Author Topic: illegal use of helmet  (Read 19446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
illegal use of helmet
« on: September 21, 2010, 04:38:23 PM »
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5123733&id=126884690204&ref=fbx_album pic 1
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5123733&id=126884690204&ref=fbx_album pic 2
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5173589&fbid=429362190204&id=126884690204 pic 3

It has been a while since i posted on here but my question comes from a different state not mine.

please comment on the pics as I have a concerned person wanting to know what to do next if the officials are not picking up on this when contact is made? it may seem that a coach is turning a blind eye in the name of hard football. I would like professional comments on the players actions.

Grant


[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2010, 06:48:24 PM »
There is no contact in the first photo - I'm not going to comment on possible future contact.  The second photo COULD be IHC.  The third is not - IMO.

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2010, 08:44:24 PM »
Why is the 3rd not? Isn't it to the crown of the head and targetting at the knee?
And why is the 2nd only could be? Isn't that clear as day as illegal use of helmet?  I have found officials wanting to dismiss this type of contact and give reasons not to call it yet it is the highest of safety rules in the rule book and is discounted to many times. Why do officials shy away from this call? I certainly don't and will use the when in question rule that it looked like targetting another player. I would call number 3 for sure as well as this could be a knee crippling injury. The definition of tackle in the rule book does not include the use of the helmet. Use of the helmet is illegal.
The pics show poor form in tackling and this guy shouldn't be playing.

Grant
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 08:55:51 PM by saofficial(aust) »

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2010, 10:25:14 PM »
Why is the 3rd not? Isn't it to the crown of the head and targetting at the knee?
And why is the 2nd only could be? Isn't that clear as day as illegal use of helmet?

The third shows the side of the helmet in contact with the thigh.  The side is not the crown (top) of the helmet.  I tend to believe the second would be, but can't tell from a still photo.  Without seeing the action before the snapshot, I can't tell whether the offensive player or defensive player initiated the contact depicted.

Use of the helmet is illegal.

No - it's not.  Initiating contact with an opponent using the crown of the helmet is illegal.

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2010, 11:15:58 PM »
The crown of the helmet is where a crown would sit. It would also sit towards the side and front just above the line of the facemask. While photos are not the be all and end all of decisions the targeting of the thigh and initiating contact with the crown of the head here is a foul also. The defender here may have already been down low for the tackle and the ball carrier has run into him here but the diving at the legs is a great concern if targeted.
The second would have to be a open and close case of illegal use of helmet and it is a cop out to give other suggestions of could be. To many officials use words to get out of penalties to justify a call rather than make it a call for ultimate safety. I have seen and heard it all to often.

Grant
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 11:22:02 PM by saofficial(aust) »

Offline InsideTheStripes

  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-5
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2010, 11:35:13 PM »
The crown of the helmet is where a crown would sit. It would also sit towards the side and front just above the line of the facemask. While photos are not the be all and end all of decisions the targeting of the thigh and initiating contact with the crown of the head here is a foul also. The defender here may have already been down low for the tackle and the ball carrier has run into him here but the diving at the legs is a great concern if targeted.
The second would have to be a open and close case of illegal use of helmet and it is a cop out to give other suggestions of could be. To many officials use words to get out of penalties to justify a call rather than make it a call for ultimate safety. I have seen and heard it all to often.

Grant

I'm beginning to see that when you said you wanted comments, you actually just wanted people to agree with you.  Good luck with that...

KB

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2010, 12:20:14 AM »
No. 1 and No. 3 can NOT be targetting. The runner, a blocker, a defender are NOT defenseless players.

No. 2 could be illegal. If the tackler/blocker comes right at the body without "seeing what he hits", he is endangering himself. Most important here ist to get the message to the coach that poor tackling technique will put his players at great danger.
This is something very common in countries with a rather short football history.


saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2010, 03:30:52 AM »
I'm beginning to see that when you said you wanted comments, you actually just wanted people to agree with you.  Good luck with that...

no i threw up another comment about the crown of the head and what it is. I am not saying you have to agree with it but what information do u have to counter what I presented so that I can have a better understanding?

Grant

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2010, 05:13:44 AM »
No. 1 and No. 3 can NOT be targetting. The runner, a blocker, a defender are NOT defenseless players.

No. 2 could be illegal. If the tackler/blocker comes right at the body without "seeing what he hits", he is endangering himself. Most important here ist to get the message to the coach that poor tackling technique will put his players at great danger.
This is something very common in countries with a rather short football history.



Nothing has been said about the ball carrier being defenseless and it would be absurd of me to suggest that.

No 1 has made himself a missle and if he makes contact with any player in that position there should be a real chance of him being penalised and depending how that hit ends up then even when in question a foul can be called. That ball carrier just needs to twist to his left a little to get in front and bam 15 easy yards for his team but a neck injury coming up for the tackler.

I dont need to be 110% perfect in the call because depending on how that ends up the rule says when in question if he seems to be targeting and hits with the crown of the helmet the flag must be thrown. As I said it seems officials talk themselves out of this safety foul far too often rather than go with the side of safety. Players in Australia are not conditioned from age 8 to play this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYy9Vo4P4ew&feature=related So just how much force will break a neck and just who has duty of care on the field on game day? Here it is the officials so I would rather see officials here err on the side of safety for the tackler to ensure correct posture is maintained.

I just don't see how people can say with No 2 it could be illegal. That is just talking yourself out of a penalty and not going with safety first. If this is officials holding up the integrity of the rules then I wouldn't want to be a part of it and I am so glad I have taken a back step to officiating in Australia.

Grant


bitols

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2010, 08:09:44 AM »

if we talk about "targeting" we need a "defenseless" player: a runner will never be a "defenseless" player, full stop.
About the neck berakinh and the safety issue...I cannot stop him: if someone want to break his neck, I can flag him all life long, but the neck will be broken anyway...

Offline Welpe

  • *
  • Posts: 1860
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-11
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2010, 08:45:56 AM »
Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in reading over 9-1-3, being a defenseless player is irrelevant when it comes to targeting an opponent with the crown of the helmet.  It is relevant for hits above the shoulders.

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2010, 11:42:07 AM »
if we talk about "targeting" we need a "defenseless" player: a runner will never be a "defenseless" player, full stop.
About the neck berakinh and the safety issue...I cannot stop him: if someone want to break his neck, I can flag him all life long, but the neck will be broken anyway...


This has nothing to do with a defenseless player full stop. Bringing that into the equation is not for this discussion.
Initiating Contact/Targeting an Opponent ARTICLE 3. a. No player shall initiate contact and target an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.

Yes you can stop the player from breaking his neck from the first moment you see him do it the first time and by throwing a flag. This will bring it to his attention and that of his coach by flagging it. If he does it the first time then that is bad timing but that is the opportunity to sstop a bad habit or attitude forming. Here we don't have the luxury of bringing kids up in the sport some may start at age 15 or 16 while others are well into adulthood and dropping the head may be a reflex action.

Please leave defenseless player out of this as I am not  discussing issues to do with concussion to a defenseless player which that rule mentions about.

Grant

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2010, 01:00:37 PM »
if we talk about "targeting" we need a "defenseless" player: a runner will never be a "defenseless" player, full stop.
About the neck berakinh and the safety issue...I cannot stop him: if someone want to break his neck, I can flag him all life long, but the neck will be broken anyway...


Not so....

Targeting/Initiating Contact with Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3.
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
PENALTY—Personal foul. 15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the succeeding spot. Also, automatic first down for Team B fouls if not in conflict with other rules. (Exception: Penalties for Team A personal fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line) [S7, S24, S34, S38, S39, S40, S41, S45 or S46]. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].
For Team A fouls during free or scrimmage kick plays: Enforcement may be at the previous spot or the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (field-goal plays exempted) (Rules 6-1-8 and 6-3-13).

bitols

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2010, 03:21:07 AM »

as said, this rule MAYBE can be used in pic 2, but, again MAYBE...for all the rest about "neck breaking" things: not really sure a flag can stop a bad habit or a bad attitude

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2010, 04:08:33 AM »
Maybe??? what are you looking for it cant be more black and white. just confirms I guess how officials talk themselves out of flags rather than what should be called for the game.

As to calling these to change behaviours um yes our small association has done this within a few weeks of consistently calling these types of hits. Coach and player soon gets the message he is doing something wrong and puts in the effort to help the player out. 2 or 3 in a game and attitude soon changes in a week even.


KB

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2010, 04:52:13 AM »
Grant, don't be so belligerent.

NO, I repeat NO still photo can be used as a base for judging a call or non-call. One of our most used axioms is "see the whole action". So "could" is absolutely OK here.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 05:01:17 AM by KB »

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2010, 05:12:33 AM »
I agree they cant always show the incident in the right light but the comments by some experienced officials are too wishy washy and to say No 2 is maybe in its context of the pic alone breaks down the rule and what is seen by those who are not as fortunate in being educated like an official.

I have seen video evidence of a tackler down low in a tackle and helmet down contacting the ball carrier in the groin area and an official saying it is a no call because the tackler was standing still and therefore it didnt count according to rule. Cmon enough FEMALE PART footing around make a call the players life is dependent on it and an officials call can make a difference to a player walking or not in the future if the person is a serial 'spearer.'

Sorry but too many excuses to not make a call and damages the reputation of those who truly give a damn for the safety of players and destroys reputations in seconds. Players and coaches read here and now read 'maybe' so do the officials truly understand the rules?

Grant


Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 2007
  • FAN REACTION: +45/-46
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2010, 10:18:50 AM »
Dude,

there is absolutely NOTHING in photo #2 that would tell me this is a foul.  If you can see it, you're an anomaly of nature with extra special vision  ;D

Best regards,

Brad
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 10:20:24 AM by SATCFI »

Offline TX Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-0
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2010, 11:07:59 AM »
I've read this with an odd fascination. Obviously, there is some sort of axe to grind here, given the force of your comments. Do you think that the officials here, if we knowingly see a spear in live action, would pass on it because we don't think the rule is important? Do you really want consensus on a set of still pictures? We all have enough issues agreeing with live action video and we all have skepticism on still images, regardless of which foul we are discussing.

I will say this, and yell at me if you will - there is a fine line between the helmet initiating contact with the facemask vs the crown of the helmet when seen in full-speed contact. The first is a tough, legal play, the latter a foul. I've had officials on my crew get down-grades for what they thought was iron-clad helmet to helmet as seen on the field, only to see it on film and it was shoulder to helmet - with the point being the facemask vs crown is an even finer line.  It is a tough call and one we have to make, but clearly one that we all want to get right.

So, my question is - are you making the point that we should consider taking the "when in doubt" statement in 9-1-3 to more of an extreme given the injury potential of this play? Quite frankly, at least in my games over the past years, this has not been a foul that we have called that much, nor missed at all - at least from our evaluator's reviews.

Mike L

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2010, 12:15:51 PM »
Picture #1, no way to tell since we have no idea where contact will be or even if it was made.

Picture #2, maybe. If the defender is making his initial contact here, there's a very strong chance for an IH call. If it's not the initial contact, like maybe the runner was stood up and the defender is continuing action, then probably not. That's why still photos do not tell you everything you need to know regarding the play in question.

Picture #3, the chances of getting an IH call for contact initiated below the waist are next to zero unless it's something really egregious.

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #20 on: September 23, 2010, 02:17:44 PM »
Picture #1, no way to tell since we have no idea where contact will be or even if it was made.

Picture #2, maybe. If the defender is making his initial contact here, there's a very strong chance for an IH call. If it's not the initial contact, like maybe the runner was stood up and the defender is continuing action, then probably not. That's why still photos do not tell you everything you need to know regarding the play in question.

Picture #3, the chances of getting an IH call for contact initiated below the waist are next to zero unless it's something really egregious.

I just think people are reading too much into the photo and making a decision on it. I just posted a photo with head down what do you think? Me I dont know what led up to it or goes on afterwards but I guess after not posting here for 2 years I will just go back and do my professional job on the field and not return to here. Sorry to bother you all.

Please though can you clarify what you mean by his initial contact? Are you saying if his hand was out stretched first and made initial contact witht he player that the rest of the action is fine or that the intitial contact is that actual photo of the hit? I wasn't going to look into it further than just what the picture showed as I don't go down the track of what if but what if his outstrected hand does touch the ball carrier jersey first before the head? Does that absolve any illegal contact afterwards?

Grant
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 02:24:13 PM by saofficial(aust) »

Mike L

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #21 on: September 23, 2010, 03:27:42 PM »

Sorry to bother you all.
Pouting is not an attribute an official should cultivate.

Quote
Please though can you clarify what you mean by his initial contact?

1)If this picture is the initial contact of the play, where the tackler has come in and the top of his helmet is the first thing that hits the other player, then you most likely have IHC.
2)If however, say the initial contact was the defender putting a shoulder into the runner's chest stopping him and then he slides down to wrap him up to finish the tackle (as this picture could also be showing), then you have nothing. That is why people here have been trying to impress upon you that we CANNOT make judgements as to what is & what is not a foul via still pictures on action that often moves at incredible speeds and where you have to see the entire action in order to make such judgement.
Let me ask you, what do you think your evaluation would show if you turned at the last moment to see that picture and threw your flag only to find out later via film the actual action would match my 2) above?

Clearly, you are correct. People are reading too much into the photo. You just don't choose to see that the lead "people" in that group is you.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 03:31:20 PM by Mike L »

saofficial(aust)

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #22 on: September 23, 2010, 03:54:20 PM »
Well i wasn't asking for 2 I was asking for what you see not a story you can make up of if this or that but clearly people are more interested in what if than what is seen. What you see is illegal but what people who are players and coaches will read is oh we can get away with it. It wasn't that hard to see in that photo and no excuses should then have come into it.

As said sorry to bother everyone I will no longer visit.

Mike L

  • Guest
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #23 on: September 23, 2010, 04:13:02 PM »
Well i wasn't asking for 2 I was asking for what you see not a story you can make up of if this or that but clearly people are more interested in what if than what is seen. What you see is illegal but what people who are players and coaches will read is oh we can get away with it. It wasn't that hard to see in that photo and no excuses should then have come into it.

As said sorry to bother everyone I will no longer visit.

You just can't grasp the concept of the need to see the whole action to determine if it is a foul, can you?
If you can't take disagreement with your assumptions and constructive criticism on a board that exists for these types of discussions, you are most likely best served by not coming back because you will get nothing out of it.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:15:30 PM by Mike L »

Offline APG

  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: illegal use of helmet
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2010, 04:32:11 PM »
Well i wasn't asking for 2 I was asking for what you see not a story you can make up of if this or that but clearly people are more interested in what if than what is seen. What you see is illegal but what people who are players and coaches will read is oh we can get away with it. It wasn't that hard to see in that photo and no excuses should then have come into it.

As said sorry to bother everyone I will no longer visit.

Really? A couple of anonymous officials on a message board disagree with you, and you're going to leave?

As it's been pointed out earlier before, a single moment in time (which all three photos ares) can not be used to determine the legality of a play where the full play must be seen. No one is saying they wouldn't throw a play for illegal helmet if it is in fact there.