Face Tackle/Illegal Helmut Contact

[Curious]

Okay, I'll be the first to ask: Was it legal or not?

Despite the pronouncement by the TV guys the the hit by Virginia's #59 against the Miami QB was "legal", it sure looked like a face tackle (at a minimum) or a spear (at worst).  QB was knocked out of the game by the hit.  I had to leave at halftime; so I don't know if he returned.

Anybody else have a chance to see this?  Sorry - no video....

R was "in position" on the QB's throwing arm side but he didn't move to keep from being "straight-lined" on the play.  With 7 men, could/should there be help available on the call? 

[HAshleyTX]

I think "face tackle is a high school (Federation) term and wouldn't apply in NCAA.  I haven't seen the video to say anything about "spearing" or using the crown of the helmet.

[yteside]

That call is the R's and the R's alone....no one can help him.  The play looked completely legal in my eyes.  He wrapped up the tackle, did not look to punish, or create any contact that would be deemed illegal (not spearing because he did not lead with his helmet).  Face Tackle is not an NCAA term as noted above.  He just tried to get rid of the ball in the face of extreme pressure and unfortunately paid the price.  It still is a contact sport.....for now.

[Curious]

That call is the R's and the R's alone....no one can help him.  The play looked completely legal in my eyes.  He wrapped up the tackle, did not look to punish, or create any contact that would be deemed illegal (not spearing because he did not lead with his helmet).  Face Tackle is not an NCAA term as noted above.  He just tried to get rid of the ball in the face of extreme pressure and unfortunately paid the price.  It still is a contact sport.....for now.

Thanks for the clarification about "face tackle"; and it is a HS point of emphasis.

You obviously saw the play so I do respect your opinion.  However, from my cushy spot on the couch, it looked to me that he did lead with his head.  HAshley's reply identified "spearing" as "hitting with the crown of the helmet"; and your's identified it as "leading with the helmet" (of which the facemask is a part).

I'm not trying to argue with either of you; but which one is it; or is it both in the NCAA?  And finally, does it negate initial contact with the helmet if the tackler "wraps the runner up"?

Thanks

[Etref]

Thanks for the clarification about "face tackle"; and it is a HS point of emphasis.

You obviously saw the play so I do respect your opinion.  However, from my cushy spot on the couch, it looked to me that he did lead with his head.  HAshley's reply identified "spearing" as "hitting with the crown of the helmet"; and your's identified it as "leading with the helmet" (of which the facemask is a part).

I'm not trying to argue with either of you; but which one is it; or is it both in the NCAA?  And finally, does it negate initial contact with the helmet if the tackler "wraps the runner up"?

Thanks

The NCAA rule book no longer list "spearing" as that was taken out 2 years ago. Here is the current NCAA rule




Initiating Contact/Targeting an Opponent
ARTICLE 3. a. No player shall initiate contact and target an opponent with
the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
b. No player shall initiate contact and target a defenseless opponent
above the shoulders. When in question, it is a foul. (Refer to Points of
Emphasis for a description of “Defenseless Player.”)

[yteside]

Well, I think that's the way to look at it....it's one opinion.  I'd like to think I have an accurate judgement of these plays, but I do not wanna lay down my thought as law.  As far as the rule goes (thanks Rick..you beat me to it), if you break it down, then (b) is out because although he is a defenseless player, contact was below the shoulders, so no infraction there.  And as for (a), since (to me anyway) contact was first made with his extended arms/hands, no infraction there because you have to "initiate" with the "top" of the helmet. 
Having said that, there have been a few 'nasty' hits/blocks I've seen this year on the tube, but they seemed legal by the rules.  No matter how we phrase the rules, it's not gonna eliminate "all" the hits that could cause injury.

[TXMike]

I assume this is the play in question?

[yt=425,350]Xd4SX6bCUfQ[/yt]

[blindref757]

No foul...hard hit.

[KB]

IMO, the injury does not come from the hit, but from the QB hitting the ground. And you can't do anything about it anytime someone is thrown backwards.

[harrell12]

IMO, the injury does not come from the hit, but from the QB hitting the ground. And you can't do anything about it anytime someone is thrown backwards.

the defender hits thte QB in the chest. No foul.  As mentioned above, the injury most likely came from the suddent stop on the ground. 

[Curious]

the defender hits thte QB in the chest. No foul.  As mentioned above, the injury most likely came from the suddent stop on the ground. 

What does the chest have to do with it?  If he leads with his helmet, does it matter where he hits the opponent?

[yteside]

What does the chest have to do with it?  If he leads with his helmet, does it matter where he hits the opponent?

He has to lead with the 'top' of his helmet per the rule.  Just because his helmet contacts first does not automatically mean foul. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

He has to lead with the 'top' of his helmet per the rule.  Just because his helmet contacts first does not automatically mean foul. 

Not correct.  Any intentional helmet to helmet contact is illegal - not just "top" of the helmet.

Points of Emphasis  The NCAA Football Rules Committee has extraordinary pride in the Football Code, which was introduced in 1916 and has been updated several imes. These guidelines form a harmony of agreement among coaches, players, game officials and administrators that places each contest in an environment of fairness and sportsmanship. It is noted that the Code emphasizes the following unethical practices: “Using the helmet as a weapon. The helmet is for protection of the player...” and “players and coaches should emphasize the elimination of targeting and initiating contact against a defenseless opponent and/or with the crown of the helmet.” Every participant in the collegiate football scene shares a responsibility for ethical conduct that enhances the future of this American tradition.   .....  Intentional helmet-to-helmet contact is never legal, nor is any other blow directed toward an opponent’s head. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified.

[KB]

Intentional? All the way, that was one intentional hard tackle. But it was not with the crown of the helmet, it wasn't even helmet first (the blow was delivered with the whole body, the defender was clearly keeping his face up - see what you hit), and it sure was not helmet-to-helmet.

[yteside]

Well, that supports my point.  If it's intentional, ....but just because two helmets make contact on the field does not mean we have a foul.  Every time someone sees a hard hit, or someone get hurt, they go running up this ladder.  Each time we need to ask ourselves, what did the defender do wrong?  In the UVA-Miami game, I can see nothing the defender did wrong in his tackle.  It's unfortunate an injury occur, but there was no rule violation.

Plus, the rule says 'top of helmet' in part A, which means he lowers his head to make contact 'anywhere' on the defender (rule does not specify contact location of defender); and in part B, it says no contact above shoulders on 'defenseless players' (rule left open for 'any part' of body used to make contact above shoulders, not just helmet)
The POE you quoted only states that if a player uses his helmet to 'intentionally' contact (and punish, I assume) an opponent's helmet (thus a violation against part B below), then we have a foul.  So, what I said was correct.

ARTICLE 3. a. No player shall initiate contact and target an opponent with
the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
b. No player shall initiate contact and target a defenseless opponent
above the shoulders. When in question, it is a foul. (Refer to Points of
Emphasis for a description of “Defenseless Player.”)

[RMAC Deep Guy]

 

We have been trying to get these head shots out of the game for quite some time.  On these discussion boards, it seems as if we are always trying to make these type of hits legal when we have been instructed that when in doubt, it is a foul.

This defender makes first contact with the top of the helmet to the neck/chin area of the QB.  Freeze the video at the 1:07 mark.  The defender is not making contact with his whole body as some alluded to previously.  The defender had the opportunity to bring his "target" lower on the QB's body rather than duck his head and stay high.  This is exactly what we are trying to have happen, for the defenders to bring the target for contact lower than the shoulders. 

Until we all get on the same page and continue to excuse these hits away, we will continue to see these hits and subsequent injuries. 

[TXMike]

Has the ACC taken any action on the hit?

[KB]

This defender makes first contact with the top of the helmet to the neck/chin area of the QB. 

I don't see that.
The QB's head snaps forward when he is hit, indicating that the hit is to the body, not to any part of the helmet.

Everytime you see contact to the helmet, the head of the hittee snaps away from the hit.

[Curious]

I don't see that.
The QB's head snaps forward when he is hit, indicating that the hit is to the body, not to any part of the helmet.

Everytime you see contact to the helmet, the head of the hittee snaps away from the hit.

KB, were you on the Warren Commission?

Seriously, to which game are you referring; the Fla/Va game or the Nebraska game?  In the former, I still think the defender is punishing with his helmet (facemask IS part of the helmet); and, in the latter, what else can it be but helmet-to-helmet (targeting)...

[Welpe]

Curious, the NCAA rules do not mention anything about punishing or intent to punish with the helmet.  The rule prohibits targeting an opponent with "the crown (top) of his helmet".

[Curious]

Curious, the NCAA rules do not mention anything about punishing or intent to punish with the helmet.  The rule prohibits targeting an opponent with "the crown (top) of his helmet".

See NVFOA_Ump's comments above....

I'm really enjoying the debate/discussion!