Author Topic: Tackling the faker.  (Read 882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 260
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-23
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Tackling the faker.
« on: February 03, 2021, 05:09:20 AM »
I think I've read some specific language about B tackling a "runner" who received a fake handoff and does not have the ball.   Anybody have any ideas?

I'm not looking to start calling fouls that aren't there.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Tackling the faker.
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2021, 06:12:54 AM »
9-3-2 and 9-3-5 gives permission to tackle a player pretending to be a runner, but Iím not aware of specific language that define what pretending to be a runner looks like. Itís one of those ďyou know it when you see itĒ type situations, IMO. If the QB hands off to a dive then tucks and runs like he still has the ball, heís free game to me. If he hands it off and just stands there, D better leave him alone.

Same way other way around. If RB receives the fake and tucks and runs, D can and should tackle him, until it becomes crystal clear he no longer has the ball.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: February 03, 2021, 06:14:44 AM by CalhounLJ »

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 260
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-23
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2021, 07:18:03 AM »
9-3-2 and 9-3-5 gives permission to tackle a player pretending to be a runner, but Iím not aware of specific language that define what pretending to be a runner looks like. Itís one of those ďyou know it when you see itĒ type situations, IMO. If the QB hands off to a dive then tucks and runs like he still has the ball, heís free game to me. If he hands it off and just stands there, D better leave him alone.

Same way other way around. If RB receives the fake and tucks and runs, D can and should tackle him, until it becomes crystal clear he no longer has the ball.

Absolutely, but I thought I read something very specific somewhere.  I don't know.  Maybe in wasn't in the Rules or Case books.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2021, 07:19:29 AM »
I did a quick word search in this years r/c books. It may be in a Redding study guide.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2021, 07:37:29 AM »
Page 19 of the 2019 Redding study guide gives a paragraph addressing a player pretending to be a runner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline BetweenTheLines

  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2021, 07:58:29 AM »
Here is another question concerning the Ďfakerí. 2-13 states a runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball. With that being said, what would the proper call be if the helmet comes off the faker and an official blows the play dead? Is this an inadvertent whistle? By definition I think the answer is no.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2021, 08:00:55 AM »
Thatís a great question. Iím going to say I
IW, for the same reason I would rule IW if the fake runner were tackled and the official blew his whistle.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline BIG UMP

  • *
  • Posts: 215
  • FAN REACTION: +7/-1
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2021, 09:06:44 AM »
The old adage is see the Ball before blowing the whistle.  Therefore, No IW to deal with.
Big Ump
aka Shawn

"EVERY JOB IS A SELF-PORTRAIT OF THE PERSON WHO DID IT.  AUTOGRAPH YOUR WORK WITH EXCELLENCE."~unknown

Online HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2867
  • FAN REACTION: +97/-15
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2021, 09:58:51 AM »
Quote
The old adage is see the Ball before blowing the whistle.  Therefore, No IW to deal with.

There is an even older adage that goes "Let he who is without sin........."

Offline BetweenTheLines

  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2021, 10:12:04 AM »
Player safety has always been a core objective in the NFHS, it is encased within the mission statement in appendix A. In keeping with this tradition as it has become I believe that this in fact should be a dead ball. Will it ever happen, as most instances put up for discussion on websites and in chat rooms they will probably never materialize for most of us. Itís just good discussion and keeps us in the rulebook. If the ruling in this scenario is cloudy then maybe the rule itself 4-2-2k should be modified to read; when the helmet comes completely off of the (player in possession of the ball). As stated earlier this would miss the spirit and intent of our rules which is to keep the games fair and as safe as possible for all participants.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2021, 11:26:50 AM »
It's a good catch and I think the rule you referenced should be changed. However, I will also point out that in Re: safety and all that stuff, the rule already differentiates between stopping a play when the player in possession has the ball and a player whose hat comes off when he doesn't have the ball. We only stop the play when the player who has possession's hat comes off.

Of course the argument could be made that a player pretending to be a runner is just as vulnerable as a player who is actually a runner. But blowing that dead opens up an infinitely complex can of worms. What if the ball is loose when that happens? For example, QB fakes the dive, dive back's lid comes off, meanwhile, QB pitches and the RB muffs it. While it's rolling around, the wing blows the whistle because the dive back's hat is rolling around on the field. The only option in that situation is to apply the IW.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4114
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-658
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2021, 11:33:46 AM »
Thatís a great question. Iím going to say I
IW, for the same reason I would rule IW if the fake runner were tackled and the official blew his whistle.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It seems logical, and reasonable, that the Offense accepts the responsibility for (legal) contact produced by their effectively deceiving the Defense.  Rule 2 definition of a "Runner" includes a player pretending to possess, and advance, a live ball and it seems reasonable that player would be protected, as a runner, during the deception.

Unfortunately, "live action" doesn't offer the additional options available with slow/stop motion or frame by frame review & observation.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2021, 11:38:11 AM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline sir55

  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • FAN REACTION: +11/-5
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2021, 01:53:55 PM »
The player who is pretending to be a runner, or any other player who has a helmet come off, other than the real runner in possession, is protected by the rules that require that a player whose helmet comes off must stop participating and any other player cannot legally hit a player whose helmet has come off. The play is killed for the runner in possession because he will  continue to run and defenders will hit him to stop him.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2021, 12:40:31 PM »
The player who is pretending to be a runner, or any other player who has a helmet come off, other than the real runner in possession, is protected by the rules that require that a player whose helmet comes off must stop participating and any other player cannot legally hit a player whose helmet has come off. The play is killed for the runner in possession because he will  continue to run and defenders will hit him to stop him.

Agree completely, but the question seems to be what about the player pretending to be a runner who keeps on running after he loses his lid. He is in as much danger from being hit by a defender as the real runner. Plus, the definition of runner in 2-32-13 seemingly poses a conflicting problem:
2-32-13: A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball.
This definition, coupled with 4-2-2k (the ball is dead and the down is ended: (k) when the helmet comes completely off the runner), seems to imply a stoppage of play if the helmet comes off a player who is pretending to be a runner.

What are your thoughts on this?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1944
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-85
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2021, 01:40:34 PM »
I don't mean to muddy this, but that is one of the reasons that the NCAA has different classifications for a BALL CARRIER and RUNNER. A runner is a player in possession of, or simulating possession of, a live ball. A ball carrier is a player in possession of a live ball. So, when we look at NCAA rules regarding helmets coming off and tackling, the live-ball helmet rule only applies to a ball carrier, and the tackling rule applies to a runner (i.e., a runner may be tackled, without the defender being guilty of a holding foul; but, officials still need to know who has the ball at all times, and NOT sound a whistle or give a dead-ball signal unless we truly see the ball become dead).
Your rules makers may want to consider the same definitions.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2021, 03:20:36 PM by ElvisLives »

Online HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2867
  • FAN REACTION: +97/-15
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2021, 03:39:47 PM »
Quote
What are your thoughts on this?

Sounds as if we ought to conjure up Ralph.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4114
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-658
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2021, 03:57:45 PM »
I don't mean to muddy this, but that is one of the reasons that the NCAA has different classifications for a BALL CARRIER and RUNNER. A runner is a player in possession of, or simulating possession of, a live ball. A ball carrier is a player in possession of a live ball. So, when we look at NCAA rules regarding helmets coming off and tackling, the live-ball helmet rule only applies to a ball carrier, and the tackling rule applies to a runner (i.e., a runner may be tackled, without the defender being guilty of a holding foul; but, officials still need to know who has the ball at all times, and NOT sound a whistle or give a dead-ball signal unless we truly see the ball become dead).
Your rules makers may want to consider the same definitions.

Appreciate your observation, but again this possibility underscores the significant difference between NCAA and NFHS Players in maturity, skill level & experience.  The primary objective of stopping play. in these situations, is player safety.  Added concern for possible "confusion" is directed at PLAYERS ceasing their action, not game officials anticipation. 

Officials at both (NCAA & NFHS) are well aware of the benefit of "seeing" the ball, however that requirement may not be as universal among players at differing levels, creating a heightened "player safety" response in such, extremely rare, hypothetical situations where player skill sets, attention and recognition spans  often differ, so dramatically.

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 275
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-0
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2021, 08:14:04 PM »
It's a good catch and I think the rule you referenced should be changed. However, I will also point out that in Re: safety and all that stuff, the rule already differentiates between stopping a play when the player in possession has the ball and a player whose hat comes off when he doesn't have the ball. We only stop the play when the player who has possession's hat comes off.

Of course the argument could be made that a player pretending to be a runner is just as vulnerable as a player who is actually a runner. But blowing that dead opens up an infinitely complex can of worms. What if the ball is loose when that happens? For example, QB fakes the dive, dive back's lid comes off, meanwhile, QB pitches and the RB muffs it. While it's rolling around, the wing blows the whistle because the dive back's hat is rolling around on the field. The only option in that situation is to apply the IW.

I seem to remember that if a player loses his helmet it is the responsibility of the player who lost his helmet to stop playing and if he continues then it is illegal participation.    Regarding tackling a runner who does not have the ball but could have the ball  I can only say that when I played (in high school) if my responsibility was the quarterback on an option play I always made sure to hit him as hard as I could...even if had just pitched the ball to his tail back.  I always assumed the quarterback had the ball. 

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1839
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-40
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2021, 06:37:30 AM »
I seem to remember that if a player loses his helmet it is the responsibility of the player who lost his helmet to stop playing and if he continues then it is illegal participation.    Regarding tackling a runner who does not have the ball but could have the ball  I can only say that when I played (in high school) if my responsibility was the quarterback on an option play I always made sure to hit him as hard as I could...even if had just pitched the ball to his tail back.  I always assumed the quarterback had the ball.
9-6-4 ... It is illegal participation:

g. For a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline Derek Teigen

  • *
  • Posts: 275
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-0
  • Committed to the game; safety and sportsmanship
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2021, 10:09:16 AM »
9-6-4 ... It is illegal participation:

g. For a player whose helmet comes completely off during a down to continue to participate beyond the immediate action in which the player is engaged.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you Calhoun for providing the reference.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4114
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-658
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2021, 11:08:50 AM »
I seem to remember that if a player loses his helmet it is the responsibility of the player who lost his helmet to stop playing and if he continues then it is illegal participation.    Regarding tackling a runner who does not have the ball but could have the ball  I can only say that when I played (in high school) if my responsibility was the quarterback on an option play I always made sure to hit him as hard as I could...even if had just pitched the ball to his tail back.  I always assumed the quarterback had the ball.

As you suggest, it's the tacklers judgment, whether the QB still possesses the ball, or has handed off to another player.  However it is the UNIQUE judgment of the covering official whether such contact was a reasonable response to being confused/deceived by the QB's skill, or was a deliberate "cheap shot" to soften-up the QB AFTER handing off the ball.

In the event of conflicting conclusions, results ALWAYS go to the covering official.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1944
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-85
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2021, 02:47:30 PM »
Appreciate your observation, but again this possibility underscores the significant difference between NCAA and NFHS Players in maturity, skill level & experience.  The primary objective of stopping play. in these situations, is player safety.  Added concern for possible "confusion" is directed at PLAYERS ceasing their action, not game officials anticipation. 

Officials at both (NCAA & NFHS) are well aware of the benefit of "seeing" the ball, however that requirement may not be as universal among players at differing levels, creating a heightened "player safety" response in such, extremely rare, hypothetical situations where player skill sets, attention and recognition spans  often differ, so dramatically.

So, what you are saying is that players in Texas are more mature, and have greater skill and experience than any other state. After all, they play by these very same NCAA rules, and I dare say that there has been no degradation in maturity, skill, or experience since those rules have been in place. Quite the contrary, in fact. Their skill levels, in particular, are far above where they were only 10 years ago.
As for the issue at hand, no question, the helmet-off rules are intended to enhance player safety. If we see a helmet come off a non-runner during play, we cross our fingers that he just ďfreezes,Ē so we donít have to get involved with anything more than sending him off for a down, by rule, after the natural conclusion of the down (unless his team takes a time out, if they have one to take). If he continues to participate, he earns a personal foul penalty. If that player is simulating possession of the ball, we must make certain he has the ball. If so, we stop play, and administer the helmet-off rule. If not, play continues. Unless he clearly separates himself from other players, we donít concern ourselves if he gets tackled or otherwise legally contacted. If he gets clear of other players and then begins to involve himself in the action, then we get a foul marker down, but play continues. It would be a travesty and disservice to the game to stop the action, due to a helmet off a non-ball carrier. If we get into that habit - which is nothing less than an inadvertent whistle - then defensive players are gonna start losing their helmets left and right, to prevent those long TD runs or passes.
Yes, once in a while a non-ball carrier might get hit on his exposed head if his helmet comes off. Thatís just football. It is a contact sport. I really donít think anyone - players, spectators, coaches, or officials - is interested in Ďvirtual football.í So, it will never be 100% safe. Donít wanna risk gettiní hurt? Donít play. Donít wanna risk gettiní hit in the head without a helmet? Strap that baby on!

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4114
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-658
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2021, 12:30:41 PM »
So, what you are saying is that players in Texas are more mature, and have greater skill and experience than any other state. After all, they play by these very same NCAA rules, and I dare say that there has been no degradation in maturity, skill, or experience since those rules have been in place. Quite the contrary, in fact. Their skill levels, in particular, are far above where they were only 10 years ago.


Far be it from me to question your Delusions about the maturity, skill set or experience capabilities of regional children aged 12-18 (or so), as you are entitled to your conclusions.

However, my suggestion was a response to a purely safety related issue, that, at best, is a thankfully EXTREEMELY RARE occurrence in the majority of HS level games, regardless of imaginary regional maturity and/or talent assessments. 

If/when a player, successfully intending to deceive opponents into believing he was a runner, was initially contacted in such a manner to displace his helmet, and his impetus continued his movement, placing him at additional (unnecessary) risk, from other defensive players who may have also been deceived by the circumstances, (legally) committed to stopping his feigned advance, my inclination would be to prohibit, or limit, additional contact due to the increased vulnerability and exposure to serious harm, from the  unfortunate (and rare) loss of head protection.

My, limited experience in such specific situations, suggests the most immediate and successful way to do this would be to "(loudly) blow the play dead", hopefully before any additional contact (legal or illegal) occurred, likely creating a IW situation, which although somewhat inconvenient seems far more practical than risking unnecessary serious injury.

However, as with most EXTREMELY RARE situations, the action chosen would largely depend on the unique actions being observed in this specific situation, and the judgment and ability of the covering official to weigh the specific, and unique risk, to only THIS play being observed, to guide his decision. 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2021, 12:43:07 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 260
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-23
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #23 on: February 12, 2021, 03:15:14 PM »
This is what I was looking for, and it was for a coach who asked me.

2.3.5 Note (Which, of course, is about blocking by defensive players.)

When a player simulates possession of the ball, reasonable allowance may be made for failure of the defense to discover the deception.  This does not cancel the responsibility of any defensive player to exercise reasonable caution in avoiding unnecessary contact.

reasonable - having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

The calling official has to be reasonable, and the defensive player has to be reasonable.  It's very much a "have to see it" thing, but I don't have a problem with that.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4114
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-658
Re: Tackling the faker.
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2021, 06:41:49 PM »
This is what I was looking for, and it was for a coach who asked me.

2.3.5 Note (Which, of course, is about blocking by defensive players.)

When a player simulates possession of the ball, reasonable allowance may be made for failure of the defense to discover the deception.  This does not cancel the responsibility of any defensive player to exercise reasonable caution in avoiding unnecessary contact.

reasonable - having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

The calling official has to be reasonable, and the defensive player has to be reasonable.  It's very much a "have to see it" thing, but I don't have a problem with that.

Along the lines of a "cheap shot", just like a "pancake block" there's no "official" definition, but we need to be able to recognize one, and deal with it, when we see one.