Crown of the helmet and the ball carrier

[lha1986]

So the NFL has the clear rule that prohibits Ball Carriers to hit the opponent with the crown of the helmet.

From the IFAF Rulebook:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. The crown of the helmet is the portion of the helmet above the level of the top of the facemask. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (see Rule 2-35). When in question, it is a foul (Rule 9-6).

 

One of our officials asked Bill Lemonnier once about this, and he said that they had never called a penalty like that on the Ball Carrier, only on defense. However, the rule clearly says "No player". Since Brazilian players aren't vying for a college or professional opportunity, and all of them have to work on the day after the games, we intended to be stricter on enforcing this rule, thinking of player safety and their well-being, and we were thinking of having as a philosophy the Rule As Written, meaning even a Ball Carrier would get the penalty for lowering the head and hitting an opponent with the crown of the helmet.

What do you think of it?

[goodgrr]

If you are going by the wording in the rulebook then you also need to consider the ARs.

9-1-4 AR II. As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers his head and contacts
defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him. The players meet helmet to helmet.
RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89 is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense of Rule 9-1-3. [Cited by 9-1-4]

[goodgrr]

AS IFAF rules are a variation on NCAA I suspect this would be better included there.

[Kalle]

Yes, the targeting rule is pretty much the NCAA rule and related rulings. As I understand it, the philosophy on calling the ball carrier for targeting is that it would have to be something very much out of the ordinary and obviously using the crown of the helmet as a weapon. Simply lowering your head and blowing through a player would not qualify, as per the A.R. goodgrr quoted above.

I could think of the ball carrier first lowering his head and then launching upwards and aiming the crown of the helmet against the head of the oncoming defender, but I have never seen anything remotely like that.

[lha1986]

I read the AR above, but it mentions helmet to helmet hit alone. The rule I'm talking about is the crown of the helmet one. We had already have occasions in which the BC lowered the head and speared the chest of Team B player with it, and that's what brought this discussion to light.

Btw if it's NCAA, sorry for posting on the wrong place. I thought it was general, because it was about a philosophy to adopt.

[goodgrr]

It's not a problem posting there, all I would say is that philosophy comes about in conjunction to the ruleset.

If you asked a High School official I suspect they would look at many things we rule in a different way. 

[Kalle]

If you want to lose the A.R. 9-1-4-II, then by all means do it, but just remember that in international games your teams play it would not be a foul.

[lha1986]

If you want to lose the A.R. 9-1-4-II, then by all means do it, but just remember that in international games your teams play it would not be a foul.

Oh. That's an interesting idea. I'll talk to the association. Thank you.

[dvasques]

Instead of losing the AR, maybe we could re-write it from IFAF, to have it say

As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers his head and contacts, with the crown of his helmet, defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him.
RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89 is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense of Rule 9-1-3. [Cited by 9-1-4]

And then move this AR to 9-1-3. But I guess this AR, as it's written, is talking about a possible foul by the defender, not by the ball carrier.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Doesn't this continue to ask the question, "What threshold does a player have to cross for us to flag for PF-UNR when we can't have a targeting call by rule?"  If the ball carrier/runner and the defender are not by definition defenseless, then how much leeway do you allow with a clear and intentional hard helmet hit before flagging either one for PF-UNR?

Isn't using the helmet as a weapon part of what we're trying to get out of the game?

[Clear Lake ref]

Crown of the helmet and defenseless are different rules.

Problem for a lot of ball carriers is lowering the head to take the shot.  It can look like spearing.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Crown of the helmet and defenseless are different rules.

Problem for a lot of ball carriers is lowering the head to take the shot.  It can look like spearing.

The term "spearing" was removed from the rule book in 2009. But back to the issue.  Should we be reading the rule as:

Targeting and Making Forcible Contact
With the Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I)

Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
• Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
• A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
• Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
• Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet

If we read Article 3 as written and continue with Note 1 then there is no requirement that the "target" be defenseless.  So can't we potentially have a targeting call without a defenseless requirement?  And if yes, then can't we have a flag for a runner clearly lowering his helmet and blasting a defensive back with the crown?  The equivalent of the pre-2009 spearing call?

[Clear Lake ref]

You can but no one will cal it seems to be the case.

I used spearing as we all know what that looks like and provides a good visual.