The Game is Changing

[110]

I am at a loss as to why this would be flagged.
The initial contact was at the chest/shoulder level. The initial point of contact was the shoulder. There was no launch prior to the contact.

I think you guys are getting fooled by the direction the "defenceless" player is looking. That player took himself out of his play. Sorry the guy got injured, but that's a textbook legal block, in my mind.

[maven]

Speaking just for myself: I wasn't taking a stance on the play in the OP, but rather the larger question of limiting the violence and corresponding risks of the game.

[SD_Casey]

I have a foul here. In response to those wanting to know what A80 could have done, I say lower it by about 4-6 inches. He has plenty of time to pick his target on the defender. 

There are plenty of you citing this slippery slope fallacy of "well then they'll just go for the knees."  Don't give me that crap. Players can lower blocks like these by a few inches without having to go below the waist.

I will flag that 10 times out of 10.

[TXMike]

4 - 6 inches???  That blockee would still have been blown up and would have suffered the same impact to his head when he hit the turf that he did in the play.   What if this same hit had been leveled on a ball carrier?  Still flagging it?

[SD_Casey]

First, thank you for challenging my opinion. Having to defend my position makes me think even more about this hot-button issue and will hopefully help me to become a better official.

We don't know how he (the team B player) would have landed had the block been lower so your assertion that he would have suffered the same impact upon contacting the ground isn't really a valid one.

IMHO a lower block would cause less rotation and would not result in the defender landing that way.  Regardless, A80 has no control over how the "blockee" lands. What he does have control over its where his block is placed and in my opinion, this block is too high and is a foul. 

If we say that you are correct and A80 lowers his target and levys a big stick block resulting in the blockee landing the same way, no foul. I can't punish a player for the way somebody else hits the ground, only for the way he chooses to play the game.

As for the question of a ballcarrier, I  would need a specific example (perhaps one from your seemingly limitless video library?).  I assume a player from A wouldn't be de-cleating a ballcarrier so it's hard for me to visualize the scenario you have in mind.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[TXMike]

In today's game, there are many defenders who choose to simply try to take a ball carrier down by leveling a big hit, not by some "form tackle" from back in the day.  I have seen them hit the ball carrier (blindside) and in the same target area that this block was thrown.  It shouldn't matter if it is A orB delivering the blow.  All I asked was for you to imagine the person who gets hit like this player was is the ball carrier and the hitter was a defender.  Is there a flag? I do't think that is so dificult to envision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrWvGbSpK80

At the 1:38 mark.  Is this a foul?

Or what about this one:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FhCgLeuO0I

Or this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA0s8bxUUX4

[NVFOA_Ump]

I have a foul here. In response to those wanting to know what A80 could have done, I say lower it by about 4-6 inches. He has plenty of time to pick his target on the defender. 

Maybe we should draft a "defenseless blockee/runner" rule change that requires:

a.  A fluorescent rectangle on the front of all jerseys that's about 18 inches wide and 15 inches high with a requirement that all blocks/tackles initially contact the rectangle,

b. All players to be blocked/tackled must be looking at the blocker/tackler prior to contact,

c. Neither player can be moving faster than a liesurely jog before actual contact

But back to my original question - Do you think that this would have been flagged without the flying elbow and had just the shoulder to the chest part of the block?

[clydesummers]

TxMike: 1st one at 1:36 was helmet to helmet, 2nd and 3rd legit hits....no helmet to helmet and tackler shoulder into runner. IMHO.

[SD_Casey]

I agree with clydesummers.

1st hit at 1:36 appears to be helmet to helmet though it is hard to tell.  Numbers two and three are big hits to be sure, but low enough that I don't have a problem with them.  There does not appear to be any helmet contact and the hits are below the neck.

I love football and grew up cheering for big hits.  I love a good football hit.  It's not the violence of the game that I have a problem with.  If I did, I'd be a soccer official.  That said, I feel like the original example was intended to punish.  That hit and those like it have no place in the game anymore because of how the game has evolved.

I (vaguely) remember the old days when nobody ever took a second look at a big hit.  As many have pointed out on this message board, the days of the form tackle are gone.  The players play-style has changed and I think our officiating style needs to as well.  Many (not all) of these players just want to lay a big hit on somebody and whether or not it helps the team is ancillary.  I think this was one of those hits.

[Mike L]

From what I've heard and seen from the powers much higher than me, this is a hit to be flagged.  Consistently miss this call at your own risk.

[Eastshire]

I'm not a football referee.

To me, this looked to me to have made contact both shoulder-to-shoulder and helmet-to-helmet nearly simultaneously. It's hits like this that threaten to kill the game. The worse bit of it, imo, was the ugly attitude shown by the announcers in their disgust over the foul.

[Welpe]

As low as my threshold is for flagging hits on defenseless players and unecessary roughness, I just don't see how this is a foul.

[TXMike]

I'm not a football referee.

To me, this looked to me to have made contact both shoulder-to-shoulder and helmet-to-helmet nearly simultaneously. It's hits like this that threaten to kill the game. The worse bit of it, imo, was the ugly attitude shown by the announcers in their disgust over the foul.

Please do not be offended by this, but as you said , you are not a "real" football ref.   Even the guys who are arguing here in support of the flag are not saying it is helmet to helmet.  That is because they know, like most all football refs know, helmets hit at times.  That fact does not in and of itself make the hit a foul.  The helmet contact has to be (or at least is supposed to be) intentional.  I might even go as far as to say that if the hitter does not lead with the crown of the helmet, it is not a foul, even if the helmet contact is deliberate.  That statement is according to a technical reading of the rule. I know the way we enforce it is not that way but that is the way itis written

[James]

I think real time speed I would have been 'fooled' into thinking that he had launched. His trajectory was of a launch, but he was following through. With the vicinity of the helmet and what I would probably in real time (mistakenly) have seen as a launch, I think I would have flagged it on the field - but I not with video review.

[Eastshire]

Please do not be offended by this, but as you said , you are not a "real" football ref.   Even the guys who are arguing here in support of the flag are not saying it is helmet to helmet.  That is because they know, like most all football refs know, helmets hit at times.  That fact does not in and of itself make the hit a foul.  The helmet contact has to be (or at least is supposed to be) intentional.  I might even go as far as to say that if the hitter does not lead with the crown of the helmet, it is not a foul, even if the helmet contact is deliberate.  That statement is according to a technical reading of the rule. I know the way we enforce it is not that way but that is the way itis written

No offense taken at all. I'm just providing my official-in-another-sport-fan-who-would-still-like-to-be-watching-football-in-five-years perspective.

Why isn't it helmet-to-helmet contact? To me it appears that the hit was delivered at least as much with the helmet as the shoulder. Intent is always a hard thing to determine but this doesn't look like a shoulder-to-shoulder hit that accidentally got the helmet to me.

Anyways, from my perspective as a fan, this didn't look a a good big hit, it looked like a dirty big hit.

[maven]

Why isn't it helmet-to-helmet contact?

It's misleading to deny that it was helmet-to-helmet. What we should deny is that the helmet contact is illegal. The foul in this ballpark involves using the helmet as a weapon, and it must be obvious from almost any angle, such that any official looking at it would have a flag. This play doesn't rise to that level, and I think those who have tried to argue in that direction are fishing for a better flag than UNR.

If you'd like to see some clinic video on how to call that foul, I recommend the Aloha Clinic 2012 video #1, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpO7lrxSR3M.

[dvasques]

Way to make this legal would be for the blocker to get in the way of the would-be tackler and just be run over by him
That would be a legal block
But also a very crapy one and could be potentially harmfull for both players with the speed of the game today.
Legal block in this case would be like trying to get an offensive foul at basketball

I don't like it

[pgh guy]

This is a foul plain and simple at the higher levels of ball.  The offensive player clearly explodes upward making contact above the neck/shoulders area.  The intent is to punish, which is why he grandstands after the hit.  Properly flagged targeting a defenseless player. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

This is a foul plain and simple at the higher levels of ball.  The offensive player clearly explodes upward making contact above the neck/shoulders area.  The intent is to punish, which is why he grandstands after the hit.  Properly flagged targeting a defenseless player.

We'll try to get the answer for the 4th time:

Would we have a flag here if we simply had the initial "clean" shoulder to the chest contact without the flying elbow and the immediate "I'm the man" BS grandstanding at the end of the play?

[Mike L]

We'll try to get the answer for the 4th time:

Would we have a flag here if we simply had the initial "clean" shoulder to the chest contact without the flying elbow and the immediate "I'm the man" HORSE HOCKEY grandstanding at the end of the play?

In my opinion..."yes". At full speed with the initial contact point high in the chest and then driving up thru the head/neck area, it should draw a flag. Remember, we're dealing with rule 9-1-4 here. Is there any other rule in the book that states in its text "When in question, it is a foul"? I can't see how at full speed this is not at least a "when in question". Do you think they put that text in on this foul and only this foul by mistake? I don't.
The powers that be have said again and again they want these types of hits removed from the game. Is it going to be hard to consistently make these calls? Yes, at least for awhile because we have no experience in this "new" foul. But that doesn't mean we get to ignore it and it certainly does not mean we can decide to not call it because we don't like it. Unless you don't want to be on the field much for supervisors who do want it called.

[Aussie-Zebra]

TxMike: 1st one at 1:36 was helmet to helmet, 2nd and 3rd legit hits....no helmet to helmet and tackler shoulder into runner. IMHO.

Not agreeing with you here Clyde

http://youtu.be/xKDz-P821Fw - clean hit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrWvGbSpK80 targeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FhCgLeuO0I targeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA0s8bxUUX4 targeting

Targeting or leading with the crown of the helmet does need to be directed at the opponents helmet.
Nor does he have to launch to foul - that just makes it worse - and unquestionably flagrant.

The rules 9.1.3 & 9.1.4 are as much about the safety of the blockers neck as the blocked players safety.

[VALJ]

Don't know about the original play in question.  When I saw it in real time I thought the flag was good.  I'm still inclined to lean that way, myself.

I agree with Aussie on the other three plays he linked.  All three of them are PF to me.  Head down with intent to punish.