revision made, and the time-out shall be an Official's Time-out.  If the Referee's ruling prevails, the time-out remains charged to the team requesting the conference.

NFHS 3-6-2-C: A Coach-Referee conference after all permissible time-outs have been used....and no change is made to the ruling. (Delay of Game-charged to requesting team.)

[NVFOA_Ump]

Wow, just wow.

[HLinNC]

HITH we got from IUH to a sideline conference plumb evades me.

[CalhounLJ]

Wow, just wow.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CalhounLJ]

HITH we got from IUH to a sideline conference plumb evades me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

Yeah, what was the point of that?

Except that it is not rocket science, but we are given a book that reads like a rocket science manual.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Yeah, what was the point of that?

Except that it is not rocket science, but we are given a book that reads like a rocket science manual.

 

[bama_stripes]

Yeah, what was the point of that?

Except that it is not rocket science, but we are given a book that reads like a rocket science manual.

Actually, two books.

When my non-officiating friends ask me “How could those guys screw up a rule so bad”, I just pull out my Rules Book and Case Book and show them what we’re required to carry around in our noggins.  That usually ends the discussion.

[AlUpstateNY]

Yeah, what was the point of that?

Except that it is not rocket science, but we are given a book that reads like a rocket science manual.

Unfortunately, event the very best rocket scientists occasionally need, "To look things up" and pointing to specifically where the answers are located can be very helpful and save everyone a lot of time.

[PABJNR]

What was the purpose of highlighting the section noting the referee has authority to rule on anything not covered in the rules, what was being discussed is covered in the rules. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

What was the purpose of highlighting the section noting the referee has authority to rule on anything not covered in the rules, what was being discussed is covered in the rules.

We're not sure, its kind of like the Prime Directive in Star Trek or the Hippocratic Oath or something.

[AlUpstateNY]

What was the purpose of highlighting the section noting the referee has authority to rule on anything not covered in the rules, what was being discussed is covered in the rules. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps, just a general reaction to what seems like a somewhat steady increase in others (spectators, players, Coaches, announcers & others) questioning/arguing/complaining
/demeaning about decisions and judgments Officials make, in a wide variety of sports.  The Romans tried giving everyone watching "the games" a say in serious decisions (although it seems the Emperor maintained a superior "final" decision), but pretty much that idea was eliminated and eventually forgotten.

Sports rules have become extremely specific, and therefore complicated, attempting to minimize endless disputes & "opinions", and require steady/ENDLESS research and discussion to stay current  about.  Some of the recent assessments of the state of multiple Sports, lists the increase in spectator objections to  Official's judgments as a major problem in Official's recruiting & retention.  Although it may only be a few stupid people guilty of raising stupid questions, there does seem to be a whole lot more normal people, today paying attention to and/or supporting stupid questions, which usually accomplish NOTHING but adding confusion.  Usually, when someone doesn't know an answer, it's better to find out BEFORE complaining about it.

Officials, at any level of any sport, have to commit to REALLY knowing, and staying current, with the rules of their sport.  There's no short cut, for anyone on the field or watching it.  It seems like if you want to have an actual (meaningful) game there has to be rules, often really complicated, and Officials, who really know them to make things work.

The difference between ignorance and stupidity is ignorance can be corrected with additional knowledge, where stupidity just stays the same. For those who don't want to bother learning, and staying current, about the rules of the game they're watching, at least stop questioning the decisions made by those who have accepted that challenge.  Football, at each level, has proscribed steps to address most confusing issues, but you have to know them to be able to follow them.

[CalhounLJ]

Actually, two books.

When my non-officiating friends ask me “How could those guys screw up a rule so bad”, I just pull out my Rules Book and Case Book and show them what we’re required to carry around in our noggins.  That usually ends the discussion.

Exactly. I read a rule to my wife once and she said, “how do you ever make sense of that?”
*it was only the roughing the passer penalty admin.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PABJNR]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Exactly. I read a rule to my wife once and she said, “how do you ever make sense of that?”
*it was only the roughing the passer penalty admin.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can understand her reaction, my wife once tried to explain why she used very specific ingredients,  in her  family's spaghetti sauce recopies. I couldn't make any sense out of it, but rather than question her reasoning, I decided to accept her judgment (and enjoyed decades of fabulous meals).