Defenseless player?

[VALJ]

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?

[Atlanta Blue]

This video came from Oregon.

Just stating a fact.  I'll let you draw any conclusions.

[bkdow]

I cannot view the video because the site is blocked on my work filter.

[Jim D]

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.

[FLAHL]

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.

[Curious]

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.

[bama_stripes]

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.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

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?

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[HLinNC]

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?

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[SouthGARef]

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.

[jg-me]

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.

[VALJ]

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?

[Welpe]

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.

[Welpe]

Also here's the video.


http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=jpkfmb%3E&s=8#.VfilOBFVikp

[VALJ]

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.     And I'm not sure about taunting, either.

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

[maybrefguy]

I think someone took the video down.

[VALJ]

OP edited to Welpe's link.

[bama_stripes]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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).

[FLAHL]

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

[maybrefguy]

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

[jlharris]

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.