Helmet Off

[JasonTX]

The ball is snapped with 1:10 remaining in the 2nd qtr.   Team A's running play end inbounds short of the first down with the game clock showing :59 seconds.  Team B had a player just barely inbounds and his helmet came off.  He's able to quickly grab his helmet and is immediately off the field before any official is able to think about stopping the clock.   The covering official should _____________.  (fill in the blank) 

And what would you do if this was with 10:00 remaining in the 1st Qtr.?

[Kalle]

I think the intent of the rule is to ignore that and move on. Team A must snap the ball at :19 on the game clock.

The literal reading would be to stop the game clock, ask team A if they want the runoff (and if yes, check with team B if they want to spend a timeout to prevent that), and then start the game clock based on the runoff result. Play clock would be 40s in any case. But if somebody did this in a game in Finland this season, I'd have A Few Words with that official.

[Punter]

I disagree with Kalle.  I think you have to administer the zap 10 here.  What happens with the game clock is very important here.  The rules do not specify that a helmet coming off in the middle of the field is any different than anywhere else.  You are giving the team whose helmet did not come off a huge disadvantage if you do not apply the clock rules.  If there is no time out the clock starts on the snap which means almost a free time out.  That is huge at the end of the half or game.  You need to administer this clock rule.

I guess if there is a FST with the clock running in this situation, but it is just a “flinch” you can ignore the Zap 10 using this same logic.  With 10:00 left in the first quarter, this would be easier to let go, but you really should not do that either.

[Kalle]

Variant: B55's helmet comes off close to team B sideline during the down. B55 immediately grabs his helmet and goes into his team area and does not return. The ball then becomes dead. Other facts as in JasonTX's original play situation. Zap 10 or not?

[Punter]

Zap 10 applies in the variant as well.  If the helmet comes off without the direct result of an opponent’s foul while the clock is running and it is under 1:00, the zap 10 needs to be administered.   This is one of those situations where there really is no discretion or you are placing one team at a disadvantage not intended by the rules.  By the way B55 needs to stay out for the next down as well.

[ElvisLives]

If the number of times that helmets came off of players TODAY was the criteria for this rule, we wouldn't even have this rule. This rule was put in place in the mid-2000s, primarily for player safety, but also because it had become somewhat 'fashionable' for players to wear their helmets so loosely that they would come off easily. I recall a running back at San Jose State that was losing his helmet practically every time he carried the ball. Losing a helmet, in, and of itself, puts the opponent at no disadvantage whatsoever. Period. Once in place, the helmet rule, in itself, dramatically reduced the number of lost helmets, virtually immediately. While not rare, they are far, far fewer than before the rule.
Unfortunately, unscrupulous folks figured out that they could get a temporary clock stoppage by deliberately losing their helmet, in time critical situations. So, the option of the 10 second subtraction (less than 1 minute in the 2nd/4th periods) was added to the rule. That, too has helped curb this unsportsmanlike act.
In the given example, however, it does not seem like there was any attempt to stop the clock, at all. So why trouble trouble? Perhaps a discrete word with the player and/or his coach - "STRAP THAT HELMET ON, SON!" - would be a better approach than getting over-officious.

Same thing at 10:00. Out in the open field, where the whole world can see the helmet come off - yeah. Make the call. But, we are there to keep the playing field level, and, in the given example, the playing field never became tilted. Let 'em play.

[bossman72]

I think the intent of the rule is to ignore that and move on. Team A must snap the ball at :19 on the game clock.

I disagree - the intent of the rule is to get players to wear their helmets correctly so they don't pop off randomly.  The "penalty" is that you have to sit out for a play if it does.  So in this play, I think we have to send him out for a play and do a runoff.

[centexsports]

For the question: Flag it.

Separate but helmet related.   Second quarter 0:10 left on the clock.   A's ball on their own 45.   QB takes snap rolls right, circles back left, fades right again then lets go a bomb.  Caught by WR at the 15.  As soon as his feet hit the ground, he laterals back to another receiver who scores (this was not a designed play).   As R, I am trailing the play and the QB is running next to me.   I look over and he is jumping up and down waving his helmet.   Flag.  15 yards on the 2nd half kickoff.   Final score was something like 67 - 62.

My claim to high school officiating fame.  Flagging Patrick Mahomes for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[ElvisLives]

In the same spot, I would have screamed at him to put his helmet back on. If he complies right away, no harm, no foul. He wasn’t showing up the opponents or the officials.

Let’s don’t try to show how much we know.

[dammitbobby]

Zap 10 applies in the variant as well.  If the helmet comes off without the direct result of an opponent’s foul while the clock is running and it is under 1:00, the zap 10 needs to be administered.   This is one of those situations where there really is no discretion or you are placing one team at a disadvantage not intended by the rules.  By the way B55 needs to stay out for the next down as well.

In this scenario, how does B put Team A at a disadvantage, when B left the field on his own accord? 

[Kalle]

In this scenario, how does B put Team A at a disadvantage, when B left the field on his own accord?

Team A gets a disadvantage by not getting the clock status change in case they want to either milk as much time as possible or conserve time. And that is a very valid point if the intent of the rule is to make sure that the helmets are strapped on properly, no exceptions.

[Punter]

Kalle just said for me what my point was.  The rules say that the opposite team gets a time advantage if a player’s helmet comes off.  If you ignore that advantage, you are taking away a big benefit that the rules give in that situation.  Yelling at players does not really work these days and could land you in trouble actually.  It’s not a matter of showing people what you know, it’s a matter of giving both teams what they earn under the rules.

My actual experience is more often than not the helmet comes off as a result of a foul so you really need to be aware of HTF and FMM.

[ElvisLives]

Kalle just said for me what my point was.  The rules say that the opposite team gets a time advantage if a player’s helmet comes off.  If you ignore that advantage, you are taking away a big benefit that the rules give in that situation.  Yelling at players does not really work these days and could land you in trouble actually.  It’s not a matter of showing people what you know, it’s a matter of giving both teams what they earn under the rules.

My actual experience is more often than not the helmet comes off as a result of a foul so you really need to be aware of HTF and FMM.

Advantage/disadvantage is "competitive" advantage/disadvantage. Absolutely nothing about a player losing a helmet (no helmet foul involved) provides a competitive advantage to the team whose player lost his helmet, or puts their opponent at a competitive disadvantage. Nothing. Even losing a helmet with less than 1 min remaining in a half doesn't affect competitive advantage/disadvantage. The rules regarding losing a helmet are 95% about player safety, and about 5% 'cosmetic' (to maintain a better image of the game). The basic rule has NOTHING to do with competitive advantage/disadvantage.

The (optional) 10-second subtraction is punishment to the offending team for trying to use an unsportsmanlike tactic (either intentional helmet off or fake injury) to gain a competitive (time) advantage. The 10-second subtraction, itself, really has nothing to do with actually trying to discourage loose helmets or fake injuries.

In the given situation, team B exhibited nothing to indicate they were trying to stop the clock. The player with the lost helmet had no effect on the down (after losing his helmet). Thankfully, his safety wasn't adversely affected. For Team A to get the option of taking ten seconds off the clock would, in this case, and IMHO, not be in the best interest of the game. Team A did nothing to earn that option, and Team B did nothing intended to manipulate timing of the game in an unsportsmanlike manner.  OK, the B player that lost his helmet "gets away with one." But, how often do we strictly enforce the knee pad rule? The mouthpiece rule? Those, too, are player safety rules. And that can certainly be extended to player contact rules (holding, PI - you name it).

A few yards out on the field, where it is recognized by an official immediately, and the game clock gets stopped (only for that reason)?  Yeah. Absolutely offer the option to Team A, because Team B did, in fact, manage to manipulate the game clock (even if unintentional).

My FBS coordinator would have applauded us if we had left this alone, with a little "talk to" to the player and/or coach.

Contrary to your statement, only a distinct minority of helmet-off incidents are a result of a helmet foul. Since the rule was put in place (in 2012, by the way), I, personally, have had dozens of incidents of lost helmets, but never had a lost helmet due to a helmet foul.

[Punter]

Really not worth this long of a diatribe. At the end of the day do what the coordinator wants.  I guess reasoned minds can disagree.  I have been trying to be kinder and gentler.  Who would have known this would have been such a divisive topic?  I am not trying to argue or convince anyone.  Just giving my opinion.

[ump_ben]

So those of you who aren't enforcing the timing penalty here, would you allow the player to play the next down to?  If not, could you differentiate for me why you'd bend on one penalty but not the other?

[dammitbobby]

Not a white hat, but yes, I'd keep him out a play, for safety reasons.  If he tried to come back in and you stopped him, I don't think you'd get any argument from his coach because his helmet came off. 

Elvis elucidated the point better than I could - there's no advantage to team B by their actions here, so we shouldn't give Team A an unearned advantage.

Are you critically examining every kneepad every play to make sure it's compliant and covering the knee?  That's player safety too; this is no different.

[Kalle]

So those of you who aren't enforcing the timing penalty here, would you allow the player to play the next down to?  If not, could you differentiate for me why you'd bend on one penalty but not the other?

That's an interesting question. Yes, I would keep the player off the field for the next down, and IF he attempts to re-enter, THEN I'd go with the full helmet-off procedure. But if he doesn't attempt to re-enter, like Elvis said, I don't see any advantage gained and thus no need to stop the flow of the game.

[Punter]

Just one question.  What is the competitive advantage to an A lineman “flinching” prior to the snap and no B player reacting?  Since there is “no competitive advantage (which is not a defined football term by the way as explained by Elvis in another thread),”in the flinch should we enforce the 5 yard penalty but ignore the subtraction?

These 2 situations are analogous and there is no logical reason to treat them differently.

[Kalle]

Just one question.  What is the competitive advantage to an A lineman “flinching” prior to the snap and no B player reacting?  Since there is “no competitive advantage (which is not a defined football term by the way as explained by Elvis in another thread),”in the flinch should we enforce the 5 yard penalty but ignore the subtraction?

These 2 situations are analogous and there is no logical reason to treat them differently.

The flinch is obvious to everybody. At least in my neck of woods obvious fouls are usually called whereas non-obvious fouls, which have no advantage or safety, often are not.

[Punter]

I guess this is where we differ.  I think the helmet off is very obvious especially with the heavy use of film.  Unfortunately, I am used to having every aspect of a game under a microscope with almost every decision reviewed. If you could get away with this without a coach sending a video to the coordinator then by all means go ahead. I don’t know what you tell a coach who knows the rules and is out of time outs and really needs one at the end of the game and he knows the clock should start on the snap if he declines a run off. Maybe the coach does not know the rule but maybe he does.

[ump_ben]

Just one question.  What is the competitive advantage to an A lineman “flinching” prior to the snap and no B player reacting?  Since there is “no competitive advantage (which is not a defined football term by the way as explained by Elvis in another thread),”in the flinch should we enforce the 5 yard penalty but ignore the subtraction?

These 2 situations are analogous and there is no logical reason to treat them differently.

The advantage to the flinch is twofold.  It allows the lineman to try and draw an offside penalty and it is easier to play the line if you can flinch.  I'm still not sure how I feel about the helmet one but I agree with those who don't think the situations are analagous.

[JasonTX]

Some really good discussion points and all sides have some very convincing thoughts.  I posed this question with two scenarios, one with the helmet coming off at 10:00 minutes left in the 1st qtr. and the other with a potential for a 10 second subtraction. 

With 10:00 in the 1st qtr., and you have a situation where the clock operator ran 3 more seconds off the game clock on an incomplete pass.  I would expect the majority of us would not worry about trying to get the game clock corrected to add those 3 seconds back.  The opposite side of that is that when we get toward the end of the game, for example under 1 minute and they run 3 extra seconds off, I would expect that the vast majority of us would be extra picky with the clock and have it corrected.

In the original play I was expecting that this discussion would have two parts.  With the helmet off at 10:00, time is not really critical so I expected that most would say to let the B player leave the field but don't interrupt the clock as it would take more time to reset than it would be to just keep the game moving.  But, when time is critical at the end I would expect to be extra picky with the clock, and in the original play we'd do the 10 second subtraction if Team A elected to do so.  As already said, do what your supervisor would want. 

Has anyone posed this scenario to their supervisor and what did they say?

[ElvisLives]

I don’t know what you tell a coach who knows the rules and is out of time outs and really needs one at the end of the game and he knows the clock should start on the snap if he declines a run off. Maybe the coach does not know the rule but maybe he does.

Hmmm. If a coach is living so far out on the edge that he is depending on getting a clock stoppage for a helmet off/injury by the opponent with less than 1 minute to play in the half (and then a 'snap' re-start by declining the 10SS), he is gonna fall of the edge, anyway, and it ain't our fault.
Do better coaching.
Get better players.

In 2012, I had two players of the receiving team hold hands while they blocked a kicking team player (during a kickoff). After getting over being astonished at what I was seeing, and considering the ball carrier was being tackled some 15 yards away, I consciously elected to pass on making a call on this. Instead, I waited until the next TV T/O, and then I went to the special team's coach and explained that players are not allowed to block with interlocked arms or grasping hands, etc. He acted as though he'd never heard that before, but didn't offer much argument. They didn't do that again (at least not in that game, and not in a subsequent game that I had with them later in the season).
I included that incident in our game report. During our weekly conference call with our coordinator the following Wednesday, he discussed that action, and my decision to pass on making a call, and my effort to educate the team with regard to that rule. He said that he was very glad that I had chosen that course of action, rather than making a big deal out of something that had no real impact on the game.
(That is why those of us that worked for him, love that man (retired, now.) Not all coordinators, current or past, have that reverence.)

So, with that, I'll say it again. My FBS coordinator would have applauded us for passing on stopping the clock in the given situation.

[bossman72]

Just one question.  What is the competitive advantage to an A lineman “flinching” prior to the snap and no B player reacting?  Since there is “no competitive advantage (which is not a defined football term by the way as explained by Elvis in another thread),”in the flinch should we enforce the 5 yard penalty but ignore the subtraction?

These 2 situations are analogous and there is no logical reason to treat them differently.

Not all fouls in football are about advantage/disadvantage.  Pre-snap fouls are about doing something the same way for consistency (aka following PROCEDURE), which is why we have the old "illegal procedure" fouls.  Either do it the right way, or it's a foul.  It's not necessarily about gaining an advantage.

[ElvisLives]

I can't think of a single pre-snap "procedural" foul that isn't rooted in advantage/disadvantage.

Let's see:
-False start.  If a team A player is allowed to start early, he gets an advantage. If he just flinches, he can cause Team B to react and start early, and be offside.
-Illegal shift that converts to a false start. By the entire team not stopping for 1 full second before the snap, Team B may not be able to identify eligible receivers, and can't make positional adjustments. That is advantage to Team A.
-Illegal snap.  Just like a false start, if the snapper is allowed to feint the snap, he can draw Team B offside, or, at the very least, cause them to 'catch' and reset themselves, and not be ready to move when the ball is truly snapped, which is clearly an advantage for Team A.
-Failure of a Team A sub to get inside the 9-yard marks before the snap. If this is allowed, a Team A sub can sneak onto the field unobserved, and run a pass pattern uncovered. That would seem to be a clear advantage for Team A.
-B interference with the snap. Self explanatory.
-B offside with contact. Self explanatory.
-B offside and behind the Team A line. Self explanatory.
-Team A breaking huddle with 12. Who are eligible? Who needs to cover whom? Clearly a disadvantage for B.
-Abrupt movements by Team B players within 1 yard of NZ. If allowed, Team B can cause Team A to false start, putting Team A at a clear disadvantage.

There are more, I'm sure. But, I think you can see the advantage-disadvantage element of these fouls.
The only possible way that a helmet coming off in, and of, itself can create an advantage/disadvantage would be if an opponent were to trip on the loose helmet, but there is nothing in the rules making that a foul. The basic helmet-off rule is solely intended to discourage loose helmets, all in the name of player safety. It has absolutely nothing to do with game play, or advantage/disadvantage. The 10SS component does address advantage gained by attempting to abuse the timing rules, if the clock is stopped to that team's advantage. In such cases, the opponent has done nothing to earn the benefit of the 10SS, and is not put at a competitive disadvantage by the helmet coming off.
 
In the given down example, the loss of the helmet was so 'incidental' that it wasn't even noticed by the officiating crew until well after the fact. Team B was not trying to get the clock stopped. Team A was not put at any competitive disadvantage. This incident was so obscure as to be totally inconsequential. Let the game play on. Yeah, have a discrete word with the player or his coach, maybe tell him to stay out for the next down, and to strap that helmet on, son.

Like I said before, if the few number of helmets coming off these days was the standard, we wouldn't even have this rule. Yeah, out in open, very noticeable, and a crew member stops the clock immediately, by all means, administer the rules as they are. I would just hate to have administration of this rule under such unobvious circumstances impact the opportunity for a team to win a game. Kinda like charging a Team A their final time out for the QB not having a mouthpiece during the last 15 seconds of the game, with 3/8, B-40, behind by 2 points.

I will now move on.