Illegal Helmut Contact/Targeting?

[Curious]

What do y'all think?  Hope the link works (and sorry if this one has already been discussed).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAJFdgbXioI&feature=uploademail

[mccormicw]

Clearly not a block in the back but there was helmet contact.  Did the player initiate contact with the helmet?  In real time, I thought the block was good. 

[Atlanta Blue]

Not even close to a IBB.  As for the helmet contact, I don't think he lead with his helmet, I think the contact was the result of the angle and was inadvertant.  Leave it alone.

[Etref]

 

[BankerRef]

It appears to me that he lowered his head and used the crown of his helmet to "earhole" the target.  It requires the slow motion to realy see it.  I probably wouldn't have that one myself but I wouldn't argue if it was called.

Just want to clarify that we are not talking about targeting the opponent above the shoulders but rather the act of the blocker using his helmet to target an opponent.  The blocked player in this case does not meet the definition of a defenseless player so the only way you could have targeting of any kind would be if the blocker used the crown of his helmet and then it wouldn't matter where he hit his target.

The illegal block just aint there.

[Curious]

I can see everybody's point (that, in itself, is weird).  My thoughts were that, CLEARLY, no BIB; but if there were actually any helmet contact by the blocker, it was with the side of the his helmet and the result of his shoulder block.



 

[Sumstine]

That is illegal helmet contact. Open field pursuers who are focused away from the block are considered defenseless. The blocker can pick any area above the waist other than the head to make his block and he lowers his head and makes contact helmet to helmet.

[BankerRef]

That is illegal helmet contact. Open field pursuers who are focused away from the block are considered defenseless. The blocker can pick any area above the waist other than the head to make his block and he lowers his head and makes contact helmet to helmet.

So, are you saying that a player pursuing the ball carrier is defenseless because his focus is on the ball carrier?  I have not seen this interpretation before.

[Curious]

That is illegal helmet contact. Open field pursuers who are focused away from the block are considered defenseless. The blocker can pick any area above the waist other than the head to make his block and he lowers his head and makes contact helmet to helmet.

With total respect, it's amazing that we can look at the same "film" and see two different things.  I see a shoulder block, admittedly high (at the "blockee's" shoulder) which brought their heads together by the shear coincidence of size.  As AB points out, which I thought was a criterion for a foul, the blocker, IMO, does not "lead with his head".

If the defender chasing a ball carrier is "defenseless", how is ANY block legal?

quote author=BankerRef link=topic=8923.msg86018#msg86018 date=1324503418]
So, are you saying that a player pursuing the ball carrier is defenseless because his focus is on the ball carrier?  I have not seen this interpretation before.
[/quote]

Amen

[Chester]

This is a Blindside block. 

[GoodScout]

I have IHC with the blocker dipping his head as he leads into the man. Saw it at full speed, slo-mo makes it more clear, and I can even freeze the video at the point of impact to show where the side of the helmet is led into the trailing man's helmet. Like others, I'm surprised there's a debate on this. No BIB, but clear IHC.

People, if you can't see this is helmet-to-helmet, then pull the rule out of the NFHS rulebook, because none of you are going to call it anyway.

[mccormicw]

I thought I remembered this being addressed by RR in either video or an interpretation.  I coulda swore he stated this was a defenseless player.  I will see if I can find it.

[mccormicw]

RR states the player chasing a punt returner is a defenseless player in Play 4 (Personal Fouls) of the Points of Emphasis training video (2011)

[Mike L]

It remains clear to me from what my supervisors have told me and what I have heard the supervisors from a level far above me say is that they want this foul called. They want this type hit removed from the game. What the Texas HS guys have been instructed to do, I have no idea. So for them, maybe this is not a personal foul. All I can say is what I would be expected to do in my area.
How he could have blocked him and not draw a flag? Put his shoulder anywhere between the shoulder and the waist of the opponent, a pretty big and easily hittable target area. You go high like this, you're simply asking for 15 yds.
BIB? Not even close.

[mccormicw]

2011 Training Video 2 - Points of Emphasis is the exact name of the video.

[Rulesman]

Legal side block BUT with helmet to helmet contact = 

What about the late hit (runner is thrown to the ground well OOB; tackler never lets up) -  ?

What about the taunt by #10 at the end of the play -  ?

What about the coach out on the field showing the officials up by pointing at the Jerry-tron -  ?

Looks to me like this play has more than one issue at hand.

[mccormicw]

Maybe I missed it but I don't see a taunt by #10.

[110]

Woah. I see something ENTIRELY different. The oncoming white player comes in and actually moves his head and shoulders sideways in attempt to make his shoulder the PRIMARY and INITIAL point of contact. The move also results in the blocker's head moving, which serves to mitigate the helmet-to-helmet collision - but the initiating blocker is taller, so his head naturally comes into contact with the helmet of the opponent.

Yes, there was some incidental helmet contact, but I do not see convincing evidence that the helmet was intended as the primary point of contact.

That said, I can see why it might have been called. I just don't know if it was the right call.

(Edit: Missed verb. Bad writer.)

[Rulesman]

Maybe I missed it but I don't see a taunt by #10.

He's selling wolf tickets after being pushed by #18, which, admittedly, I missed the first 2 times I saw it. I was so focused on 10's action on and after the tackle I didn't spot him being baited.

[mccormicw]

I saw #10 responded but didnt see anything on video that would rise to a taunt or flag.  Hearing what he said could obviously change that.  There was no need for him to push through the two players.  There was no need for the push from white #48.  If what we could see is deserving of a flag, we might as well start calling every hold regardless of impact cause flags would be flying on every play.  The R was standing right there and didnt even flinch.  None of the visiting team even reacted to his comments.  Based on video alone, i got nothing.

[blindref757]

If a crew in Texas regularly called that a taunt and flagged it, they wouldn't be working in December at JerryWorld.  That was nothing...and the coach can rant and point at that screen all he wants...ain't gonna change anything.  They probably didn't cover the big screen in their pre-game...and seeing that they missed the call, he should have some leeway.  The crew may have been a little lucky for having a foul there...but it wasn't a BIB.

[Curious]

Woah. I see something ENTIRELY different. The oncoming white player comes in and actually moves his head and shoulders sideways in attempt to make his shoulder the PRIMARY and INITIAL point of contact. The move also results in the blocker's head moving, which serves to mitigate the helmet-to-helmet collision - but the initiating blocker is taller, so his head naturally comes into contact with the helmet of the opponent.

Yes, there was some incidental helmet contact, but I do not see convincing evidence that the helmet was intended as the primary point of contact.

That said, I can see why it might have been called. I just don't know if it was the right call.

(Edit: Missed verb. Bad writer.)

That's what I saw....."Primary and initial point of contact" is a great point.  There are dozens of blocks where helmets come together after the initial hit - and we don't call them IHC/helmet-to-helmet.

RR states the player chasing a punt returner is a defenseless player in Play 4 (Personal Fouls) of the Points of Emphasis training video (2011)

I can see AR if the interpretation is "headhunting"; but, in this case, I've got some trouble interpreting it that way....

[Hank]

I think y'all might be looking at something that is not the reason the call was made.  You're looking at the BIG block that is clearly NOT a BIB.  That block occurs near the 25.  There's another block slightly later in the play that occurs at the 30 or 31.  I think it's clearly a BIB.  If that's the one they meant to call, then they got the enforcement a bit off.  Perhaps because the calling official asked for help on the spot and the helper had noted the spot of the BIG block.  As for the actions of #10, he's pushed prior to doing anything by a player on the bench and a coach.  I'd say, leave him alone.

Clearly the coach is looking at the BIG block as well.

[Atlanta Blue]

The block at the 31 is NOT a BIB either. 

[mccormicw]

The block at the 31 is NOT a BIB either.

I concur