RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Texas Topics => Topic started by: jra104 on December 14, 2025, 12:39:09 PM
-
Can we talk letter of rule vs intent of the rule.
Removing one’s helmet during play. Why was the rule written? If you’re going to enforce this rule when absolutely no other play would be ran how do you allow the hand shake line to begin when time remains on clock? I don’t have a dog in this but as for live action, this game was over.
Here’s the play.
https://youtu.be/XHupdq04h0w?si=WTxS7Yz9tl9XttXQ&t=28
-
I saw this and talk about a disaster situation where you don’t want to call this. Louisiana goes by Federation rules but let’s act like this happened in Texas.
Rule 9-2-1-a-f states the following:
- A player removing their helmet after the ball is dead and before they are in the team area (Exceptions: Team, media or injury timeouts; equipment adjustments; through play; between periods; and during a measurement for a first down).
This would results in a UNS penalty that carries all the following clock rules.
Officiating Standards Section II, Part 13 states explicitly the below:
- Do not be overly technical applying rule 9-2-1
- Allow for brief, spontaneous reactions at the end of play
- A list of specifically prohibited acts in rule 9-2-1-a-1 (a) through (k). That list is intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. All agree when those acts are to taunt or demean, they should be penalized.
My interpretation, please state if you feel differently:
Per rule he committed a penalty and removing + throwing his helmet in the air haphazardly is against the rule 9-2-1. However, officiating standards does state that we should not be overly technical applying rule 9-2-1 and he did not taunt or demean the other team. The throwing of the helmet can be seen as demeaning, but his team just won the state championship and emotions are high.
I’d be 100% okay with not penalizing here but quickly consulting the player.
-
As I was told at a college basketball officiating camp back when I was a “letter of the law” kind of official — “Nobody in the gym would have said a word if you didn’t call (insert technically-correct-but-overly-officious call here).”
I highly doubt anyone who matters is talking about this as an incorrect no-call if we keep the flag in the waistband.
-
I don't know if this changes anything, but while Louisiana uses NFHS rules, they do have several statewide adoptions/interpretations that are explicitly different. For example, NFHS rules do NOT mention helmet removal as an automatic penalty, but the LHSAA's Officials Manual (https://www.lhsaa.org/siteuploads/editorimg/file/LHSOA/Resources/Louisiana_FB_Officials_Manual.pdf) clearly states that it should be flagged (page 32):
The following actions are unsportsmanlike conduct that should always be penalized without warning:
[...]
• Removal of helmet to celebrate or protest
Do I agree with that? Well, let's just say I'm glad I'm not in Louisiana.
-
Looks like Louisiana largely tried to copy the NCAA “specifically prohibited acts” list but of course changed some of the wording, and in the case of removing one’s helmet essentially not leaving it up for interpretation.
This is the problem with having black-and-white lists of prohibited actions. It completely ignores context and puts officials in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.
-
I’m trying to think what I would do here. The defense called timeout (which was later restored due to the foul) so it’s not like this was going to be the last snap. Based on that, I think it is a correct call under NCAA. Of course if the TO was called first, he could legally remove his helmet.
-
In addition to removing his helmet, he also threw it.