Helmet Coming Off

[El Macman]

In recent weeks I have encountered some fairly high level folks that don't grasp the new helmet coming off rule. They argue that the rule says,"...during a down...," and, by definition, the rule should not apply when the down is over by rule. For example, when the ball carrier's knee contacts the ground, the down is over, and the helmet comes off subsequent to the technical end of the down, some are arguing that the rule should not apply. Apparently they haven't seen the CFO video. The CFO video makes it very clear that when the helmet comes off as part of the continued action, the rule applies, and he may not participate in the next down.
I was able to speak personally to RR very recently, and advised him of the fact that there is some misunderstanding among some folks in positions of authority over on-field officials. I asked him if we might see some additional clarification on this new rule (in considerartion of the fact that technical language of  the rule may be misleading). He said he hasn't planned any additional clarification, but understood the issue, and would take this under consideration. He very affirmitively confirmed that the intent of the rule is to apply to situations in which the helmet comes off in the continuing action, even though the down is technically over.

[Rulesman]

In recent weeks I have encountered some fairly high level folks that don't grasp the new helmet coming off rule. They argue that the rule says,"...during a down...," and, by definition, the rule should not apply when the down is over by rule. For example, when the ball carrier's knee contacts the ground, the down is over, and the helmet comes off subsequent to the technical end of the down, some are arguing that the rule should not apply. Apparently they haven't seen the CFO video. The CFO video makes it very clear that when the helmet comes off as part of the continued action, the rule applies, and he may not participate in the next down.
I was able to speak personally to RR very recently, and advised him of the fact that there is some misunderstanding among some folks in positions of authority over on-field officials. I asked him if we might see some additional clarification on this new rule (in considerartion of the fact that technical language of  the rule may be misleading). He said he hasn't planned any additional clarification, but understood the issue, and would take this under consideration. He very affirmitively confirmed that the intent of the rule is to apply to situations in which the helmet comes off in the continuing action, even though the down is technically over.

That said, the wording of the rule needs to be revised. Short of that, at minimum, an AR should be issued. Leaving that open to individual interpretation is a mistake, IMHO.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The CFO video makes it very clear that when the helmet comes off as part of the continued action, the rule applies, and he may not participate in the next down.  .......... even though the down is technically over.

Have to agree with Rulesman here.  The actual language of the new rule is clear and unambiguous using the term "during the down". The rule should be edited or an AR added to make the immediate following action after the end of the down also included.