New Rulings - Helmets Off

[TxSkyBolt]

I believe this would be a live ball foul and we'd repeat the down.  I like the way you break it down.  It was talked about this weekend and it was stated that, like you said, whenever you first notice him start running to participate.  Since we aren't going to zero in on a player who loses his lid (to the determent of other duties we have) we may not notice that he's attempting to participate right away. 

[El Macman]

I believe this would be a live ball foul and we'd repeat the down.  I like the way you break it down.  It was talked about this weekend and it was stated that, like you said, whenever you first notice him start running to participate.  Since we aren't going to zero in on a player who loses his lid (to the determent of other duties we have) we may not notice that he's attempting to participate right away.

Yes, A, 2/25, A-35. Mistype or brain fart, not sure which....

[zebra99]

This may have been discussed but does the player have to sit our for one tick of the clock?  Say the next "play" is a FST or DOG.

[zebra99]

along the same lines, can anyone point to something officially in writing that says the injured player must stay out for one tick of the clock?  Just trying to verify stuff.

[fencewire]

Rule 3-3-9
Helmet Comes Off—Timeout (New Article)
ARTICLE 9.
a. If during the down a player’s helmet comes completely off, other than as the direct result of a foul by an opponent, the player must leave the game for the next down.


Down
ARTICLE 1. A down is a unit of the game that starts after the ball is ready for
play with a legal snap (scrimmage down) or legal free kick (free kick down)
and ends when the ball becomes dead.


If the next play is a FST or a DOG the ball would have never been put in play.

[Rulesman]

You're up early today, 99! 

I was about to type an answer but fencewire beat me to it...

While I haven't seen anything "official", if the player is required to sit out the next down, I would agree a down wasn't played if, following his departure, we had a FST or DOG.

[zebra99]

Rule 3-3-9
Helmet Comes Off—Timeout (New Article)
ARTICLE 9.
a. If during the down a player’s helmet comes completely off, other than as the direct result of a foul by an opponent, the player must leave the game for the next down.


Down
ARTICLE 1. A down is a unit of the game that starts after the ball is ready for
play with a legal snap (scrimmage down) or legal free kick (free kick down)
and ends when the ball becomes dead.


If the next play is a FST or a DOG the ball would have never been put in play.

I saw that - what's interesting is that I believe the Federation (high school) is coming up with a different interpretation with basically the same rule book language thus my inquiry.

[Welpe]

If we end up replaying the down (IW, accepted penalty, etc), can the player come back in?

[Rulesman]

Welpe, I would say if we actually played a down, yes, that qualifies for the player to return.

99, I've not heard of a different interp. The caveat to the Fed rule are exceptions regarding the helmet coming off if it is due to a foul attributed to the opponent (e.g. grabbing the face mask and ripping the helmet off), or if halftime or overtime intermission occurs.

[El Macman]

A down is from snap/legal free kick, to dead-ball. It has nothing to do with game clock time, or penalty enforcement. A helmet-comes-off violator must sit out one down. He can't buy himself back into the game with a team time-out. A Referee's time out, an opponent's team time out, and the end of a period don't help him. If the violation is during the last play of the 2nd period, he must sit out the first down of the 3rd period. If during the last play of the 4th period, he must sit out the first play of the extra period, if there is one. (No he doesn't have to sit out the first down of the next game.  )

If there is a pre-snap dead-ball foul(s) before the next snap/legal free kick, he hasn't sat out a down yet, so he is not yet eligible to return to the game. If there is a live-ball foul(s) during the down that he sits out, it/they are irrelevant - he has sat out a down, so he is eligible to return.

I still predict, after week 2, we just won't see many/any helmets coming off.

[Rulesman]

...after week 2 1, we just won't see many/any helmets coming off.

Fixed that for you. 

[Diablo]

A down is from snap/legal free kick, to dead-ball. It has nothing to do with game clock time, or penalty enforcement. A helmet-comes-off violator must sit out one down. He can't buy himself back into the game with a team time-out. A Referee's time out, an opponent's team time out, and the end of a period don't help him. If the violation is during the last play of the 2nd period, he must sit out the first down of the 3rd period. If during the last play of the 4th period, he must sit out the first play of the extra period, if there is one. (No he doesn't have to sit out the first down of the next game.  )
If there is a pre-snap dead-ball foul(s) before the next snap/legal free kick, he hasn't sat out a down yet, so he is not yet eligible to return to the game. If there is a live-ball foul(s) during the down that he sits out, it/they are irrelevant - he has sat out a down, so he is eligible to return.

Is there a consequence, i.e. price to pay, if the helmetless player plays the next down?

[fencewire]

caning?

[Rulesman]

Make him play the next down without his helmet 

[TxSkyBolt]

Was instructed this weekend that if helmet comes off on last play of first half, player may play first play of second half.  If it happens on last play of tie game, he must sit out first play of extra period.

[El Macman]

Fixed that for you. 

Well, if ALL teams play in week 1, OK. But I don't think that's the case. It usually takes two weeks to get everyone on the field.

[Hawkeye]

Was instructed this weekend that if helmet comes off on last play of first half, player may play first play of second half.  If it happens on last play of tie game, he must sit out first play of extra period.

That is not true, according to RR, the next down means the next down what ever that may be, and if the next down is the opening kickoff of the second half, then that is the down he must sit out.  I heard him say this in person.

[TXMike]

I think many of us may have been basing our assumptions on this based on what happened after the change to the injured player procedure.  When it first started that the injured player had to sit out a down we got into all the "what if's".  I think we may have even had a bulletin or something that told us if it was the break between quarters then he had to stay out but if it was between halves he could come back in.  Seems logical same would be true for the player losing the helmet.  RR will be with us in McAllen this weekend and we'll give this one to him.

[Hondo]

Be sure and ask him about the modified halo (square,moving triangle, semicircle)  and resetting on the kickoff

[TxSkyBolt]

Someone needs to reiterate this to the conference coordinators then...

The coordinator explainded that it was a punishment, it was to allow time for the equipment manager to ensure the helmet was properly fitted before the player returned to the game.....You'd think 30-40 minutes would be more than sufficient to do this.

[CenTexTM]

I think many of us may have been basing our assumptions on this based on what happened after the change to the injured player procedure.  When it first started that the injured player had to sit out a down we got into all the "what if's".  I think we may have even had a bulletin or something that told us if it was the break between quarters then he had to stay out but if it was between halves he could come back in.  Seems logical same would be true for the player losing the helmet.  RR will be with us in McAllen this weekend and we'll give this one to him.

Dr. Redding was unambiguous in stating that it is the next down, even if the half intervenes.  This is contrary to the guidance we'd received from clinicians and what I think is usually understood to be the case for injuries, but he was pretty clear in McAllen that the half doesn't change anything.

[JasonTX]

Dr. Redding was unambiguous in stating that it is the next down, even if the half intervenes.  This is contrary to the guidance we'd received from clinicians and what I think is usually understood to be the case for injuries, but he was pretty clear in McAllen that the half doesn't change anything.

That was the message I received as well.  One play means one play, even if that one play is the kickoff to start the thrird quarter were pretty much the words he used.

[Welpe]

This just came across our mailbox. Looks to me there is a lot of grey area surrounding what "direct result of a foul" actually is.



Please read. This is from Walt Anderson, Big 12 Football Supervisor. New play interpretations from Rogers Redding NCAA Rules Editor. The spirit of this rule is if a player loses his helmet as a result of a foul against him by another player he does not have to leave the game for one play. To remain in the game the loss of the helmet must be directly a result of a foul.


CFO Staff,

I talked to Rogers today at the TASO state meeting and he confirmed that there will need to be some interpretation regarding the recent play situations on helmets off that he sent out. The operative phrase needs to be "contact that directly results in a player losing his helmet". Two examples he gave: (1) RPS by defense because of use of crown to chest of QB; he stumbles back, falls backward and when his head hits the ground, his helmet comes off. Ruling - foul for RPS was not the "direct" cause of the helmet off; QB has to leave game for one play. (2) RPS by defense who hits QB late and drives him to the ground, forcing his head to contact the ground which results in his helmet coming off. The helmet comes off here more because of the "direct" result of forcing the QB's head to hit the ground and thus would qualify as a foul that resulted in the helmet coming off and the QB would NOT have to leave the game for one play.

Also, on the scenario we discussed at the clinic that if we have a PFH foul because a player participates without a helmet, and replay reverses to a point where the ball is dead clearly before the player's helmet came off, we would pick up the flag for PFH. However, if an opponent during that time blocks a player without a helmet, he has committed a UNR/HDP and that flag, like other "contact personal fouls", will always be enforced even if we pick up the flag for PFH.

Walt

[El Macman]

This just came across our mailbox. Looks to me there is a lot of grey area surrounding what "direct result of a foul" actually is.

It just gets more complicated every day. Let's see if this is an issue at all about 9/15.

[TXMike]

Dr. Redding was unambiguous in stating that it is the next down, even if the half intervenes.  This is contrary to the guidance we'd received from clinicians and what I think is usually understood to be the case for injuries, but he was pretty clear in McAllen that the half doesn't change anything.

Yep he was absolutley clear.  He said he did not maytter if it was last play of a quarter, half or regulation.  The kid sits the next down.