Helmet Off, Timeout and Halftime

[TXMike]

QB A12 loses his helmet (no foul) on last play of 1st half.  Clock expires during the play.  As soon as the play ends, the coach informs the R he wants to buy the player back in to the game for 1st play of 2d half as he is the team kicker also.  Does the timeout count against the 1st half allocation of timeouts or the 2d half's?  My gut says it would be the 2d half's.

[Rulesman]

My first question would be has the R declared the half over?

[jg-me]

Presuming there is no reason for extending the period, I would charge the timeout to the second half. The intent of the rule change is that the team is willing to pay a price to get the player back into the game. Charging a meaningless first half timeout costs them nothing.

[Diablo]

Does the timeout count against the 1st half allocation of timeouts or the 2d half's?  My gut says it would be the 2d half's.

Your gut's opinion is supported by an analogous situation (extra periods) in the rule book 
3-1-3-h:  Timeouts between periods shall be charged to the succeeding period.

[mwa]

why is the team buying him back in?  since the 2nd half starts with a k.o., that plays counts toward the QB sitting out a play, unless he is on the either the return or kicking team. then a t.o. must be taken

[Kalle]

why is the team buying him back in?  since the 2nd half starts with a k.o., that plays counts toward the QB sitting out a play, unless he is on the either the return or kicking team. then a t.o. must be taken

From TXMike's post: "as he is the team kicker also."

I really don't understand why doesn't the halftime count as a timeout...

[TXMike]

Because it is not charged to the team who lost the helmet?  It is charged to nobody (or to us if you will).  He can't come back in after a timeout charged to us

[Kalle]

Because it is not charged to the team who lost the helmet?  It is charged to nobody (or to us if you will).  He can't come back in after a timeout charged to us

I understand the technical reason, but from the point of view of player safety, why doesn't 15 minutes count as 30 seconds.

[RunRickyRun]

I understand the technical reason, but from the point of view of player safety, why doesn't 15 minutes count as 30 seconds.

From my perspective, it's as simple as this - it's not punitive.

Yes, the helmet rule is about player safety.  However, forcing a player to sit out the subsequent play after losing his helmet is not for the safety of the player.  The intent is to make it 'expensive' to wear your helmet in such a way that it comes off too easily in the heat of battle.

The rule is more of a teaching tool, if you will, and it has already reduced the number of lost helmets I've seen in my games over the last year.  It will continue to trend that way as long as the rule makes it 'expensive' enough.  If in a tight game a coach has to choose between losing his QB or a valuable TO, he would rather staple the helmet on his kid's head instead of being faced with such a situation.

Who knows, it might even return to the way it was in my playing days where it almost took emergency equipment to remove your helmet on the sideline and the resulting 'helmet head' imprint was with you for hours.

[TXMike]

I understand the technical reason, but from the point of view of player safety, why doesn't 15 minutes count as 30 seconds.

  It is not about whether he stayed off the field long enough (like an inured player).  Being forced to sit a play is a "penalty" for not wearing the helmet properly.  I have no problem with the logic when it comes to  a lost helmet.  I do struggle with the logic in the case of an injured player.  Sometimes the time between downs is so short that he will be out less than if he was out the break between periods.

[TxSkyBolt]

The rule is more of a teaching tool, if you will, and it has already reduced the number of lost helmets I've seen in my games over the last year. 

Haven't seen anything from the other conferences, but in the Big XII, the incidences of helmets off was not reduced last year, stayed about the same.

[TXMike]

I believe the national reporting was the same SkyKing.  No change

[Rulesman]

From my perspective, it's as simple as this - it's not punitive.

Yes, the helmet rule is about player safety.  However, forcing a player to sit out the subsequent play after losing his helmet is not for the safety of the player.  The intent is to make it 'expensive' to wear your helmet in such a way that it comes off too easily in the heat of battle.

The rule is more of a teaching tool, if you will, and it has already reduced the number of lost helmets I've seen in my games over the last year.  It will continue to trend that way as long as the rule makes it 'expensive' enough.  If in a tight game a coach has to choose between losing his QB or a valuable TO, he would rather staple the helmet on his kid's head instead of being faced with such a situation.

Who knows, it might even return to the way it was in my playing days where it almost took emergency equipment to remove your helmet on the sideline and the resulting 'helmet head' imprint was with you for hours.

Best explanation I've seen yet! +1