HEY TEXAS BOYS! Yet some more helmet-comes-off discussion...

[El Macman]

I hear that there are still some Texas folks that insist - INCORRECTLY - that a player that has his helmet come off illegally during a down when times expires for a period may participate in the first down of the next period. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! That is just plain wrong, no matter who told you.

I wasn't there, but I understand that RR HIMSELF stated this at the TASO meeting. The rule states that he must sit out the next down, and there are no stated exceptions. But, if you need hard, written proof, just look at 2012 NCAA Play Interpretations Bulletin No. 1, play 6:

Helmet Off
6. Late in the first quarter ball carrier A22 is legally tackled, and his helmet comes off just after his back hits the ground. The game clock reads 0:00.
RULING: A22 must leave the game for the next down, which will be the initial down of the second quarter. A22’s helmet came off through play and there was no helmet foul by Team B. (3-3-9-a)

And no, halftime doesn't change anything. If his helmet comes off through play on the last down of the second period, he sits out the opening kickoff of the third period.

Not sure it gets any clearer.

[TxSkyBolt]

Sounds like maybe an email from the TASO office might be in.....oh wait, nevermind.

[CenTexTM]

RR has spoken.  The next down is the next down, although presumably if the game ends in the meantime he can take the field for kick-off next week.

Now, on a somewhat related note:

Team B player loses his helmet (not as the result of a foul).  He (a) leaves his helmet on the ground, or (b) replaces it and then (in both cases) pursues the ball carrier before being knocked down by a Team A player. 

How many flags?

[TxSkyBolt]

a) One for continuing to participate after losing his helmet, another for PF on Defense for hitting someone obviously out of the play.

b) One for continuing to participate after losing his helmet. (Team B would have no way of knowing the team A player was obviously out of the play, there no foul)

[CenTexTM]

That interpretation seems evident to me, but chapter meeting on Monday was like 12 Angry Zebras, and I didn't wind up convincing anyone of my interpretation.  I think if safety is truly a concern, a player cannot be allowed to knock down a helmet-less player, regardless of what the helmet-less player is doing.  I think not having a foul on B when the guy replaced his helmet feels right, but the way the rule is written seems to label the player who has lost his helmet as obviously out of the play regardless of what he does after that point, so there would be two flags in both cases.

[TxSkyBolt]

Often we have to apply common sense.  An offensive player comes up to participate in a play with a helmet on and a defensive player engages him, I'm not gonna flag the defensive player? 

[ump_ben]

That interpretation seems evident to me, but chapter meeting on Monday was like 12 Angry Zebras, and I didn't wind up convincing anyone of my interpretation.  I think if safety is truly a concern, a player cannot be allowed to knock down a helmet-less player, regardless of what the helmet-less player is doing.  I think not having a foul on B when the guy replaced his helmet feels right, but the way the rule is written seems to label the player who has lost his helmet as obviously out of the play regardless of what he does after that point, so there would be two flags in both cases.

I'm with your 12 Angry Zebras.  Just because he doesn't have a helmet on doesn't mean he's obviously out of the play.  Consider that he may tackle the ball carrier to stop a touchdown and only give up fifteen yards.  Are you willing to award a score if he does?  If not, consider this play.  On a short passing play the very downfield receiver starts blocking his man and manages to legally knock him down upon which his helmet comes off.  The blockee stands up and is the only thing ready to stop a touchdown, what do you think the blocker should do?  Surely he shouldn't be disadvantaged by the helmet coming off.

[TxSkyBolt]

Just because he doesn't have a helmet on doesn't mean he's obviously out of the play. 

According to the rules it does. 

 Read 3-2-9-c:

c. If the ball carrier’s helmet comes off as in paragraph a (above) the ball is
dead (Rule 4-1-3-q). If the player is not the ball carrier the ball remains
alive, but he must not continue to participate in the play beyond the immediate
action in which he is engaged. Prolonged participation is a personal
foul (Rule 9-1-17). By definition such a player is obviously out of the play
(Rule 9-1-12-b).

[mishatx]

I'm with your 12 Angry Zebras.  Just because he doesn't have a helmet on doesn't mean he's obviously out of the play.  Consider that he may tackle the ball carrier to stop a touchdown and only give up fifteen yards.  Are you willing to award a score if he does? 

No, and I wouldn't do so if he committed a face mask, horse collar, DPI, or some other foul to prevent a touchdown.

what do you think the blocker should do? 

Not hit the guy with the naked noggin.