Defenseless player

[cducote]

What exactly is prohibited against a defenseless player? Is it only targeting? If so, then why bother defining defenseless player since targeting is a foul anyway? Slight confused here. Thanks.

[cbailey]

I don't know if this was the intent of the rules committee, but the only other reference to defenseless player is in
Rule 9-4-3i Note: 

NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be considered a flagrant act. Acts to be considered flagrant include, but are not limited to:

1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,

2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players, and/or

3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.


It seems clear that if the opponent is defenseless (by definition not previously available) and illegal helmet-to-helmet contact is initiated, then we are to consider that a flagrant foul. 

[FLAHL]

The way I read it, Targeting is illegal against a defenseless player and illegal helmet contact is illegal against a defenseless player.  The difference is that you can target a player by hitting above the shoulders with an arm, hand, or elbow. IHC obviously involves hitting with the helmet.

[golfingref]

There is a NFHS powerpoint that was shown during our yearly clinic which showed several examples of a defenseless player, and the pictures did not all show illegal helmet contact. The rule book, from where I am looking, is quite vague about fouls against a defenseless player.

[FBUmp]

What exactly is prohibited against a defenseless player? Is it only targeting? If so, then why bother defining defenseless player since targeting is a foul anyway? Slight confused here. Thanks.

No. Defenseless player fouls and targeting fouls are two different issues although targeting can occur on a defenseless player. While the definition is new, the term "defenseless" was used in the case book as recently as last year.  This year, the case book tells us that contact against a defenseless player is at least unnecessary roughness and gives us 14 examples of a defenseless player.

Defenseless Player
*9.4.3 COMMENT:

Is there suggested guidance or rules coverage on a "defenseless player" who should be protected from unnecessary roughness? Yes, defenseless players are especially vulnerable to potential injury. Game officials must diligently observe all action and watch for contact against players who are deemed defenseless. Examples include, but are not limited to:
(a) A quarterback moving down the line of scrimmage who has handed or pitched the ball to a teammate, and then makes no attempt to participate further in the play;
(b) A kicker who is in the act of kicking the ball, or who has not had a reasonable amount of time to regain his balance after the kick;
(c) A passer who is in the act of throwing the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to participate in the play again after releasing the ball;
(d) A pass receiver whose concentration is on the ball and the contact by the defender is unrelated to attempting to catch the ball;
(e) A pass receiver who has clearly relaxed when he has missed the pass or feels he can no longer catch the pass;
(f) A kick returner attempting to catch a kick;
(g) A kick receiver who is immediately contacted after touching the ball;
(h) A player on the ground;
(i) Any player who has relaxed once the ball has become dead;
(j) A player who receives a blind-side block;
(k) A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped; and
(l) Any player who is obviously out of the play.

The game official must draw distinction between contact necessary to make a legal block or tackle, and that which targets defenseless players. (2-32-16; 9-4-3i(3))

[cducote]

So any contact? Or targeting contact?

[Atlanta Blue]

The rule did not change from last year, or the year before, or the year before.  Two confusing definitions were added, but the rule is the same.

[cducote]

Is there suggested guidance or rules coverage on a "defenseless player" who should be protected from unnecessary roughness? Yes, defenseless players are especially vulnerable to potential injury. Game officials must diligently observe all action and watch for contact against players who are deemed defenseless. Examples include, but are not limited to:

So contact against defenseless is still ok, right. The only foul is targeting defenseless players? And if it happens to be helmet to helmet against defenseless players it's  flagrant which carries ejection?
And spearing a defenseless player in the gut would not automatically be flagrant unless official deemed such?

[SCHSref]

The problem with the targeting definition is that it drew attention to something that should have been called all along.  They just muddied the water with an official definition now.

As far as the defenseless player, it is a total judgement call, at least the way I read it.

I have a feeling that targeting and defenseless player calls will skyrocket now.

[VALJ]

The problem with the targeting definition is that it drew attention to something that should have been called all along.  They just muddied the water with an official definition now.

Plus 1.  We should have been nailing people for UNR when they take a cheap shot on Bubba way behind the play already.  This just added a definition that says Bubba is considered defenseless when he's given up way behind the play, and drew attention to flagging it when Bubba gets blown up.

[HLinNC]

 NC appears to be stressing the punt returner is a defenseless player from the e-mail we received last week.   Obviously, his concentration is on the ball and he is to have an "unhindered opportunity to catch the kick" as quoted to from last season. 

I foresee a small increase in KCI too.

[Curious]

A couple more videos to "muddy" an already confusing issue:

http://vimeo.com/user18204278/review/101852208/251af13300

http://osaa.arbitersports.com/front/105752/Video/player/2802/4744

As the disclaimer goes: "the content (of the video) is the sole opinion of the presenter; and does not reflect the position of this writer".....or something like that

[VALJ]

Not sure how I quoted my own post - didn't mean to.

[AlUpstateNY]

The problem with the targeting definition is that it drew attention to something that should have been called all along.  They just muddied the water with an official definition now.

As far as the defenseless player, it is a total judgement call, at least the way I read it.

The waters didn't get muddied, they've been perfectly clear for anyone willing to look into them and exercise common sense and judgment.  Codifying these two definitions seems more like a response designed to SILENCE the amateur lawyers who demand EVERYTHING, including the blatantly obvious, to be spelled out for them.

Those who haven't clearly understood what "Targeting" an opponent, with a deliberate and malicious attempt to cause EXCESSIVE harm, or who a DEFENSELESS (or hapless/clueless) opponent, who contacting offers no legitimate benefit, advantage or legitimate purpose, isn't going to gain any clarity (or common sense) from these definitions.

Both of these tactics have long been clearly understood and consistently penalized by competent officials who understand the game, and are willing to accept their primary responsibility, despite the whining and complaining of guilty parties and their supporters.  These definitions merely confirm what has been standard practice (for most officials) for generations.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, a simple explanation of targeting is : intentionally cracking into an opponent above the shoulders. A simple explanation of a defenseless player is one that is not longer part of the play....a player back at midfield when runner is about to enter the endzone , or a player without concentration....a teammate as QB is in the process on taking a knee. Of course there are many other examples, but being a simple man with simple tastes, I listed only some simple ones. Time for a lobster scone.

[bama_stripes]

So any contact? Or targeting contact?

Neither.

It's contact that's judged to be unnecessarily rough against a defenseless player.  It doesn't have to be above the neck.  A slight jostle or push wouldn't fit that definition.  Blowing up an opponent just for the heck of it does.

[cducote]

I agree 100% Bama.

[jason]

I don't know if this was the intent of the rules committee, but the only other reference to defenseless player is in
Rule 9-4-3i Note: 

NOTE: Illegal helmet contact may be considered a flagrant act. Acts to be considered flagrant include, but are not limited to:

1. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent lying on the ground,

2. Illegal helmet contact against an opponent being held up by other players, and/or

3. Illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless opponent.

It seems clear that if the opponent is defenseless (by definition not previously available) and illegal helmet-to-helmet contact is initiated, then we are to consider that a flagrant foul.

Are we using the words "to be considered" as an American idiom/phrase that often times means "it is," or are we supposed to take the words' definitions at face value (i.e. consider = "think carefully about")??

I don't believe the intent was to say H2H contact always equals DQ.  I believe it's a play which we should "think carefully about" a flagrant foul, and as a result, DQing a player.

//Bring on the Bill Clinton jokes.

[Atlanta Blue]

The waters didn't get muddied, they've been perfectly clear for anyone willing to look into them and exercise common sense and judgment. 

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.

[JABReferee]

For me the interesting scenario this year is when a player "blows up" another player using a blind side block without H2H contact.  Since there is no definition for this block in the rule book, I went a found one on the NFL site

A defenseless player who receives a block when the blocker is moving toward, or parallel to, his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side

.

I believe I would have had no foul or at most an IBB last year regardless of the severity.  Sounds to me this year that is a foul.

Here is a link to some video.  (yes it is college...but I think the question is this a foul this year in HS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tggk0tvRhYI

and this one

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1771474-high-school-football-players-makes-a-huge-blindside-block-down-field

[Curious]

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.

AMEN!

AB, was the erroneous NFHS video either of the ones I listed earlier?  I have to make a presentation on the subject and don't want to use a clip that is wrong or misleading.

[bkdow]

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

Targeting is the act of taking aim and initiating contact to an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow, or shoulders.  So, these two clips: the first one does appear to be targeting but the second does not.  Primarily because you can hear and see the two helmets colliding

Defeneseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulverable to injury.  You do not get to make "illegal helmet-to-helmet contact against a defenseless player."  It does not appear the second clip fall under that because it appears that the contact is legal. 

I'm always intrigued how to enforce  Rule 9,Sec 4,Art3,(g): "make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness."  Would that block on the second clip fall under this.  My first inclination is to flag it with today's concern about injury, concussion, etc and deal with the coach.  I'm confused too

[bossman72]

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

[FLAHL]

For me the interesting scenario this year is when a player "blows up" another player using a blind side block without H2H contact.

Based on the definitions of Targeting and Illegal Helmet Contact, this blind side block has to be called Illegal Personal Contact, right?

[Curious]

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

Since we already have rules to cover virtually everything described under "defenseless player", I would not favor automatic disqualification unless one of the "flagrant targeting indicators" mentioned in Garrett's video is present.

Like spearing in the old days, if called, ejection was (supposedly) automatic; so many officials simply made Illegal Helmet Contact.  I wouldn't like to see the same approach taken for these fouls - given the area of the body targeted.

If were really serious about stopping these practices, I would like to see these offenders penalized to the max.