Helmet to helmet

[Reff54]

Got a question....If ball carrier A  is tackled by Player B....and neither player dips their helmet in a fashion that indicates he's trying to punish the other player with the helmet  and in the process of the tackle being made....the helmets happen to hit.....do you consider that "Illegal Helmet Contact"?

As an official who's son had four concussions in high school...I am very cognizant of the "Illegal Helmet Contact".  But Earlier this week....the offensive team coach lit into me because of what he perceived to be "helmet to helmet" contact...  I did not see it as "illegal helmet to helmet"   as the defensive player was looking straight at the man he was tackling....he didn't dip his helmet....  But the coach was adamant that it was helmet to helmet.....

What are your thoughts

[ECILLJ]

We took some grief last week for a similar play. The linebacker and the fullback had a collision with their helmets between the hashes near the line of scrimmage. The linebacker was stunned and on the ground long enough that we called an injury timeout. I thought the tackler had his head up and the runner was doubling over to protect himself and the ball. We did not throw a flag on either player and while the kid was laying on the ground after the play, I heard about it from a few of the fans.

IMO, this is not an easy play to officiate and with the continued concern about concussions, I am beginning to worry about the growing level of liability risk we may be exposing ourselves too. We are making split second decisions that  may need to be defended in a future courtroom. The answer for us, may be, erring to safety and flagging any play that is close to being illegal helmet contact.

[waltjp]

There is a legitimate reason why players do wear helmets in the first place.

[FBUmp]

For me, helmet to helmet is very difficult to judge and call.  Sure, spearing and target/launch are no brainers.  But trying to determine whether some of these other plays deserve a flag or not is very difficult.

[NorCalMike]

This is a hard way especially at game speed. We had one tonight where runner and the tackler both duck their heads as the contact is made. Helmets hit. A's coach wants us to flag for helmet contact but his player was just as guilty as the B player. We speak to both players about leading with the helmets but don't flag it.

[maven]

NFHS has a distinctive approach to this issue: if you have helmet contact that is not clearly spearing, butt blocking, or face tackling, then it does not constitute a foul. So an important step in calling IHC correctly is mastering the definitions of these fouls.

Naturally at high speed this can still be hard to sort out. If you see a questionable play, game film can help you sort out whether you had a foul.

[James]

I worked a tournament this weekend and had 2 injuries from such actions. The first was a game I worked - I didn't see the hit, but was told by our observer afterwards that the D player should have been hit with a DBPF because the runner was already on the ground. He seems to have decided to ram his helmet to ring the runners bell, and was carried off on a table (they didn't have paramedics on-site for some reason, they only have to have a phone ready to call them).
The second was a game I was not involved in (other than it held up my game for 50 minutes) because the paramedics wouldn't move him, they had to wait for a specialist doctor come and check him before transporting him to the hospital. I gather he had no movement or feeling - but we heard later that it was a swelling in the spine or something and the kid was going to be OK.

[TampaSteve]

Just because helmets touch does not mean it is Illegal Helmet Contact.

[AlUpstateNY]

NFHS has a distinctive approach to this issue: if you have helmet contact that is not clearly spearing, butt blocking, or face tackling, then it does not constitute a foul. So an important step in calling IHC correctly is mastering the definitions of these fouls.

The term "helmet to helmet" has become pretty standard across all levels of football, but it simply doesn'y mean anything.  As suggested, "Spearing", Butt Blocking" and "Face Takleing" are defind penalties at the NFHS level and their specific definitions should be the deciding factor in calling a foul.

[ECILLJ]

We had a hard hit last Friday night, that delayed the game until an ambulance took the kid to the hospital (He didn't know his age or what day it was). The play was an interception, the receiver turned around in pursuit of the safety and the linebacker was right there with as hard of a block as you can apply. The block was high (6'+ linebacker on a 5'8" receiver). We deemed it to be a legal block. The crowd and even the trainer weighed in about it being unnecessary roughness (blow to the helmet). The block was high but we did not see it as being illegal by rule.

We had a similar play the next day in a YFB game (7th & 8th grade level). The difference being this hit was clear away from the play, We didn't have any trouble flagging this hit. The fans and coach were not happy with the call. Fortunately the kid was able to walk off the field on his own accord.

These punishing hits are going to need to be stopped if we expect football to maintain its place as the number one sport in America. Concussions and spinal injuries are bring a lot of negative attention to the game.

[bbeagle]

The block was high but we did not see it as being illegal by rule.

Was the block at the neck or above? Then it was an illegal hit.

Did the block start high and then continue upwards into the player's helmet? Although legal by rule, I would say this is unnecessary roughness if the hit was that hard.

Did the defender prepare for the hit and unleash? Then this is unnecessary roughness.

[maven]

Was the block at the neck or above? Then it was an illegal hit.

Did the block start high and then continue upwards into the player's helmet? Although legal by rule, I would say this is unnecessary roughness if the hit was that hard.

Did the defender prepare for the hit and unleash? Then this is unnecessary roughness.

None of these criteria are part of any NFHS rule or ruling. IHC is defined as spearing, butt blocking, or face tackling. These fouls do not include the concept of targeting. UNR has no guidelines involving helmet contact.

IOW, you're importing criteria that are not part of NFHS football.

[ECILLJ]

I agree with Maven regarding the rules. The block was viewed to be legal by NFHS definition. The blocker had both arms folded in front of his body with clenched hands. He applied the block with much force and speed.

The other challenge is we are often working with 5 man (or less) crews. The play as described occurred downfield near the sideline and presented a challenge for the wing who also has responsibility for the ball carrier. The block occurred immediately behind the ball carrier and the wing was able to see the block with peripheral vision. Everything happened very quickly, there was not much time to anticipate what may be about to happen. The BJ was behind the blocker and did not have a clear view of the entire block. A 7 man crew would have had another set of eyes with a better angle to watch the trailing blocks.

[FBUmp]

None of these criteria are part of any NFHS rule or ruling. IHC is defined as spearing, butt blocking, or face tackling. These fouls do not include the concept of targeting. UNR has no guidelines involving helmet contact.

IOW, you're importing criteria that are not part of NFHS football.

I would disagree.

"Any initiation of contact with the helmet is illegal; therefore, there must be a focus on enforcing the existing rules. These rules include fouls such as butt blocking, face tackling and spearing (all of which are illegal helmet contact fouls) as well as other acts prohibited by the provisions regarding unnecessary roughness. These types of contact, such as blows to the head by the defender, initiating contact to the head, and helmet-to-helmet contact are all unnecessary to the playing of the game. When in doubt, contact to or with the helmet should be ruled a foul by game officials."

[maven]

FBUmp, where is that from?

[Atlanta Blue]

It's in the POE in the back of the book.  But it says you shall not initiate contact with the helmet.  By the context (spearing, butt blocking, face tackling), the meaning is that the person starting the block can't use their helmet.  It says nothing about a block TO an opponent's helmet.

However 2-3-3 does say you can't initiate contact above the shoulders:

"The blocker may not initiate contact with his arm or hand against an opponent above
the opponent’s shoulder, but he may use his hand or arm to break a fall or
maintain his balance."

[FBUmp]

I think the onus is on the NFHS to write more detailed rules concerning helmet contact and write better case plays and interps with regard to what they want called.  I understand the concern and their desire for us to make calls but sticking it in the POE 24 times since 1980 is not solving the problem.

[SD_Casey]

...We deemed it to be a legal block...
...(blow to the helmet)...
The block was high but we did not see it as being illegal by rule.

initiating contact to the head...are all unnecessary to the playing of the game.
When in doubt, contact to or with the helmet should be ruled a foul by game officials

I may just be cherry picking the parts of the post that agree with my opinion, but it seems like a foul should have been called on this play.  Illegal helmet contact includes more that just spearing, face tackling and butt blocking.

That said, 5-man mechanics would almost certainly make it more difficult to officiate somthing like that. On a pass play like that, having an extra four eyes on the play would certainly be helpful.

[AlUpstateNY]

I think it safe to presume everyone is concerned about illegal helmet to helmet contact, and is prepared to deal with it.  However, not all helmet to helmet contact is illegal, nor intentional, nor avoidable.  Such contact involves a collision between two, usually opposing, charges by quickly moving players and aside from illegal contacts, which by definition involve targeting or can be deemed reckless, can be the unintended responsibility of EITHER player.

Certain techniques are considerably more likely to produce problematic collisions, and should not be taught or encouraged.  Consequences such techniques earn, even when unintentional, are justified because of their inherent higher risk.  However when helmet to helmet contact is the result of sudden, uninentional movement by either player, neither deserves or has earned penalty. 

There is a fine line, we each have to deal with that challenges our judgment and requires a keen understanding of the relevant rules

[TampaSteve]

I would highly encourage folks to review the Aloha Clinic video/narrative on this topic (it's either a 2012 or a 2011 topic).
Narrated by Matt Sumstine, WAC (?) official.

[FBUmp]

Got a link, Steve?  Make it easy on us!

[maven]

http://refereeclinic.com/videos

[Atlanta Blue]

Illegal helmet contact includes more that just spearing, face tackling and butt blocking.

Read 2-20.  And 9-4-3i.

[SD_Casey]

Read 2-20.  And 9-4-3i.

Read the Points of Emphasis, pg 83

...These types of contact, such as blows to the head by the defender, initiating contact to the head, and helmet-to-helmet contact are all unnecessary to the playing of the game. When in doubt, contact to or with the helmet should be ruled a foul by game officials."

EDIT:  The above post seemed argumentative and disrespectful after I stopped later to think about it.  I left it here because my argument isn't changing but the overall tone of my post was (looking back) unnecessarily inflammatory.  My apologies.  That said, the POE clearly states that with or to the helmet should be ruled a foul.

[Atlanta Blue]

Read the Points of Emphasis, pg 83

...These types of contact, such as blows to the head by the defender, initiating contact to the head, and helmet-to-helmet contact are all unnecessary to the playing of the game. When in doubt, contact to or with the helmet should be ruled a foul by game officials."

EDIT:  The above post seemed argumentative and disrespectful after I stopped later to think about it.  I left it here because my argument isn't changing but the overall tone of my post was (looking back) unnecessarily inflammatory.  My apologies.  That said, the POE clearly states that with or to the helmet should be ruled a foul.

I didn't say they couldn't be a foul, I said they are NOT Illegal Helmet Contact.  IHC consists of three, and only three things: spearing, face tackling and butt blocking.

Initiating contact to the head with things other than a helmet (i.e., a forearm) is a PF, it's probably UNR, and possibly even worthy of an ejection.  But it's not IHC.