Player removes helmet during down

[ncwingman]

Player B56 attempts to tackle runner A35 behind the line of scrimmage and fails to do so. A35 continues running downfield for a 70 yard gain (important that the play continues for some time). B56 gets up, removes his own helmet and starts walking to his sideline while A35 is continuing his run.

* B56 does not move to participate in the play after removing his helmet

* B56's helmet stayed firmly attached during the attempted tackle

Does B56 have to sit out the next play as per 3-5-10?

[AlUpstateNY]

NFHS: 3-5-10 advises: "An Official TO occurs AND the player shall be replaced for at least 1 down...." (d)"The helmet comes completely off during the down, or subsequent dead ball action related to the down WITHOUT being directly attributable to a foul by an opponent.  There are NO PENALTY indications suggested.

Seems like a good opportunity to take a moment and talk to the player.

[HLinNC]

1-5-6 failing to wear mandatory equipment while the ball is live.  Removal for at least one down.  Used to be a 5 yd. penalty, i.e. dangling mouthpiece.

[CalhounLJ]

I agree with HL. Helmet came off during the down.  Sits a play. Doesn’t matter how it came off, as long as it wasn’t the direct result of a foul.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

I agree that that is the letter of the rule, but I'm not sure it's the sprit of the rule.

The rule is there so if you're playing football, you're properly wearing all of the required equipment. Failing to do so is a safety issue if you are engaged in the play, but in this situation, the player is not actively engaged in the play -- and actively *disengaged*.

What if we dial back his action, and he just deliberately spits out his mouth piece? Same thing and make him sit out a play? Again, this only happens once the play has passed by and he's making no attempt to rejoin in the action.

[HLinNC]

You asked about enforcement and got the answer.

Whether you enforce it or not is up to you.

[refjeff]

I agree that that is the letter of the rule, but I'm not sure it's the sprit of the rule.

The rule is there so if you're playing football, you're properly wearing all of the required equipment. Failing to do so is a safety issue if you are engaged in the play, but in this situation, the player is not actively engaged in the play -- and actively *disengaged*.

What if we dial back his action, and he just deliberately spits out his mouth piece? Same thing and make him sit out a play? Again, this only happens once the play has passed by and he's making no attempt to rejoin in the action.

  Which is exactly why we will have him sit out a play.

[AlUpstateNY]

Being "TECHNICALLY CORRECT" unfortunately is often not as wonderful as it's cracked up to be, which may be why the NFHS Game Official's Manual suggests, .Game officials must have a football sense that supersedes the technical application of the rules so that the game goes smoothly.  Game officials are expected to exercise good judgment in applying the rules."

[CalhounLJ]

I agree that that is the letter of the rule, but I'm not sure it's the sprit of the rule.

The rule is there so if you're playing football, you're properly wearing all of the required equipment. Failing to do so is a safety issue if you are engaged in the play, but in this situation, the player is not actively engaged in the play -- and actively *disengaged*.

What if we dial back his action, and he just deliberately spits out his mouth piece? Same thing and make him sit out a play? Again, this only happens once the play has passed by and he's making no attempt to rejoin in the action.

What if he gets run over while on the field headed toward the sideline? It’s very much a safety issue.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ralph Damren]

THE HELMET PROTECTS ONE'S HEAD;

 THE HEAD IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF ONE'S BODY;

  THE HELMET IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A PLAYER'S EQUIPMENT;

   IT'S IMPORTANT FOR A PLAYER TO KEEP HIS HELMET ON DURING THE PLAY  .

A one play detention is not intended to be a serious call, but to be a reminder of the importance of wearing the helmet.

Possible unintended results..,,.
Coach may use said detention to 'remind' Bubba that he shouldn't have missed the tackle;
Official may have missed something that occurred downfield while checking on the lone player behind the play.

[dammitbobby]

Not my code, but I tend to agree with NCWingman, from a philosphy perspective... if he's disgusted with himself, and is already headed to the sideline, he's essentially self-selected himself out the play, and any hallway decent coach is going chew him out and grant his wish to not be a participant for at least one play, thus it's really going to be a nonissue.

[Ralph Damren]

I agree with you guys that it shouldn't be a big deal as Bubba seems to be leaving the building and will set out for at least one play. IMHO, in reminding his coach that he has a one play detention will sent a message to the opposing coach that we are enforcing the 'don't lose your hat' rule in case it's needed to apply to one of his players later in the game.

If not applied to Bubba, a response to the questioning opposing coach could be : "Coach, I was focused on the play, not the player that was way out of it."

[GA Umpire]

Player B56 attempts to tackle runner A35 behind the line of scrimmage and fails to do so. A35 continues running downfield for a 70 yard gain (important that the play continues for some time). B56 gets up, removes his own helmet and starts walking to his sideline while A35 is continuing his run.

* B56 does not move to participate in the play after removing his helmet

* B56's helmet stayed firmly attached during the attempted tackle

Does B56 have to sit out the next play as per 3-5-10?

My take on the OP is B56's helmet came loose during the tackle attempt and he headed to the sideline carrying his helmet to have it repaired.  And yes, he must stay out for one play or until his helmet is repaired.