Late hit?

[runninbj]

Ok, I'm trying to figure out what the B called here last week at the Colorado/Utah game. Player leads with shoulder, so it's not spearing. And while the receiver is defenseless, contact is to the chest, not the head, so it's not that.

Was it that the receiver had dropped the ball and the call is a late hit? Seems to happen really quickly, not sure you can expect the defender to even know the pass has been incomplete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6uiJ_n2tY

[Grant - AR]

I don't know for sure what he called, but watching it in full speed, it looks like the defender lowers his head.  Maybe that's what the B saw and flagged.  When in question...

[clearwall]

Wimpification of football run amok here...keep that in your pocket and let the defense do what they're supposed to do.

[El Macman]

...let the defense do what they're supposed to do.

Which is...what?

[Mike L]

Said it before and I'll say it again, I've heard big conference supervisors in more than a couple review tapes clearly saying these types of hits are to be removed from the game.
You can call it wimpification or whatever, but that's the way they want it called. Ignore the wishes of those who determine if/when you work at your own risk.

[Chester]

Yes but, sometimes we get these calls correct and sometimes we don't.  I understand and acknowledge the "when in doubt" part but sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong.  This looks like a legal hit to me.  It certainly is hard but it can be hard.  It just can't be to the head. 

[clearwall]

Which is...what?

Knock the snot out of the other player and make him drop the ball. It wasnt early, it wasnt late, it wasnt targeting, it wasnt leading with the head...what do you want him to do? Touch below the waist?

[zebra99]

Clearwall - that's for the rules committee to decide, not us on the field.

[jg-me]

Sometimes we forget that the very first sentence in rule 9 includes a phrase that covers any other acts of unnecessary roughness, i.e. not just the specific fouls cited in rule 9-1. The A player reaches back and hardly gets a hand on the ball then takes basically two more strides before he is hit. The B player either knew or should have known the opponent did not have the ball. This hit was rough and unnecessary hence the foul. If the defender really thought the ball had been caught he could have actually tackled the receiver - a novel thought these days it seems.

[runninbj]

I have a hard time saying that he should have known the pass was incomplete. The ball hits the receiver's hand, then, obscured from the defender (and the B), the ball hits his waist. By the time the ball is obviously heading towards the ground, the receiver doesn't even take a step before getting hit.

I would have a hard time, as a B myself, flagging this. Should something be added into the rulebook that a hit like this is illegal unless the defender also wraps his arms around? I don't know the answer to that.

[Etref]

I have a hard time saying that he should have known the pass was incomplete. The ball hits the receiver's hand, then, obscured from the defender (and the B), the ball hits his waist. By the time the ball is obviously heading towards the ground, the receiver doesn't even take a step before getting hit.

I would have a hard time, as a B myself, flagging this. Should something be added into the rulebook that a hit like this is illegal unless the defender also wraps his arms around? I don't know the answer to that.

If the defender would have had his head up he would have been able to see the pass was incomplete.

Still this is a marginal call but may be one that the Conference mucky-mucks want called.

[110]

Looks to me like someone didnt watch the keys appropriately. Not in agreement with nylon, here.

Sent from my MID7016 using Tapatalk

[Sonofanump]

I'll sit on the fence on this one.  I am sure that if this was my call, I'd be thinking the rest of the game if I got it correct or not.

[JasonTX]

Back in the day when I played our coaches taught us to break down and then wrap up the runner.  There was no form whatsover in this play.  The head being ducked down is not a proper tackling technique.  Perhaps the rules committee is trying to get players to learn the basics of breaking down and wrapping up.  All I can see in the video was a head down with arms not anywhere near being wrapped around the receiver.  I also agree that had a flag not been thrown we wouldn't be hearing much about it.  But, I will add that when you duck your head and make no use of your arms, you are "carrying the brick".

[El Macman]

Knock the snot out of the other player and make him drop the ball. It wasnt early, it wasnt late, it wasnt targeting, it wasnt leading with the head...what do you want him to do? Touch below the waist?

That's what is wrong. Football was supposed to be a GAME where teams blocked and tackled in an effort to advance the ball or keep the opponent from advancing the ball. Maximizing physical punishment and pain simply for its own sake was not part of that game. Unfortunately, that gladiator-like element found its way into the game. Now, the rules committee is trying to curb it to some degree. In the name of player safety, some conferences may be asking their staffs to play a greater role in that effort than others. Personally, I applaud the effort.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Knock the snot out of the other player and make him drop the ball.

That what some coaches say, not what the rules committee says.  Football is supposed to be a game of team skills with 22 players, not cage fighting.

[zebra99]

bottom line - the game has been changed - the rules committee consisting of coaches at all levels has decided to take high hits and leading with the head out of the game.  They even went so far as to add "when in question" language, a clear statement of their intent.

Those who don't like it cannot credibly say this decision is unreasonable on it's face or without any basis whatsoever.  We can quibble over semantics in the book and parse each frame of videos but to what end?

This change occurs quickly, a mere re-wording of the words in the book over a couple of cycles.  It understandably happens much more slowly for the players and officials because we rely on repetitive experience over the years, much more difficult to suddenly change.

The train has left the station ... we can either get on it, fight it or stay at the station.  The latter two options will result in shortened careers.

[Chester]

The problem is not flagging the illegal hits and trying to get those out of the game.  I'm totally on board with that.  The problem is flagging the hard hits just because they are hard.  There's a distinction between the two and I believe we as officials have to determine the difference until told differently.  Now with that, with are going to miss some and we are going to nail some.  Part of the job, I guess.

 

[clearwall]

That what some coaches say, not what the rules committee says.  Football is supposed to be a game of team skills with 22 players, not cage fighting.

I really disagree with this statement entirely. There are plenty of sports that are skill games and just accentuate that aspect. Why do football players wear pads if part of the game is not to physically dominate the other side? Sorry, I cant agree at all with that.

[Grant - AR]

I really disagree with this statement entirely. There are plenty of sports that are skill games and just accentuate that aspect. Why do football players wear pads if part of the game is not to physically dominate the other side? Sorry, I cant agree at all with that.

They wear pads because it is a contact sport and players are going to get hurt because of the nature of the game.  But, the object of football is not to hurt the other team.  Physically dominating the opposing team is a lot different than "knocking the snot out of the other player and making him drop the ball." 

[runninbj]

bottom line - the game has been changed - the rules committee consisting of coaches at all levels has decided to take high hits and leading with the head out of the game.  They even went so far as to add "when in question" language, a clear statement of their intent.

Those who don't like it cannot credibly say this decision is unreasonable on it's face or without any basis whatsoever.  We can quibble over semantics in the book and parse each frame of videos but to what end?

This change occurs quickly, a mere re-wording of the words in the book over a couple of cycles.  It understandably happens much more slowly for the players and officials because we rely on repetitive experience over the years, much more difficult to suddenly change.

The train has left the station ... we can either get on it, fight it or stay at the station.  The latter two options will result in shortened careers.

And yet this hit is neither of the ones you underlined above. I understand that supervisors are emphasizing getting rid of these types of hits with our all-around discretion on unnecessary roughness. HOWEVER, that causes inconsistencies on what gets called a PF across conferences, and even crews of the same conference, because what is a "hard hit" is not specified in the rules.

We were able to get specific language on hits above the shoulder, and on leading with crown of the helmet. If the powers that be also want to get rid of these kinds of hits (and I have no problem with that!), I'd like to see it written into the rulebook, so we can all enforce it as consistently as we can.

[clearwall]

They wear pads because it is a contact sport and players are going to get hurt because of the nature of the game.  But, the object of football is not to hurt the other team.  Physically dominating the opposing team is a lot different than "knocking the snot out of the other player and making him drop the ball."

I NEVER said "hurt." Im in full agreement that players shouldnt be trying to hurt each other. But part of the excitement of football is watching people smack the other team around. I dont see many multi-million dollar deals for flag football leagues, which is 100% skill, speed, everything else you mentioned. TACKLE football is a large part about hard hitting.

[El Macman]

...part of the excitement of football is watching people smack the other team around.

Very ancient Romanesque. The 'excitement of the kill' is what brought the specatators to the Coloseum (or so we are told). But ancient Rome fell due to the decline of the morality of the people, manifested in the legalized brutality regularly demonstrated at the Coloseum. That legalized brutality has been creeping into football ever since the first televised broadcast. The Committees in recent times have recognized the damage this is causing student-athletes, and are taking steps to mitigate the damage. While many student-athletes are compensated for the risks involved in athletic participation via their scholarships, they ain't gettin' the millions-upon-millions that professional athletes are gettin' to put their bodies on the line. The NFL and NHL have recognized the danger of allowing this type of wanton violence to go unchecked, even for its collosally well-compensated participants. For the NCAA to also take similar measures should surprise or disappoint no one with an IQ over 40.
The days of the big hit for the sake of the big hit may be coming to an end. Football is a contact sport, but the contact should only be what is required to impose an effective block upon on an opponent, or subdue a ball carrier. "Knocking the snot out of somebody" is just another way of saying that you approve of the gladiators maiming, crippling and mutilating the opponent, for the simple 'sport' of it, as opposed to displaying greater skill and intellect to achieve victory. Me? I much more appreciate the great pinpoint pass, the great one-handed-going-to-the-ground-landing-on-the-back-catch, the great spin move while keeping the puck on the tape, the strike to home from center field to catch the runner at the plate, than the sneak attack, literally bone-crushing assault, on the largely defenseless opponent. Any back-alley ghetto gang thug can do that. The artistry of a Tom Brady, or a Michael Jordan, or a Sidney Crosby is way - WAY - better than anything Ndamukong Suh could ever pull off. We used to have a minor-league hockey team here in town. I went to two games. They degenerated into nothing but legalized street fighting, apparently encouraged by organizers  for its supposed entertainment value. On the other hand, the NHL has cracked down on the fighting, focusing more on the great skating, stick-handling, and goaltending. and their game is all the better for it. Football will be all the better for dramtically reducing the completely unnecessary violence that TV has nurtured for the sake of ratings.

[James]

But ancient Rome fell due to the decline of the morality of the people, manifested in the legalized brutality regularly demonstrated at the Coloseum.

I'm not an historian, but that claim seems fairly wild to me.
The Roman Republic from about 500BC to about 0 was a huge political structure that was constantly suffering civil war.
The Roman Empire from about 0 to 500AD ended when they were defeated militarily

Gladiators were probably around from about 300BC to 300AD.
(Quick search on Wikipedia and some other references)

Their morality didn't show decline in this aspect, and one could argue that there wasn't a lack, just a difference.

Personally I wouldn't compare football to the gladiators as to the tournaments the knights used to compete in. They were out to better each other and show superior skills, but also wore protection to keep from being hurt in these games.

[El Macman]

Their morality didn't show decline in this aspect, and one could argue that there wasn't a lack, just a difference.

Really? Try this, from the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

"According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[3] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire."

In the case of football, the barbarians are those that seek to inflict as much pain on their opponent as possible regardless of how successful the team is, or has been, at playing the game, simply for their self-declared glorification via replay after replay of the "big hit" on TV.

The big hit for the sake of the big hit has got to go, or football will suffer a decline similar to the Roman Empire and the NBA.