Author Topic: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern  (Read 8051 times)

fbrefga

  • Guest
2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« on: June 15, 2012, 11:01:20 AM »
As we are all well aware, the Fed will be implementing a new rule regarding the helmet coming off a player during a play.  Yes, the player must sit out the next play if the helmet comes off due to something other than a foul. 

My concern with the Fed rule is that it does not address the status of the player whose helmet came off.  The NCAA went as far as identifying the player as "out of the play".  There will be personal fouls if the player re-engages in the play with his helmet off or receives contact from the opposing team while his helmet is off.  The Fed has not addressed any of this (to my knowledge).  Yes, the ball is dead and we lay on the whistles if the helmet of the runner comes off.  But what do we do if the non runner's helmet comes off and he tries to make a tackle or block while helmetless?  Is it a foul?  If so, where is the rule support?

The rule is being adopted for safety concerns.  Obviously, a player without a helmet is vulnerable to injury; but I saw nothing from the Fed regarding this matter.

Offline TampaSteve

  • *
  • Posts: 1273
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-10
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2012, 12:55:23 PM »
you are correct. 
Although the Rule Book, to my knowledge, is not out yet, nothing indicated any additional verbiage that the NCAA has regarding to participating or engaging one with a hat off..

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1216
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2012, 10:27:57 PM »
I have received both the Rule and Case Books directly from the Federation; so you can get them.

Unfortunately, the FED does not speak to the safety issues "fbrefga" mentions; and that are meaningfully addressed by the NCAA.

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2012, 11:59:56 AM »
NC will send them to us in a few weeks.  Given the removal of the PDF files from the NFHS website and the supposed new partnership with The Arbiter, I'm a bit surprised they aren't up on the Arbiter yet, especially since I'm a paid NFOA member.

I realize the Fed had limited staff and moved a lot of the officiating media over to them, but I'm going to expect a little better effort from a for-profit business like the Arbiter now.


  I'll bring it up to our training committee as several are NCAA officials as well.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 12:11:02 PM by HLinNC »

Offline FBUmp

  • *
  • Posts: 546
  • FAN REACTION: +77/-38
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2012, 08:04:08 PM »
The rule is being adopted for safety concerns.  Obviously, a player without a helmet is vulnerable to injury; but I saw nothing from the Fed regarding this matter.

The reason for the Fed rule change has nothing to do with your questions.  The reason for the rule change was to provide incentive for players to
#1 -Be fitted with a properly sized helmet and,
#2 -Wear the helmet properly, meaning strapped on snugly.

Therefore, the rules remain as they always have.  If a runner's helmet comes off, the ball is dead.  It remains live and there is no penalty if any other player's helmet comes off and he continues to particiapte.

Offline Sumstine

  • *
  • Posts: 380
  • FAN REACTION: +57/-9
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2012, 09:19:30 PM »
I believe the NFHS should and will change the rule to match the NCAA rule. It is all about safety with the NFHS, isn't it?

For the past five years with the exception of the low blocking rules the NCAA has been ahead of NFHS in safety related rule changes and case plays. The legal system and insurance companies are pushing some of the changes but it is hard to believe the NFHS would not want to maintain their standing as the organization being primarily concerned about player safety.

Maybe if some of the state coordinators implemented it for their states it would catch on.

Offline FBUmp

  • *
  • Posts: 546
  • FAN REACTION: +77/-38
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2012, 09:17:00 AM »
I believe the NFHS should and will change the rule to match the NCAA rule. It is all about safety with the NFHS, isn't it?

Perhaps they will.  But the truth is that NFHS met and passed this year's rule changes BEFORE the NCAA had their rules meeting.  The NFHS members were focused on improperly fitted helmets coming off during play, not on what a player without a helmet is allowed to do during a play. 

I say this with confidence because my state, NC, tracked helemts coming off during games during the 2011 season. We found that in many situations, it was the same player in a game that lost his helmet on more than one occasion. 

My guess is that someone at the NCAA meeting raised the questions fbrefga asked but because of where the focus was, that didn't happen at the NFHS meeting.

Not saying that providing rules to protect players without helmets isn't a good idea, just saying that wasn't the original focus of the study we did or the focus of the NFHS when they met.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1216
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2012, 10:53:25 AM »

My guess is that someone at the NCAA meeting raised the questions fbrefga asked but because of where the focus was, that didn't happen at the NFHS meeting.

Not saying that providing rules to protect players without helmets isn't a good idea, just saying that wasn't the original focus of the study we did or the focus of the NFHS when they met.

I certainly would hope someone raised the question; it seems that it would be a logical next issue in their discussion (even if it weren't the original focus).

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2012, 12:13:19 PM »
The Fed rarely gets a rule or change enacted with out a lot of machinations.  How many times has the horse collar been tinkered with since it was imposed at the HS level?

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • FAN REACTION: +255/-483
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2012, 12:33:56 PM »
The Fed rarely gets a rule or change enacted with out a lot of machinations.  How many times has the horse collar been tinkered with since it was imposed at the HS level?

I tend to agree that ommission of language specifically to address the issue fbrefga raises on this thread was most likely as oversight, as suggested.  However, for those insisting on penalty protection for potential acts by the player left helmetless, you might find coverage under NF: 1-5-3, which calls for an UNSC penalty when, "in the opinion of the Umpire is dangerous, confusing or inappropriate" or NF: 1-5-6 which calls for a 5 yard penalty for failure to wear mandatory equipment, "while the ball is live".

You might consider that there is no specific rule authorization prohibiting any player from shooting an opponent either.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2012, 01:26:34 PM »
You might consider that there is no specific rule authorization prohibiting any player from shooting an opponent either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2012, 03:22:25 PM »
After reviewing my shiny new 2012 Fed books, they do not address the issue of participating after the helmet is knocked off.  However the commentary in the case book under 1.5.6 does state this:

"Game officials must use good judgment when ruling on failure to properly wear required equipment during the down.  Whenever a player is involved in contact during the down, it is possible for .......... to come loose or be displaced.  In such cases, it is not a foul."
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:24:14 PM by HLinNC »

Offline FBUmp

  • *
  • Posts: 546
  • FAN REACTION: +77/-38
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2012, 05:23:11 PM »
I certainly would hope someone raised the question; it seems that it would be a logical next issue in their discussion (even if it weren't the original focus).

For that matter, one could ask why this situation wasn't addressed years ago when the rule regarding runners losing their helmets was first added?  ???

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1216
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2012, 05:26:34 AM »
For that matter, one could ask why this situation wasn't addressed years ago when the rule regarding runners losing their helmets was first added?  ???

Amen!

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2012, 11:59:01 AM »
For that matter, one could ask why this situation wasn't addressed years ago when the rule regarding runners losing their helmets was first added?  ???

At that time there was no need -- non-runner helmets coming off wasn't nearly as frequent as it has become in the past several years.

Offline FBUmp

  • *
  • Posts: 546
  • FAN REACTION: +77/-38
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2012, 09:42:58 PM »
At that time there was no need -- non-runner helmets coming off wasn't nearly as frequent as it has become in the past several years.

Which is why the newest rule change has been made to address players wearing ill fitted helmets.  8]

Offline RGraydonR

  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2012, 11:56:44 AM »
Another question regarding the new helmet-coming-off the non-runner rule:
The new rule says the player must come out for a play when, "the helmet comes completely off DURING THE DOWN without being directly attributable to a foul by an opponent."
A down is defined in 2-7-1 as "action which starts with a legal snap (beginning a scrimmage down)...A down end when the ball next becomes dead."
So, that tells me that if A74 is blocking B88 and A12 runs out of bounds and a moment later A74's helmet comes completely off NOT due to a foul, the down was over before A74's helmet came off and he does NOT have to come out for a down.

However, in the case book, under 3-5-10 Situation E (e), if the helmet comes off a player after falling to the ground "immediately following the ball becoming dead due to a score or going out of bounds" the ruling is that the player must be replaced for one down.
I guess the key word is "immediately," but it seems a bit vague.  What if the helmet comes off because of A74 engagement with B88 but 1) a half second 2)  full second after the whistle indicating A12 is OOB?  The ball was dead and down was technically over before the whistle.
Thoughts?

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2216
  • FAN REACTION: +63/-12
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2012, 12:25:13 PM »
Starting to sound like the horsecollar rule change.
 cRaZy

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2012, 01:22:47 PM »
Which means that the rule book and casebook will match for the 2015 season?   :D

And I wouldn't be surprised if they were to add for next year the same bit NCAA has about the player whose helmet comes off having to stop participating in the play.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 01:24:51 PM by VALJ »

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2012, 01:41:51 PM »
However, in the case book, under 3-5-10 Situation E (e), if the helmet comes off a player after falling to the ground "immediately following the ball becoming dead due to a score or going out of bounds" the ruling is that the player must be replaced for one down.
I guess the key word is "immediately," but it seems a bit vague.  What if the helmet comes off because of A74 engagement with B88 but 1) a half second 2)  full second after the whistle indicating A12 is OOB?  The ball was dead and down was technically over before the whistle.
Thoughts?

MY thought is that if a helmet comes off before all action has stopped, that player needs to come out & get his hat properly adjusted.  YMMV.

Offline Patrick E.

  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-2
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2012, 02:46:12 PM »
Scenario 1 - Player A76 gets blocked from behind by B56 and falls to the ground. While falling or after hitting the ground, the helmet comes completely off of A76.  Does A76 have to be replaced for a down?

Scenario 2 - A11 is tackled via contact at the knees by B56 and his helmet comes completely off - A11 has to sit for a down.  A play later, A76 holds B56 by the ankle in the open field.  B56 falls down and his helmet comes completely off.  Does B56 have to be replaced for a down?

Has the NFHS left room for the official to determine cause and effect? Or is it an absolute - If a players helmet comes completely off and there is a foul for ANY degree of illegal contact, he does not have to be replaced for a down.

Thanks.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2224
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-24
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2012, 02:54:12 PM »
Scenario 1 - Player A76 gets blocked from behind by B56 and falls to the ground. While falling or after hitting the ground, the helmet comes completely off of A76.  Does A76 have to be replaced for a down?

Scenario 2 - A11 is tackled via contact at the knees by B56 and his helmet comes completely off - A11 has to sit for a down.  A play later, A76 holds B56 by the ankle in the open field.  B56 falls down and his helmet comes completely off.  Does B56 have to be replaced for a down?

Has the NFHS left room for the official to determine cause and effect? Or is it an absolute - If a players helmet comes completely off and there is a foul for ANY degree of illegal contact, he does not have to be replaced for a down.

Thanks.

In Alabama:  Assuming there was a foul called in both scenarios, neither player would have to sit out a play.

Offline Jason Kramer

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2012, 03:20:56 PM »
In Alabama:  Assuming there was a foul called in both scenarios, neither player would have to sit out a play.

3-5-10-d
The helmet comes completely off during the down without being directly attributable to a foul by an opponent.

How is the helmet coming off attributable to a holding foul? Unless the foul is facemask, or helmet contact, or something where the penalized player does something to the helmet itself, the player whose helmet comes off should sit.
The intent of the rule is to ensure players have properly fitted helmets. The intent of the exception is so opponents can't exploit the rule and pull off helmets to get players out of the game.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-10
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2012, 03:21:56 PM »
Since neither of the fouls in Patrick's scenarios affected the helmet, in Virginia we'd send the kid off.  Having your ankle held doesn't have anything to do with how loose you've strapped your hat on.

Offline Jason Kramer

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
Re: 2012 Helmet Rule Concern
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2012, 03:27:33 PM »
Since neither of the fouls in Patrick's scenarios affected the helmet, in Virginia we'd send the kid off.  Having your ankle held doesn't have anything to do with how loose you've strapped your hat on.
:thumbup