Clean hit or foul?

[OA5II]

[yt=425,350]LY4QLwNITLg[/yt]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY4QLwNITLg

[Sumstine]

That is a Foul for Targeting. Launching action on a defenceless player. That is the kind of play that can get you hired if called. The real question is if it's a DQ.

[TXMike]

That is a Foul for Targeting. Launching action on a defenceless player. That is the kind of play that can get you hired if called. The real question is if it's a DQ.

How is a player moving to attempt a tackle a "defenseless player"? 

[NCAA-SJ]

It's a foul, for sure.  But simply only because it's a hit by above the shoulder's (and a launch to boot).  Not sure he's in the category to be described as defenseless. 

[TXMike]

What rule prohibits hits above the shoulders to non-defenseless players?

9-1-3
Targeting/Initiating Contact with Crown of the Helmet
ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
PENALTY—Personal foul. 15 yards. For dead-ball fouls, 15 yards from the succeeding spot. Also, automatic first down for Team B fouls if not in conflict with other rules. (Exception: Penalties for Team A personal fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line) [S7, S24, S34, S38, S39, S40, S41, S45 or S46]. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].
For Team A fouls during free or scrimmage kick plays: Enforcement may be at the previous spot or the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B (field-goal plays exempted) (Rules 6-1-8 and 6-3-13).

9-1-4
Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area
ARTICLE 4 No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with
the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (See Points of Emphasis for a description of “Defenseless Player.”) PENALTY—(Same as above)


9-1-2
Persons Subject to the Rules Restrictions
ARTICLE 2. No person subject to the rules shall commit a personal foul
before the game, during the game or between the periods. Any act prohibited
hereunder or any other act of unnecessary roughness is a personal foul.
a. No person subject to the rules shall strike an opponent with the knee;
strike an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask), neck, face or
any other part of the body with an extended forearm, elbow, locked
hands, palm, fist, or the heel, back or side of the open hand; or gouge an
opponent (A.R. 9-1-2-I and II).

[VA-Ump]

How is a player moving to attempt a tackle a "defenseless player"? 

While I agree defining the term "defenseless" may be argued, especially in a play like this, but I believe the rule gives us the latitude with the "when in question" clause.  I think my Supervisor would have a hard time supporting me not calling this one... just my opinion.

[TXMike]

Then why even worry about using the term "defenseless" in the rule?

[mccormicw]

The last line of the points of emphasis states "Intentional helmet-to-helmet contact is never legal, nor is any other blow directed toward an opponents head". 

[TXMike]

If this same blow was used against a ball carrier, would you flag?

[Etref]

In real time with a 5 man crew, it probably does not get called. In slo- mo it looks like helmet to helmet but in game speed from the side where the officials are located, probably a no call.

[mccormicw]

I believe the "defenseless player" part of the definition will be officially removed eventually.  In a sense, it has already been removed.  If a pass receiver has caught the ball and therefore is no longer concentrating on the ball, can he be hit above the shoulders?  It seems like receivers being targeted above the shoulders after catching the ball is called often.

[TXMike]

I suspect you are right re potential rule change.
But re hits on receivers...only ones I see flagged are those that happen immediately after the possession is gained, I.e. Bang bang

[Andrew McCarthy]

Doesn't 9-1-2-a cover this situation?

No person subject to the rules shall strike an opponent with the knee;
strike an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask), neck, face or
any other part of the body with an extended forearm, elbow, locked
hands, palm, fist, or the heel, back or side of the open hand; or gouge an
opponent (A.R. 9-1-2-I and II).

I've always been confused by this rule.  Does it mean you can't strike an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask), neck or face PERIOD and you can't strike any other part of the body with an extended forearm, elbow, locked hands, palm, fist, or the heel, back or side of the open hand -OR- does the rule mean you can strike an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask), neck or face so long as you don't do it with an extended forearm, elbow, locked hands, palm, fist, or the heel, back or side of the open hand?

If you think it's the latter then why do you suppose they specifically list those parts of the body prior to saying "or any other part of the body"?

[TheStrippedOne]

When you look at the actual contact the head immediatley snaps backwards indicating the contact was to the head if it had been in the chest then the head would have snapped forward. This looks like a targeting foul, not on a defencless player as by the definition hes not defencless hes in the play looking to make the tackle, the hit is from the front but the head on the person giving the hit dips as he launches himself 

[TXMike]

Doesn't 9-1-2-a cover this situation?
....
If you think it's the latter then why do you suppose they specifically list those parts of the body prior to saying "or any other part of the body"?

  I have a note written in the margin of my rulebook to suggest a rule change to clean this section up.  It appears to me they are listing all the things you could potentially hit an opponent's head with and are saying it is illegal to use any of them.  The absence of "shoulder" seems very obvious to me.  They have not outlawed the use of the shoulder to the head (except in the targeting section of the rules).  This section also suggests to me that you cannot strike ANY part of the body with those "prohibited weapons", not justthe head.

When you look at the actual contact the head immediatley snaps backwards indicating the contact was to the head if it had been in the chest then the head would have snapped forward. This looks like a targeting foul, not on a defencless player as by the definition hes not defencless hes in the play looking to make the tackle, the hit is from the front but the head on the person giving the hit dips as he launches himself 

I think someone gave us a physics lesson  some time back that disproved this statement that the head snapping backward proved the hit was to the helmet. 

[Sumstine]

How is a player moving to attempt a tackle a "defenseless player"? 

He is no different than a receiver looking back for a ball. There is no question the intent of the blocker is to launch high and target the head and/or neck area. Not sure if he gets him with the helmet but if not the forearm does.

He could have easily blocked him in the chest and decked him with the same authority but chose to take a shot at the head.

[TXMike]

Actually he is a lot different than the receiver looking back for the ball.  The rulemakers have decided that someone who is trying to concentrate on completing a catch warrants more protection than one who is running with the ball or one that is moving to make a tackle, or one who is moving to make a block.

[110]

I would hope that this would be noted. It's a clear "collision" point. I've been taught on kickoffs to keep an eye on my key if the guy is going full-tilt boogie downfield -because that's the guy that's gonna flatten someone from behind or do something else.

In this case, it's "something else."

The key for me is that the arms of the blocker do not move forward. I have seen instances where there's a lunge with the upper body -the arms the leading force point - and the helmets collide.

Clear spear.

[zebra99]

9-1-3-a covers if the crown of the helmet was used whether it's above or below the shoulders.  9-1-2 "any act of unnecessary roughness" as well.

Seems to me this is a foul no matter how you try to slot it.  It certainly wasn't necessary to launch and go high to make the play.

[TXMike]

My "logic", however flawed...

Years ago (not that many), this hit would not have even spurred one comment that it should be flagged.  It is the recent rule changes that have many of us now calling for a flag.  The part of the rule related to unnecessary roughness was there well before the part  was added about targeting and high hits.  When the rule makers started tweaking the rules, they added in language about defenseless players.  If they wanted the rule to apply to ALL players, why take the time and effort to define "defenseless" and then make it part of the rule.  Seems to me it would have been much easier just to comment in the points of emphasis that AVOIDABLE high hits should not be permitted against any player, to include the runner.  Violations of that could be punished as unneccesary roughness.  Perhaps that is where we are headed.  But under the current rules, I believe the specificity with which certain conduct has been deemed to be illegal when performed against certain persons means we should stay with that until they tell us otherwise.

[NCAA-SJ]

I see your point Mike.  I agree about having some improved wording. 

[zebra99]

I appreciate TXMike's analysis  - but expecting the rules committee to write words and phrases which paint the perfect picture of a dynamic situation so that all of our wandering and inquiring minds are satisfied is simply an impossible task - as someone said on this board  - trying to clearly define unnecessary roughness is like trying to define pornography - can't be done, but we know it when we see it - not that I've ever seen any pornography! .

There is a clear and evolving message to take violent high hits like this one out of the game of football - to my way of thinking, we need to go more with was the nature of the hit "necessary" to accomplish the purpose.  On the play in question, the hitter had all kinds of different ways to effectuate the block than what he did.

TXMike's comment about why did they limit hits above the shoulders to defenseless players is well taken, but it's most likely an oversight as I can't believe the rules makers intended to make violent unnecessary high hits on non-defenseless players legal.

Again, back to the all important "unnecessary"  word!

[TXMike]

You are an honest man.  Would you have flagged this 10 years ago as unneccesary roughness?   That part of the rule has not been changed in at least that long. 

[zebra99]

You are an honest man.  Would you have flagged this 10 years ago as unneccesary roughness?   That part of the rule has not been changed in at least that long.  

yes, 10 years ago I probably would not have flagged that action - but the exact language of the rule book doesn't need to change before the game changes - in fact, rule changes often lag behind or are in response to gradual evolutionary changes in the way the game is played and officiated.

A classic example is holding  - we allowed grasping of the opponent's frame without impeding/obstructing well before those words appeared in the rule book.

Hard to know if it's chicken or the egg when it comes to officiating changes.

[NoVaBJ]

I have no foul, yesterday or today.  I am not convinced, even in slow motion, that the contact was with the crown of the helmet, nor is the suggestion that the blocker launched persuasive to me. 

The K player is engaged in pursuit of the runner, and the R player initiates contact to the front.  I've got a clean block.