RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: saofficial(aust) on September 21, 2010, 04:38:23 PM
-
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5123733&id=126884690204&ref=fbx_album (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 (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 (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]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Sorry to bother you all.
Pouting is not an attribute an official should cultivate.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Any rules that have the "When in question, it is a foul" part I take to mean if you're not 100% sure it's said foul, but you're leaning more towards it being said foul than not, then you call it as a foul.
The fact that you've had officials on your crew get down-grades for what they saw on the field not holding up when you slow things down and look at it on film seems off to me. If it's a "When in question, it is a foul", and that's what they've done, what's with the down grade?, which I assumes basically means you blew the call. Not saying the "When in question" gives you licence to make a wrong call without any ramifications but if on the field they felt it was iron-clad surely that falls we'll and truly into the "When in question" part of the rule.
-
What you see is illegal.
How can you say this is illegal? From the photo there is no way to tell if contact was initiated with the crown of the helmet.
You really need to read what KB said. There is no way a photo can prove or disprove a football situation conclusively.
-
How can you say this is illegal? From the photo there is no way to tell if contact was initiated with the crown of the helmet.
You really need to read what KB said. There is no way a photo can prove or disprove a football situation conclusively.
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0711/nfl.photos.week10/images/APTOPIX-Eagles-Redskins-Foo.jpg)
OK, Devil's advocate stuff aside, the OP is missing a key point.
What's always said in clinics? SEE THE WHOLE PLAY. A frame does not a whole play make. The above picture is clearly an exception to that mantra.
-
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.
When in doubt and when in question are 2 different things. In doubt is not in the rule book but when in question is. If you have doubt you dont throw the flag but if you question did it look like .... and the rule supports throwing the flag then do so and no supervisor should ever downgrade you on that call, even from film.
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 we have people here complaining about a still photo but then you get supervisors slowing down your actions to assess your performance and judge your judgement and then downgrade you on slow motion rather than full speed. This seems to be contradictory to what you have said to at seeing everything at full speed. That would be a poor system to work by if I had my performance slowed down and given feedback when I am working at full speed.
If the helmet did glance off a shoulder and into a defenceless players helmet and a helmet to helmet call made then the why was the defender up that high in the first place? He has the duty of care to not be going near a helmet to helmet clash. So if you miss the glance off the shoulder but see the contact with the helmet and this rule has when in question added to it then why get a downgrade? You took the safety angle and made a call at full speed not slow motion which the supervisor has the luxury of doing.
Sorry that seems a little contradictory to the system and training to be marked on slow motion and grading.
-
saofficial(Aust): I must say that I have read both pages of this thread to this point and cannot really understand your point. Sure safety is the primary issue, and I believe most of us who have been doing this for some time have that as the first priority. To spend all this time quibbling over what can or cannot be seen in a few photos has really become tiresome. If you actually wanted to improve as an official instead of seeking some sort of notoriety or other hidden goal, then you have plenty of folks with decades of experience on this board from whom to draw. I urge you to adopt an accepting attitude and strive to improve so that you can indeed look out in the best way possible for the safety of the players.
And just as a historical note, if you can discern some difference between “when in question” and “when in doubt”, then you are indeed a better man. I was there when this “when in question” phrase hit the NCAA rule book. David M. Nelson, then the editor of the NCAA rules book, was the featured speaker at a rules clinic in Houston some time back in the early ‘80’s. He promulgated a series of “when in doubt” rulings that he was going to bring to the rules committee for the following season. Mr. Raleigh Girourd, a very iconic Cajun referee from the Beaumont Chapter who was made of the same humor as Red Cashion, piped up and told Mr. Nelson that while every now and then he may be in question, that he was never in doubt. All in the place fell over themselves laughing, especially Dave Nelson. The next year, all those proposed rule rewrites came out with the phrase “when in question”. The moral of this true story? Don’t take yourself so seriously, lighten up and work a good game.
-
A good reason to be use the when in question rule to its fullest extent:
Sporting official blamed for athlete injury
Smolden V Whitworth (1996)
A referee was held liable for injuries sustained by one of the players in a rugby union match.
The player's neck was broken and he became a paraplegic after a scrum in which he was participating collapsed.
The basis for the referee's liability was that he had repeatedly failed to enforce a rule which had been specifically brought into the game (which involved young and inexperienced players), to minimise the risk of injury.
Basically the rule was intended to ensure that a scrum was created with some stability so that there would be minimum possibility of collapse.
Decisions like this indicate that it may be time for referees and related sporting clubs to review their legal liability insurance cover
and again - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/2573291.stm, www.sportslaw-uk.co.uk/Richard%20Vowles%20report.pdf
This may highlight the differences in approach to the games for officials in our different systems.
-
You cant really compare the requirements of rugby officials and Football officials, the formation and application of a scrum is and integral part of a rugby refs role to ensure it is done properly, there is nowhere within football that requires officials to set up and impliment a play, we may rule on the legality of a formation and the ensueing play but we dont set them up.
As for the pics
1, nothing there as yet you cant rule on potential outcomes
2, likley but as already said need to see the whole thing
3, no problem with this play.
-
You cant really compare the requirements of rugby officials and Football officials, the formation and application of a scrum is and integral part of a rugby refs role to ensure it is done properly, there is nowhere within football that requires officials to set up and impliment a play, we may rule on the legality of a formation and the ensueing play but we dont set them up.
As for the pics
1, nothing there as yet you cant rule on potential outcomes
2, likley but as already said need to see the whole thing
3, no problem with this play.
Well yes you can becuse you see a player set up for a tackle and know if he does it right or wrong. If he does it wrong then he must be penalised, even when in question. Now we see these players every week here in Aust so know their styles and actions we dont have the luxury of seeing a team just once a year. If I saw a player just once or twice a year then I wouldnt have this problem but I see them for 8 to 10 games a year plus finals spanning a 10 year career if lucky and that could lead up to a lot of evidence of call or no call to remember. A scrum may happen a number of times in a game for a rugby referee and he must control that action in that game but what evidence is being collected on me over time and my style?
Oh and yes I have been threatened with legal action from a coach in a tribuanl system to use video footage of me 'cheating' for calls and no calls over a season though I know it would be bs but they were preparing for it. Personnel in a league are starting to realise that this build up of evidence over time may be addressed.
-
...Now we see these players every week here in Aust so know their styles and actions we dont have the luxury of seeing a team just once a year. If I saw a player just once or twice a year then I wouldnt have this problem but I see them for 8 to 10 games a year plus finals spanning a 10 year career if lucky and that could lead up to a lot of evidence of call or no call to remember.
I honestly don't think you realize how bad this looks. Now you're admitting to profiling?
Please heed the very wise words of better and wiser officials. Don't go "hunting" for calls. See the whole play, call the player safety fouls and only those fouls that affect play.
-
profiling? are you for real?
maybe you're being profiled by coaches and supervisors so they get to pick and choose who they want in crews based on generalised characteristics of you as an official?
that has been tried here and doesnt work. crew is chosen and not changed because a coach doesnt like an official for some reason. you cant say that hasnt happened? that is profiling.
I read where an official who lost his eye sight in one eye and his supervisor had been grading him higher in his performance with one eye than with 2 eyes previously but a coach complained and he was then scrated from games. That is profiling a person over their ability. In fact it is descrimination based on a disability as proof was made he was doing a better job than before. Does anyone know what happened in this case since I may not have the full and complete story on it?
I am talking about familiarity of people you know. Yes we do know these people as our league is only 200 members in size. this is not profiling and guessing it is knowing and understanding. yes do call what you see but if you see the same thing 5 games in a row by the same player what to do then because you do have a duty of care to the participant as a teacher. this is where our 2 systems may then differ in their legalities. that is not profiling.
sorry for some spelling errors
-
Okay, okay...OKAY!! You're right about whatever the hell this whole thing was about. Geeeeeezzzz!
-
this is where our 2 systems may then differ in their legalities. that is not profiling.
Uh, no. You ain't getting it.
You've had several veteran officials with much better insight offer input, insight and advice (And no, I don't include me in that mix, fwiw.) You have utterly failed to recognise the subtle hints, the blatant hints and the obvious ...
So you don't want to change. Then why did you come here in the first place?
-
Well yes you can becuse you see a player set up for a tackle and know if he does it right or wrong. If he does it wrong then he must be penalised, even when in question. Now we see these players every week here in Aust so know their styles and actions we dont have the luxury of seeing a team just once a year. If I saw a player just once or twice a year then I wouldnt have this problem but I see them for 8 to 10 games a year plus finals spanning a 10 year career if lucky and that could lead up to a lot of evidence of call or no call to remember. A scrum may happen a number of times in a game for a rugby referee and he must control that action in that game but what evidence is being collected on me over time and my style?
Not really as the rugby ref actually instigates and controls the scrum, we as football officials watch the whole of the play and if there is an infraction decide on the saftey aspect the effect on the play then make the call , we dont wander into the middle of th field tell he players to set then engage and stop and reset them if we dont like what we see.
Ive been seeing some of the same players/coaches for the last 17 years so how many times you see them should have no impact on what you do and how you call the game. If you are more concerned on how you are being percieved instead of actually officiating then maybe a change in sport is required,
-
Okay, okay...OKAY!! You're right about whatever the hell this whole thing was about. Geeeeeezzzz!
I agree ! ;D
-
The whole point of this discussion is not if leading with the crown of the helmet is legal or not. It is illegal to use the top of your helmet to connect with an opponent. We all agree that and if we saw it we would call it.
What we are saying is you cannot determine that a foul happened from a still picture. We have no way of knowing if what happened was the foul we all agree is illegal.
In the same way how would a picture of a collapsed scrum prove that it had been done deliberately in your rugby example? Although if it the same as the Welsh Rugby Union case the problem was that scrums were not permitted in that type of game and the ref allowed them.
Please note in this discussion no one is saying a helmet block is legal and should not be called. What we are saying is you cannot tell from a photo if it was a helmet block. It might have been or it might not. We cannot tell. Show us a video of the incident and we would be much better able to offer a valid opinion to the legality of the action.
-
The number one guideline for calling a foul in American football is to see the entire situation develop. You cannot flag any number of plays that look illegal if you did not see the entire play as it develops. The only point here, is that on a possible contact foul it's virtually impossible to determine foul vs. no foul based on an instant in time (a still photo).