Author Topic: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball  (Read 1034 times)

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« on: August 30, 2017, 08:05:18 AM »
Punt by K from K48, as R80 is waiting in position to catch punt at the 20 (no fair catch called), R80 is crushed with a blindside block by K10.

R80's helmet is knocked off, and he falls to the ground as the ball hits him and then a few other players. R80 does not participate in the play, as he stays on the ground as chaos ensues around him. As R80 is lying on the ground helmet-less on his side, the ball rolls right to his stomach, and he simply hugs the ball without reaching, and rolls to his stomach.

We have an obvious flag for K10's block, and possible ejection....

(a) Do we have anything on R80 for securing the ball when it rolled right to him? Is this illegal participation, or are we waiving it in this circumstance?
(b) If someone without a helmet is in a pile of chaos, and we know who will have the ball because of a foul, is there any way for safety we can kill the play? In the above play, any player could have slid into R80's face in the chaos.

Ball was recovered at the R16.


Offline Ump33

  • *
  • Posts: 201
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-2
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2017, 08:43:24 AM »
9-6-4g states it is IP "For a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged."

(a) I would not consider "the ball rolls right to his stomach, and he simply hugs the ball without reaching" to be IP.
(b) a helmet-less player in a "pile of chaos" ... I would consider this to be part of the immediate action in which the player is engaged and pass on IP if he quits at his earliest opportunity.

Case Book 9.6.4 G & H are examples of "continued action."

Offline VA Official

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2017, 09:24:58 AM »
Punt by K from K48, as R80 is waiting in position to catch punt at the 20 (no fair catch called), R80 is crushed with a blindside block by K10.

R80's helmet is knocked off, and he falls to the ground as the ball hits him and then a few other players. R80 does not participate in the play, as he stays on the ground as chaos ensues around him. As R80 is lying on the ground helmet-less on his side, the ball rolls right to his stomach, and he simply hugs the ball without reaching, and rolls to his stomach.

We have an obvious flag for K10's block, and possible ejection....

(a) Do we have anything on R80 for securing the ball when it rolled right to him? Is this illegal participation, or are we waiving it in this circumstance?
(b) If someone without a helmet is in a pile of chaos, and we know who will have the ball because of a foul, is there any way for safety we can kill the play? In the above play, any player could have slid into R80's face in the chaos.

Ball was recovered at the R16.

I agree here with Ump. Another item to note is where was the contact initiated by K10? Was the contact high or was it in the chest or waist? If the contact was not high in the head/neck area, R80 is still required to come off the field for one down, as the helmet coming off is not "directly attributable to a foul."

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2017, 10:28:40 AM »
I agree here with Ump. Another item to note is where was the contact initiated by K10? Was the contact high or was it in the chest or waist? If the contact was not high in the head/neck area, R80 is still required to come off the field for one down, as the helmet coming off is not "directly attributable to a foul."
I think that this is "direct" enough for me to allow him to stay in game.   My rationale is that there is nothing in the OP to suggest that the helmet would have come off without the illegal contact.

Offline VA Official

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2017, 11:00:30 AM »
I think that this is "direct" enough for me to allow him to stay in game.   My rationale is that there is nothing in the OP to suggest that the helmet would have come off without the illegal contact.

If a player was illegally blocked below the waist, thus illegally contacted and their helmet came off, would you allow them to stay in the game?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2838
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2017, 12:12:58 PM »
Unless it's very clear that a foul directly caused a helmet to come off the player gets to sit the next one out.  The reason for the rule is safety and to get the players to fit helmets and chin straps correctly so that they provide the maximum level of safety that they possibly can.  IMO not making a player sit one out detracts from the intent of the rule.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline VA Official

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2017, 12:27:28 PM »
Unless it's very clear that a foul directly caused a helmet to come off the player gets to sit the next one out.  The reason for the rule is safety and to get the players to fit helmets and chin straps correctly so that they provide the maximum level of safety that they possibly can.  IMO not making a player sit one out detracts from the intent of the rule.

Agreed. This is a helmet safety issue.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-16
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2017, 12:39:14 PM »
If a player was illegally blocked below the waist, thus illegally contacted and their helmet came off, would you allow them to stay in the game?
No. My understNding is that if the action that created the foul is not what causes the hat to come off the player has to come out.  In your example, the bbw did not impact the helmet.  Maybe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2017, 12:59:55 PM »
If a player was illegally blocked below the waist, thus illegally contacted and their helmet came off, would you allow them to stay in the game?

Yes

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2017, 03:03:11 PM »
"Punt by K from K48, as R80 is waiting in position to catch punt at the 20 (no fair catch called), R80 is crushed with a blindside block by K10."

If this kid knows his name and where he is, I vote to let him play! :!# :bOW

Offline KDJBBBJ

  • *
  • Posts: 51
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2017, 05:53:28 PM »
First of all the flag is for Fair Catch Interference by a blindside block.  The FCI is what should be called and reported to the referee.  It doesn't matter if he signaled for a fair catch or not he is entitled the opportunity to catch the ball.  I say no on the participation foul and he has to go out one play unless the FCI foul is what caused the helmet to come off as in a targeting type hit.   

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2017, 07:13:54 PM »
It seems odd to send a player off for one down, when his helmet has come off without being the "direct" result of illegal contact, yet allow a player whose helmet has come off which is due to a "direct" result of illegal contact to remain in the game.  If this is a safety issue, how do you differentiate between the two?  Do you define "direct" as meaning there must be illegal contact directly to the helmet? 

NFHS does not define: in a position to catch a kick; in bounds; direct (as used in this thread).  Until my state association says differently, I will allow a player to remain in the game (no out for at least one down) when his helmet comes off after illegal contact which is flagged.  Caveat, I am assuming , as in the OP, that there are no extenuating circumstances such as signs of a concussion, etc.

Offline VA Official

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 151
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2017, 07:59:08 PM »
It seems odd to send a player off for one down, when his helmet has come off without being the "direct" result of illegal contact, yet allow a player whose helmet has come off which is due to a "direct" result of illegal contact to remain in the game.  If this is a safety issue, how do you differentiate between the two?  Do you define "direct" as meaning there must be illegal contact directly to the helmet? 

NFHS does not define: in a position to catch a kick; in bounds; direct (as used in this thread).  Until my state association says differently, I will allow a player to remain in the game (no out for at least one down) when his helmet comes off after illegal contact which is flagged.  Caveat, I am assuming , as in the OP, that there are no extenuating circumstances such as signs of a concussion, etc.

In VA, our state interpreter has said that "direct" indeed means direct contact to the head or neck area during the foul. Fouls not involving contact to the head or neck area still require the player to come off for a down. This is also the same ruling in NCAA for the exact same reason. The logic is that if a player's helmet comes off from getting hit in the chest or below, his helmet was not properly strapped and is a safety concern. Other states may obviously differ. I'd be interested to hear your state's take on it.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 529
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-35
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2017, 10:11:51 PM »
In VA, our state interpreter has said that "direct" indeed means direct contact to the head or neck area during the foul. Fouls not involving contact to the head or neck area still require the player to come off for a down. This is also the same ruling in NCAA for the exact same reason. The logic is that if a player's helmet comes off from getting hit in the chest or below, his helmet was not properly strapped and is a safety concern. Other states may obviously differ. I'd be interested to hear your state's take on it.

The VA interpretation seems logical and makes sense.  My state hasn't said anything on this, but if/when it does, I will post it..

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3270
  • FAN REACTION: +252/-472
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2017, 09:39:44 AM »
It seems odd to send a player off for one down, when his helmet has come off without being the "direct" result of illegal contact, yet allow a player whose helmet has come off which is due to a "direct" result of illegal contact to remain in the game.  If this is a safety issue, how do you differentiate between the two?  Do you define "direct" as meaning there must be illegal contact directly to the helmet? 

NFHS does not define: in a position to catch a kick; in bounds; direct (as used in this thread).  Until my state association says differently, I will allow a player to remain in the game (no out for at least one down) when his helmet comes off after illegal contact which is flagged.  Caveat, I am assuming , as in the OP, that there are no extenuating circumstances such as signs of a concussion, etc.

Risk vs Reward, Is the (meaningful) reward for allowing the player to slap his own helmet back on, without assessing whether or not their even might be a problem with the helmet, or a potential problem with the contact, not readily observable, worth the risk, of ignoring possible unanticipated consequences? 

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2191
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2017, 02:03:31 PM »
When in doubt, send him out for a play.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1205
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-42
Re: Player lit up, loses helmet, secures ball
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2017, 02:18:09 PM »
My attempt at humor above aside, the following is a quote from Reddings:

"Directly attributable to a foul" means the helmet must come off (his emphasis) as a direct result of a foul.  Thus, unless it is any type of illegal helmet contact, including the facemask it is unlikely the foul was the cause of the helmet coming off"