RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: VALJ on September 15, 2015, 01:35:35 PM
-
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=jpkfmb%3E&s=8#.Vfl1AtJVikq (http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=jpkfmb%3E&s=8#.Vfl1AtJVikq)
I'm having a hard time seeing this as a foul for unnecessary roughness. Yes, it's a violent hit, but the defender is making a football play, and he doesn't go high, and he doesn't launch, and he doesn't use his helmet. And to use unofficial terminology, isn't this a hit in the "strike zone" that they're supposed to be hitting?
Am I just behind the times?
-
This video came from Oregon.
Just stating a fact. I'll let you draw any conclusions.
-
I cannot view the video because the site is blocked on my work filter. :!#
-
Oregon and Hawaii are not using the NF rules for hits on defenseless players this year so I wouldn't put too much emphasis on their videos.
-
I think it depends on how you interpret this:
9-4-3g. No player or non player shall... Make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.
A return to the dinosaur era, when defenders actually tackled by wrapping their arms around runners instead of trying to knock them out, would take some of these "He got JACKED UP" plays out of the game. Personally, I think that's where we're headed. We might or might not recognize it as the game we grew up with, but to quote another old dinosaur - The times they are a-changing.
-
This video came from Oregon.
Just stating a fact. I'll let you draw any conclusions.
This call, UNR, is exactly what the "Oregon Experiment" is all about. As I understand it, if the defender had wrapped up, even though the force of the tackle remained the same, it would be considered a good
football play. But, by driving his shoulder into the receiver without the wrap, the "excessive contact" rule is supposed to be enforced (in the experiment). God forbid - but we all may have to make this decision next year. pi1eOn pi1eOn
-
I'm having a hard time seeing this as a foul for unnecessary roughness. Yes, it's a violent hit, but the defender is making a football play, and he doesn't go high, and he doesn't launch, and he doesn't use his helmet. And to use unofficial terminology, isn't this a hit in the "strike zone" that they're supposed to be hitting?
Am I just behind the times?
I disagree that this is a "football play". It's obvious (to me, at least) that the sole intent of the defender was to deliver a blow to the receiver, not make a tackle.
-
This may also be related to not using NFHS rules, (or the fact that I have been away from high school for a while- or both), but before the defender made that hit, y eyes were drawn to the offensive tackle #72. Is that not an illegal block below the waist?
-
I disagree that this is a "football play". It's obvious (to me, at least) that the sole intent of the defender was to deliver a blow to the receiver, not make a tackle.
He wasn't trying to make a tackle. I think the defender's intent was to knock the ball out of the hands of the receiver, and that's still a legal intent.
-
B player didn't have too much time to wrap-up. A player was coming towards him, closing the gap quickly.
What doesn't help the B player is the way he kind of looks down at him as he walks away. I think that adds to the bad intent element of the play. If B hits the ground after the hit, does it look as bad?
-
This may also be related to not using NFHS rules, (or the fact that I have been away from high school for a while- or both), but before the defender made that hit, y eyes were drawn to the offensive tackle #72. Is that not an illegal block below the waist?
If you interpret that as "immediate" it would still be legal, as it's in the FBZ. Any delay, and the ball is considered to have left the FBZ, and it would be illegal.
-
B player didn't have too much time to wrap-up. A player was coming towards him, closing the gap quickly.
...and if the B player does try to wrap up, there will likely be helmet-to-helmet contact at which point we'll have a flag for that.
Also think AB's point is valid that the attempt to knock the ball free is a legal rationale to do what he did.
-
As am disclaimer, I note that I have not been able to view the video. My comment on the thread is only this - be very careful about ruling on plays based on what you think the "intent" is. This a slippery slope. Not saying we should never do it but, generally speaking, rule on what you saw happen and not on why it happened.
-
I thought the only difference in Oregon was the blindside blocking rule - didn't realize they were using different standards for unnecessary roughness. And to me, he's delivering a blow with the intent of jarring the ball loose from the receiver. If the hit comes after the ball is dropped, I'd flag that every time.
There was discussion on Facebook about a taunting call for the B player. Thoughts?
-
Carrying over the conversation from the Facebook group VALJ?
From what I've heard elsewhere this was also shown to the folks in Indiana.
I have a hard time flagging this under the current rules because it is in the strike zone and breaks up the pass, which a wrap tackle would not do.
Also I don't see nearly enough for a taunting call here but I was already far enough in the muck arguing against a foul for UNR here that I didn't even touch it.
The other thing is that a defenseless player is a definition, that doesn't mean he can't be hit and even hit hard.
-
Also here's the video.
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=jpkfmb%3E&s=8#.VfilOBFVikp
-
Carrying over the conversation from the Facebook group VALJ?
Just trying to make sure I see as much discussion on this as possible, especially since I'm not sure I agree with the narration of a flag. ;D And I'm not sure about taunting, either.
-
There is a big difference between "defenseless" and "self defense", a defensive player isn't required to assume greater, unnecessary personal risk, simply because an offensive player has placed himself in a bad position. The key to these types of violations always has been, and will likely continue to be, "excessive/unnecessary" contact.
No 2 football plays have EVER been exactly alike, and happen a lot faster at live speed, than on film.
-
I think someone took the video down.
-
OP edited to Welpe's link.
-
He wasn't trying to make a tackle. I think the defender's intent was to knock the ball out of the hands of the receiver, and that's still a legal intent.
But the ball was above the receiver's head and away from his body. It's my experience that in such cases, the defender usually swats at the ball/hands rather than delivering a body blow. This defender wasn't making a play on the ball.
If the receiver had brought the ball down & tucked it into his body, I could agree with a no-call.
-
But the ball was above the receiver's head and away from his body.
Doesn't matter. Except in the experimental states (where this video was produced), it's not currently illegal to hit the body of a receiver in order to keep him from securing possession (assuming you don't use your head, or violate DPI rules).
-
Here's another one. Video quality isn't great though. Player gets called for UNR and Taunting, and ejected.
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/High-School-Hit-Puts-Spotlight-on-the-Rule-Book-327610641.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WOWT_6_News
-
In the first video - I would have a hard time supporting an unnecessary roughness penalty - but I would support an unsportsmanlike for taunting. That stuff leads to messes later in the game.
In the second video - I would support both unnecessary roughness and taunting.
Just my opinion
-
Doesn't matter. Except in the experimental states (where this video was produced), it's not currently illegal to hit the body of a receiver in order to keep him from securing possession (assuming you don't use your head, or violate DPI rules).
I work games in Oregon ("the experimental state") and this is NOT a non-federation rule being implemented.
From the 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book under "Comments on the 2015 Rules Changes":
- EXCESSIVE CONTACT ADDED TO UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS (9-4-3G): With an emphasis on risk minimization, the unnecessary roughness provisions were expanded. No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incited roughness.
Brad Garrett's interpretations of what is unnecessary and excessive (which the originally posted video was part of) can be debated. However, it is a rule in all states that use NFHS rules.
-
I work games in Oregon ("the experimental state") and this is NOT a non-federation rule being implemented.
From the 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book under "Comments on the 2015 Rules Changes":
- EXCESSIVE CONTACT ADDED TO UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS (9-4-3G): With an emphasis on risk minimization, the unnecessary roughness provisions were expanded. No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incited roughness.
Brad Garrett's interpretations of what is unnecessary and excessive (which the originally posted video was part of) can be debated. However, it is a rule in all states that use NFHS rules.
And by interpretation in my state, the rule changed nothing from last year. If it was a foul last year, it's a foul this year. If it wasn't a foul last year, then it's not one this year either.
Ralph can chime in, but the report I got from the January meeting was that there was great debate on how to proceed on the issue of safety, while retaining the "integrity" of the game. The rule passed was intentionally vague, as to allow states to interpret the way they felt it should apply, and to find some wording that would get a rule passed. That's vagueness is great for states that have a strong training program. For those that don't, it moves the interpretation from the state level to that of each individual official, and that is NOT a good thing.
-
Doesn't matter. Except in the experimental states (where this video was produced), it's not currently illegal to hit the body of a receiver in order to keep him from securing possession (assuming you don't use your head, or violate DPI rules).
Calf rope.
-
And by interpretation in my state, the rule changed nothing from last year. If it was a foul last year, it's a foul this year. If it wasn't a foul last year, then it's not one this year either.
I'm stirring the pot Atlanta Blue in hopes of keeping a conversation going. I have no intent on coming across as attacking you...
If last years way of officiating was ok by the NFHS, then why a new rule? Or, since there is a new rule with a specific emphasis - why not make adjustments to how the game is being called in your state?
-
Oh, hey, a specific emoji that fits my last post :sTiR:
-
I'm stirring the pot Atlanta Blue in hopes of keeping a conversation going. I have no intent on coming across as attacking you...
If last years way of officiating was ok by the NFHS, then why a new rule? Or, since there is a new rule with a specific emphasis - why not make adjustments to how the game is being called in your state?
Emphasizing, or even expanding the narrative of a rule, does not mean there is/was anything wrong with the rule. Clarifying and/or calling attention to a rule is a way of emphasizing it's importance and calling attention to it's significance.
AB's assessment seems accurate, there is nothing new about this clarification, and the revised language simply clarifies what the rule has intended since it's inception. The revision seems more a call to focus on the existing intent of the rule, than create anything new.
-
From the 2015 NFHS Football Rules Book under "Comments on the 2015 Rules Changes":
- EXCESSIVE CONTACT ADDED TO UNNECESSARY ROUGHNESS (9-4-3G): With an emphasis on risk minimization, the unnecessary roughness provisions were expanded. No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incited roughness.
I'm in agreement with Mr. Harris and I would have no problem flagging ^flag this hit with support of the rules.
In case you aren't paying attention, the Cubs are now within two games of the Pirates for the NL Wild Card lead. yEs: