Should they have killed this?

[neilfish]

In my opinion, the Refs should have killed this play for safety reasons - Your thoughts?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/utah-rb-helmet-twisted-backwards-facemask-penalty-continues-143048891.html

[Jim D.]

Although there is no rule support for killing the play, I would have blow it dead for safety reasons using the "helmet came off" logic.  Letting this play go would allow the runner to be in danger.  Blow it dead and administer the penalty.

[Curious]

What do y'all think of the block behind the play and to the left of the runner?  Late?  Defensless player?  Legal?

[maven]

What do y'all think of the block behind the play and to the left of the runner?  Late?  Defensless player?  Legal?

Looked OK. No. No. Yes.

[Wingmanbp]

Although there is no rule support for killing the play, I would have blow it dead for safety reasons using the "helmet came off" logic.  Letting this play go would allow the runner to be in danger.  Blow it dead and administer the penalty.

Believe it or not I bet your offensive coach may throw a fit if you blow it dead. Especially since he ended up gaining 8-9 yards from where he had the facemask. An intelligent player would just go down, but I don't know many 15-18 year olds that are that intelligent when it comes to common sense. 

[maven]

Believe it or not I bet your offensive coach may throw a fit if you blow it dead.

And I'm supposed to call the game by catering to the coach's callous disregard for his player's safety?

Pass.

[Wingmanbp]

NO but the rule does state to kill the play only when the helmet comes completely off. Just saying he would have just cause for complaining

[WC12]

And when he gets blown up and knocked out because the player could not see the hit coming, what's he gonna say?

Kill this play as soon as you see the player in a position like this.

[maven]

NO but the rule does state to kill the play only when the helmet comes completely off. Just saying he would have just cause for complaining

THAT rule says that the ball is dead when the runner's helmet comes off.

But I'm not applying 4-2-2k. I'm applying 1-1-6.

[NoVaBJ]

The only way to kill the play is to have an IW.  I'm not sure I would take the IW in the heat of the moment; I would like to think I would.

By the way, on my field, as a consequence of his actions, B57 has disqualified himself.

[VALJ]

By the way, on my field, as a consequence of his actions, B57 has disqualified himself.

For the face mask?

[ECILLJ]

This is a tough call. By rule, you let the run continue, but I agree with those whom believe blowing the whistle and treating it as an IW is appropriate.

The disqualification of B57 is tough to support by rule, but a 15 yard penalty from the whistle is appropriate.

I do not like the block by A77. That hit may be from the side, but it is bordering on the definition of a hit on a defenseless player. The defender has let up and appears to no longer intend to participate in the play.

I am not going to throw the crew under the bus on this play. I had to run it several times before I reached my own conclusions.

[Jim D.]

The only way to kill the play is to have an IW.  I'm not sure I would take the IW in the heat of the moment; I would like to think I would.

By the way, on my field, as a consequence of his actions, B57 has disqualified himself.

It would not be an IW.  I would be blowing it dead because, in my best judgment, that is the right thing to do. 

If the coach complained, well I've never had a coach complain about one of my calls before, but I suppose I could withstand it.

[ECILLJ]

Jim,

I understand your point. The result would be the same with your method and the IW method.

[WCFB]

I would support the covering official stopping this play once he determined the player's safety could be in jeopardy. Obviously, as officials we want to minimize our hand in the game, at least most of us, but the alternative considering the potential impact should his helmet come off could have life consequences. Understandably, the rule states "...helmet comes completely off," however, in this situation the RB is clearly grasping his own helmet to make sure it stays on. If the RB had not reached for his own helmet, as an official, I think I would let it play out live. The indicator for me that this situation is potentially hazardous is that the RB has acknowledged there is a problem with his helmet, and from the LJ view, he can see that contact is imminent. 

Additionally, I could not support an EJ for B57, I see PFFM and nothing more. B77 action, while suspect, is legal, and how do we know that the player WILL be tackled, the contact by B77 could have been a great block should the RB break loose.

[NoVaBJ]

For the face mask?

Yes.  9-4 Penalty ends with "Disqualification also if any foul is flagrant - (S47)."  A flagrant foul is "a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury . . . ." (2-16-2d)

Grasping the face mask in a manner that turns the helmet 180 degrees is severe, extreme, and places the opponent in danger of serious injury.  B57 is gone, and it is not a hard call.

[Atlanta Blue]

Yes.  9-4 Penalty ends with "Disqualification also if any foul is flagrant - (S47)."  A flagrant foul is "a foul so severe or extreme that it places an opponent in danger of serious injury . . . ." (2-16-2d)

Grasping the face mask in a manner that turns the helmet 180 degrees is severe, extreme, and places the opponent in danger of serious injury.  B57 is gone, and it is not a hard call.

Not necessarily.  It could also tell me that the RB had a helmet that was WAY too big and not fitted properly.  I didn't see any "extra" action that would make this flagrant.

As for blowing it dead, I contend that his helmet DID come off.  Equipment is required to be worn as designed by the manufacturer (1-5-3-c9).  This wasn't being worn as intended, so it's either "Illegal Equipment", or equipment that changed during the play by moving somewhere not intended.

[WCFB]

B57 is gone, and it is not a hard call.

B57 comes from the backside, and in his attempt to tackle the RB, he grasps the FM. Yes, the helmet is turned and the RB subsequently attempts to correct the position of his helmet. IMO, B57s momentum caused most of the helmet twist. I don't see B57 intentionally twisting or pulling in a manner that would prompt a Flagrant foul discussion. There is certainly a difference between a FM where the offending player grasps and pulls to make a tackle; in contrast, a FM in which the offending player reaches and first grasps the face mask and the combination of the RB forward movement and the B team players momentum contributing to the the FM twisting.

[Tom.OH]

Not necessarily.  It could also tell me that the RB had a helmet that was WAY too big and not fitted properly.  I didn't see any "extra" action that would make this flagrant.

As for blowing it dead, I contend that his helmet DID come off.  Equipment is required to be worn as designed by the manufacturer (1-5-3-c9).  This wasn't being worn as intended, so it's either "Illegal Equipment", or equipment that changed during the play by moving somewhere not intended.

I was thinking the same thing, improper fit on the helmet. I am putting the blame on the equipment manager for not adjusting the helmet.