Contact to the face mask

[brownie]

What sort of non continuous contact to a D linemen's face mask is acceptable from  O linemen?

If it's the same sort of technic that would be use in a normal block and it's not continuous I'm thinking it's OK, but not really sure as 9-1-2 states that any striking should be called.

Any contact with force could be defined as striking however a running back fending off a tackler can strike the face mask in a way and it's fine. 9-1-8 does give the runner an exception on continuous contact however I don't see how this would give more latitude to what's considered striking or not.

So if anyone has any guide lines / rules of thumb for what is and isn't considered striking that would be greatly appreciated.

[TXMike]

And while we are on that topic....I have seen more R's this year than ever before announce "hands to the face" and even give some sort of signal.  I assume they are getting that signal from the NFL or NFHS as it does not exist in the NCAA rules.  For that matter..there is not even a "hands to the face" foul in NCAA rules.  There is continuous contact with the helmet (to include facemask).

[LAZebra]

Not NFHS language.

[zebra99]

And while we are on that topic....I have seen more R's this year than ever before announce "hands to the face" and even give some sort of signal.  I assume they are getting that signal from the NFL or NFHS as it does not exist in the NCAA rules.  For that matter..there is not even a "hands to the face" foul in NCAA rules.  There is continuous contact with the helmet (to include facemask).

agree - but sometimes it's ok to use unofficial signals and announcements to communicate to the fans and media.

Now to the rule - We're starting to hear chatter about what and when to make this call.  Tackle goes directly to the face with his first action, pushes head back but it's only momentary, not continuous.  Does impact defensive player who is trying to get to the QB but sudden, not a blow and not continuous.  Some are saying this fits with illegal use of the hands - outside the frame - 10 yards - not PF HTF?  But I don't think I've seen it called that way?

Different scenario - first contact with chest but hand slides up to face momentarily then down  - no foul?

Sure seems to me that anytime the hands go to the face it really effects the rusher and should be somekind of foul?

[clearwall]

Im not an interior official, but Im sure the old adage 'does he gain an advantage' would make your decision here. Do you think he intentionally went for the mask off the snap in an attempt to knock the defender off course? Yes, then throw the flag. If it was an accident and just a circumstance of coming off the ball, no flag

[zebra99]

Im not an interior official, but Im sure the old adage 'does he gain an advantage' would make your decision here. Do you think he intentionally went for the mask off the snap in an attempt to knock the defender off course? Yes, then throw the flag. If it was an accident and just a circumstance of coming off the ball, no flag

yes, the old advantage ism is in play - but what type of foul?  PF - 15yds. under 9-1-8-a or Illegal Use of the Hands - 10 yds. under 9-3-3-a-1?

[NVFOA_Ump]

.......  Any contact with force could be defined as striking however a running back fending off a tackler can strike the face mask in a way and it's fine. 9-1-8 does give the runner an exception on continuous contact however I don't see how this would give more latitude to what's considered striking or not.

While we allow the runner to "straight-arm" the defender with contact to the face mask, do we allow the runner to "deliver a blow" to the facemask of the defender?

[Curious]

And while we are on that topic....I have seen more R's this year than ever before announce "hands to the face" and even give some sort of signal.  I assume they are getting that signal from the NFL or NFHS as it does not exist in the NCAA rules.  For that matter..there is not even a "hands to the face" foul in NCAA rules.  There is continuous contact with the helmet (to include facemask).

Just for clarity (I know this is the NCAA forum), but no such term (hands to face) - or signal - appears in NFHS rules either.  But, blocking is, IN PART, DEFINED  as legal "below the shoulders of the BLOCKER AND THE OPPONENT except when the opponent ducks, squats or submarines...".  Foul: Illegal use of hands

"Striking", but only with a "fist, locked hands, forearm, or elbow" is also addressed. "Slap to the head" is also addressed...but ONLY by a DEFENSIVE PLAYER. Foul: PF

[mbyron]

Just for clarity (I know this is the NCAA forum), but no such term (hands to face) - or signal - appears in NFHS rules either.  But, blocking is, IN PART, DEFINED  as legal "below the shoulders of the BLOCKER AND THE OPPONENT except when the opponent ducks, squats or submarines...".  Foul: Illegal use of hands

"Striking", but only with a "fist, locked hands, forearm, or elbow" is also addressed. "Slap to the head" is also addressed...but ONLY by a DEFENSIVE PLAYER. Foul: PF

This is a slightly different (and important!) question for NFHS and deserves its own thread in the proper forum.

[NVFOA_Ump]

For NCAA rules here's the most on-point AR from Approved Rulings 9-3-3 (pg AR-53):

III. A teammate of the passer or ball carrier, behind the neutral zone, has his arms parallel to the ground and contacts an opponent above the shoulders.
RULING: Illegal use of hands. Penalty—10 yards or 15 yards for personal foul, previous-spot enforcement.  Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line.

[TxSkyBolt]

I see defenders doing this a lot also.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.215661,-117.402456
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TXMike]

I see defenders doing this a lot also.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.215661,-117.402456
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well try flagging it sometime then Ump!!!

[TXMike]

For NCAA rules here's the most on-point AR from Approved Rulings 9-3-3 (pg AR-53):

III. A teammate of the passer or ball carrier, behind the neutral zone, has his arms parallel to the ground and contacts an opponent above the shoulders.
RULING: Illegal use of hands. Penalty—10 yards or 15 yards for personal foul, previous-spot enforcement.  Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line.

That just parrots Z99's question...is it a PF or "simple" foul?  Seems like they want us to rule case by case but my take would be short durantion contact and not a blow - 10 yarder.  A blow or continuous contact - 15 yarder

[zebra99]

What I'm looking for is anyone who has seen some hand to the face action called as a 10 yard foul and/or has had discussions with supervisors along those lines.

I don't recall it ever being called (right or wrong) as a 10 yard penalty - seems like in college it's 15 yds. or nothing.  I'm worried about the nothing interpretation when the hand goes directly to the face at the snap momentarily (outside the frame) which can really "impact" the rusher just enough.

[TXMike]

Wouldn't uyou have to judge if the contact was deliberate?  Ex:  At the snap, the lineman stetches his hands forward in typical pass block posture as he starts to retreat.  The defender initially charged low but starts to come up as he reads pass and begins his rush.  As he straightens up, his movement causes the blocker's hands to contact his facemask.  The defender does not back off but continues forward, causing his head to be drive backwards moentarily by the outstretched hands and arms of the blocker.  Or is it more like the facemask foul which is a foul whether it is deliberate or not?

[brownie]

While we allow the runner to "straight-arm" the defender with contact to the face mask, do we allow the runner to "deliver a blow" to the facemask of the defender?

I would have thought no, but the only thing I can see that seems allows for the runner to " straight-arm" the defender is that 9.3.3a states that the requirements only apply to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer". So as the runner is neither of these he's OK if his hand contacts the defenders facemask.

However if that's the case, then 9.3.3.d also only applies to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer" not the runner so if that's correct then we would allow him to deliver a blow, which doesn't seem right, but maybe it is hence you asked that specific question.

So from what I can find the answer is yes we would allow the runner to "deliver a blow" to the facemask of the defender

[JasonTX]

I would have thought no, but the only thing I can see that seems allows for the runner to " straight-arm" the defender is that 9.3.3a states that the requirements only apply to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer". So as the runner is neither of these he's OK if his hand contacts the defenders facemask.

However if that's the case, then 9.3.3.d also only applies to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer" not the runner so if that's correct then we would allow him to deliver a blow, which doesn't seem right, but maybe it is hence you asked that specific question.

So from what I can find the answer is yes we would allow the runner to "deliver a blow" to the facemask of the defender

9-1-2-a would prevent the runner from striking an opponent.

[brownie]

9-1-2-a would prevent the runner from striking an opponent.

Which unfortunatley loops me back to the second part of my original query

I can't find any rule, or exception to a rule, which allows the running back to "strike" the defender in the face mask with a "straight arm" fend without it being a foul under 9-1-2a, or any offical definition of what is/isn't considered a "strike" showing that the straigh arm doesn't fit the bill.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I believe that this is what you are looking for:

Rule 9-1-8:  Helmet and Face Mask Fouls (Page FR-85)

ARTICLE 8. a. No player shall continuously contact an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask) with hand(s) or arm(s) (Exception: By or against the runner).

This allows the runner, or the player trying to tackle the runner to " ..... continuously contact an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask) with hand(s) or arm(s)".

[mbyron]

9-1-2-a would prevent the runner from striking an opponent.

Nah, but it might prohibit him from doing so.

[JasonTX]

Which unfortunatley loops me back to the second part of my original query

I can't find any rule, or exception to a rule, which allows the running back to "strike" the defender in the face mask with a "straight arm" fend without it being a foul under 9-1-2a, or any offical definition of what is/isn't considered a "strike" showing that the straigh arm doesn't fit the bill.

He can put his hand on the opponents helmet as long as he don't deliver a strike. 

[brownie]

Thanks for everyone's input, so to summaries from my original 2 questions I'm getting that

1) If the O linemen's hand goes on the facemask, no strike and not continuous, 10 yards illegal use of the hands as per 9.3.3. However if it's not seen as deliberate, eg the hand slides up as the D player is trying the shed the block, or as per the exception in the rule the D player squats, ducks or submarines, then no foul. This foul only applies to O linemen.

If the contact to the facemask is with force, ie a strike, or the contact is continuous, PF 15 yards, and this goes for both the O and D linemen.

2) Running backs have an exception under 9-1-8 so no PF for continuos contact, and 9.3.3 only applies to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer" so no illegal use of hands either

So he can put his hand on the helmet/facemask and then push the defender away with it or he can fend him off at arms length by the helmet/facemask.

If however as the defender is coming in for the tackle the runner extends/swings his arm and contacts the helmet/facemask with force then that's a foul as per 9-1-2a, due to the force of the action making it striking.

[pgh guy]

Thanks for everyone's input, so to summaries from my original 2 questions I'm getting that

1) If the O linemen's hand goes on the facemask, no strike and not continuous, 10 yards illegal use of the hands as per 9.3.3. However if it's not seen as deliberate, eg the hand slides up as the D player is trying the shed the block, or as per the exception in the rule the D player squats, ducks or submarines, then no foul. This foul only applies to O linemen.

If the contact to the facemask is with force, ie a strike, or the contact is continuous, PF 15 yards, and this goes for both the O and D linemen.

2) Running backs have an exception under 9-1-8 so no PF for continuos contact, and 9.3.3 only applies to "A teammate of the ball carrier or a passer" so no illegal use of hands either

So he can put his hand on the helmet/facemask and then push the defender away with it or he can fend him off at arms length by the helmet/facemask.

If however as the defender is coming in for the tackle the runner extends/swings his arm and contacts the helmet/facemask with force then that's a foul as per 9-1-2a, due to the force of the action making it striking.

If the contact is continuous, FOUL.

If the contact pins a defender's head back, FOUL.

Anytime you're calling this, it is a safety foul and should be a 15 yard PF. 

Zebra99, not sure I've ever seen it called for 10 yards either, but know my supv. wants this as a PF.