Official's Focus - Leading With The Helmet

[Ram]

I think the safety of the players are of utmost important. And I think that it is important to have rules for safety.

 

After that being said, I have talked to several (6) of my friends who are officials, and I am truly shocked at how this rule is being interpreted. They have all said with out exception, that if a running back dives for the endzone and makes contact with, or is made contact with, that that will be seen as a violation of the rule.

 

They all, also, said that if a player tackles a ball carrier and the facemask of the tackler makes contact with the ball carrier first, that is a violation of the rule.

 

My concern is for safety first, but I do not see how a running back can run the ball and not lead with the head, to a certain degree. I am not saying, dipping his head and propelling him self as if he were a missile, but to run down hill a running back does lean forward and braces for a forthcoming hit.

 

As for the facemask making contact, the facemask is protruding from the front of a football player, how can they not make contact with the chest of a running back, if the proper tackling position is utilized. While tackling you have to lean into the ball carrier or he will run over you everytime.

 

In the week one game that I attended, I did not see any penalties for the above rule infractions, but that is one of the problems that I have with this focus. I would say that a team will play four games without any of these penalties, then in week six they will travel to another area of the state and there will be ten penalties for the same thing they had been doing for the first five weeks of the season.

 

Another problem that I have with the above point of focus is that for the, most part, the two examples I have mentioned happen on every play. How can it be called on one tackle, but not on another. I mean the facemask will make contact with ball carrier, more then likely it will make contact first. and every, for the most part, ball carrier is going to lean into the tackler and make contact with his helmet, intentional or unintentional.

 

I think most officials will do a good job and only penalize players for violent disregard for the above rule, but deep down, I know there are going to be some overzealous people who over penalize this.

[GR8BigBull]

I do remember an emphasis on the "proper" way to tackle a few years ago when a lot of practice time was spent on teaching kids "how to tackle" without using the headgear. I also remember an extraordinary number of shoulder injuries that season. I feel like the rule needs to be utilized with a little EXTRA common sense. This past friday night I witnessed a perfect opportunity to implement the rule but it was totally missed and the result was a no call when a ball carrier was clearly at risk of serious injury. Two major mistakes were made with the call not being made when our RB was tripped up and fell to the ground (play was dead as soon as he hit the ground) he was hit again by a player leading with the crown of his helmet. The linesman maintained that the player (who came in well after the runner hit the ground) hit with his shoulder pad and not his helmet. Regardless, the hit was unnecessary and should have been penalized for one of at least two reasons.

If safety of the young high school players is what we are focused on, this was clearly a safety issue and we were very lucky it did not cost the player more than just a bump or bruise. Again, common sense and good judgement could be more consistent in high school officiating.

[JC Alumni 76]

I understand trying to protect the kids, and Im totally for that. But this is just to much. Football is a contact sport and you know that coming in. How can a running back, who is usually taught to stay low and keep his legs moving, suddenly stop and focus on not making contact with the head first. And on the defensive side, I was always taught to go in with the head and turn to a side before contact then wrap up and take down. I like this rule in terms of a vulnerable situation such as a punt returner whom has just recieved a punt or a WR coming across the middle with his total focus(which he is taught) on the ball and not his surroundings. A RB knows contact is coming and is taught to deliver contact. The rule should have stipulations, but it is to much as stated above.

[offside]

Illegal Helmet Contact leads to catastrophic neck and spine injury, and it's almost always the player who initiates the illegal contact who gets injured. This is the reason for its Point of Emphasis status.

 

However, the rules really are no different now than they have been for some time: Illegal Helmet Contact, including face tackling, butt blocking and spearing is defined as DELIVERING A BLOW with or DRIVING A HELMET or FACEMASK into an opponent.

 

Blockers, tacklers and runners are all subject to this rule.

 

We (officials) understand that collisions occur and incidental contact with helmets and facemasks are inevitible on every play. However, we are more focused on recognizing when a player is DELIVERING A BLOW with his helmet or DRIVING his HEMET/FACEMASK INTO AN OPPONENT.

 

offside

[offside]

By the way, in my final game as a highschool football player (in the early '80s) I was flagged for Butt Blocking and summarily ejected from the game.

 

I was taught to block and tackle by ramming my forehead into my opponent and I was pretty good at it. I am also probably lucky that I'm not paralyzed myself.

 

offside

[pigman]

JC alumi your coaches are lucky no one was severely injured if they taught you to go in with your head down. While for years we taught to lead with the face mask which keeps your head up thus making you less likely to have a neck injury. I am all for safety, but just leave the spearing penalty in place, leading with the crown of the helmet and let them play football.

[Vangelis]

By the way, in my final game as a highschool football player (in the early '80s) I was flagged for Butt Blocking and summarily ejected from the game.

 

I was taught to block and tackle by ramming my forehead into my opponent and I was pretty good at it. I am also probably lucky that I'm not paralyzed myself.

 

offside

Gee Offside, I thought that you played the tuba in the band???? Seriously, I don't think that it is going to be as big an issue as some people might think. It has "always" (at least as long as I have been officiating) been illegal to lead with the helmet or use the helmet to butt block, face tackle or spear another player. In my opinion, some preventative officiating with the coaches and players before and during the game will go a long way to making sure that this does not get out of control. Officials have to be more aware of the foul now. There may be more illegal helmet contact fouls called this year, but I don't think that it will be too outrageous. I know that during the 2 games that I officiated this past weekend, we called 1 illegal helmet foul.

[tenaciousD]

It is nearly impossible to enforce such a penalty. With helmet to helmet contact occouring every play, it would be hard to finish a game without a flag every play.

[UKCATSFAN]

I think the safety of the players are of utmost important. And I think that it is important to have rules for safety.

 

After that being said, I have talked to several (6) of my friends who are officials, and I am truly shocked at how this rule is being interpreted. They have all said with out exception, that if a running back dives for the endzone and makes contact with, or is made contact with, that that will be seen as a violation of the rule.

 

They all, also, said that if a player tackles a ball carrier and the facemask of the tackler makes contact with the ball carrier first, that is a violation of the rule.

 

My concern is for safety first, but I do not see how a running back can run the ball and not lead with the head, to a certain degree. I am not saying, dipping his head and propelling him self as if he were a missile, but to run down hill a running back does lean forward and braces for a forthcoming hit.

 

As for the facemask making contact, the facemask is protruding from the front of a football player, how can they not make contact with the chest of a running back, if the proper tackling position is utilized. While tackling you have to lean into the ball carrier or he will run over you everytime.

 

In the week one game that I attended, I did not see any penalties for the above rule infractions, but that is one of the problems that I have with this focus. I would say that a team will play four games without any of these penalties, then in week six they will travel to another area of the state and there will be ten penalties for the same thing they had been doing for the first five weeks of the season.

 

Another problem that I have with the above point of focus is that for the, most part, the two examples I have mentioned happen on every play. How can it be called on one tackle, but not on another. I mean the facemask will make contact with ball carrier, more then likely it will make contact first. and every, for the most part, ball carrier is going to lean into the tackler and make contact with his helmet, intentional or unintentional.

 

I think most officials will do a good job and only penalize players for violent disregard for the above rule, but deep down, I know there are going to be some overzealous people who over penalize this.

 

 

 

I think you may be misunderstanding the explanations of the illegal helmet contact emphasis this year. If not I think their explanation may not be thorough enough because it's a tough thing to explain to other. At the rules clinic this year, the Assistant Commisioner of the KHSAA Mr. Julian Takett spent almost 20 minutes and showed a video on this particular subject. The new emphasis this year is meant to penalize the offender who uses his head to "punish" the other player. It is not meant to penalize a player just for lowering his head. It's one thing for a player to lower his head to absorb a hit and it's another thing for a player to lower his head when trying to punish another player and using his helmet as a weapon. As an official myself, I tend to think of a few things when judging a play like this..... I think to myself "who is initiating the contact" and " is he trying to 'punish' the other player by lowering his head". I am not going to flag a kid simply for lowering his head when trying to absorb a hit nor am I going to flag a kid because his facemask made contact first. The facemask in some cases is going to make contact first because of the design of the helmet BUT if the player tries to "face tackle" or "butt block" then it should be penalized. We have talked and talked about this issue at our association meeting and it is something that WILL be called this year. To me, it's not too difficult to tell when a kid is trying to punish another player. If a RB is running and lowers his head to absorb the hit coming then that is OK BUT if that RB turns and lowers his head and steps toward the defender then more than likely you will see a flag on that play. You shouldn't worry about constant flags everytime a player lowers his head. It's only meant to penalize the player who lowers his head to "punish" the other player. It's a hard thing to explain but this is my best explanation of the issue of illegal helmet contact.

[Sandman32]

I find those against making contact with helmet's rediculous to a certain extent. This is football not soccer or tidly winks. I played football for 21 years and I hit with my helmet on almost every play. The only time I didn't was when the guy I was blocking or running at didn't care to have a headache. When I was a kid I was taught how to use my equipment properly. I was also taught how not to use it.

 

I understand why there are rules against using your helmet as a weapon, but to call a penalty the way it is being described will ruin the game IMO. As a full back I lived for contact and more times than not found it. I never became injured, or injured someone else permanently by hitting properly with my helmet. I've seen people get hurt bouncing off of thighs and such way more often by not using their equipment properly. Football is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport. If the goal is to take away the collisions than give the kids flags Nancy.

[UKCATSFAN]

By the way, in my final game as a highschool football player (in the early '80s) I was flagged for Butt Blocking and summarily ejected from the game.

 

I was taught to block and tackle by ramming my forehead into my opponent and I was pretty good at it. I am also probably lucky that I'm not paralyzed myself.

 

offside

 

 

I think alot of people were taught the very same thing but times are changing. They no longer want it taught that way. Everything is shoulder driven now, they want the shoulder to be the focus in football. I have heard so many coaches at the lower levels teaching their kids the INCORRECT ways of the past. And it starts in the JFL leagues, they must start teaching the correct ways of fundamentals. The schools need to get involved with these JFL programs to ensure that these coaches know the right and wrong , correct and incorrect methods in football. it all starts with those kids. The bad habits start at that age.

[Sandman32]

I think alot of people were taught the very same thing but times are changing. They no longer want it taught that way. Everything is shoulder driven now, they want the shoulder to be the focus in football. I have heard so many coaches at the lower levels teaching their kids the INCORRECT ways of the past. And it starts in the JFL leagues, they must start teaching the correct ways of fundamentals. The schools need to get involved with these JFL programs to ensure that these coaches know the right and wrong , correct and incorrect methods in football. it all starts with those kids. The bad habits start at that age.

I started PeeWee almost right after they invented dirt and we were always taught to tackle and block with a shoulder, but sometimes you are put in a position where it can't be helped. You need to be prepared in order to protect yourself IMO.

[Vangelis]

I find those against making contact with helmet's rediculous to a certain extent. This is football not soccer or tidly winks. I played football for 21 years and I hit with my helmet on almost every play. The only time I didn't was when the guy I was blocking or running at didn't care to have a headache. When I was a kid I was taught how to use my equipment properly. I was also taught how not to use it.

 

I understand why there are rules against using your helmet as a weapon, but to call a penalty the way it is being described will ruin the game IMO. As a full back I lived for contact and more times than not found it. I never became injured, or injured someone else permanently by hitting properly with my helmet. I've seen people get hurt bouncing off of thighs and such way more often by not using their equipment properly. Football is not a contact sport, it is a collision sport. If the goal is to take away the collisions than give the kids flags Nancy.

 

Consider yourself lucky!

[pigman]

When I played the helmet was a weapon and I remember very few neck or head injuries. Now there were injuries caused by the helmet.

[Ram]

I think you may be misunderstanding the explanations of the illegal helmet contact emphasis this year. If not I think their explanation may not be thorough enough because it's a tough thing to explain to other. At the rules clinic this year, the Assistant Commisioner of the KHSAA Mr. Julian Takett spent almost 20 minutes and showed a video on this particular subject. The new emphasis this year is meant to penalize the offender who uses his head to "punish" the other player. It is not meant to penalize a player just for lowering his head. It's one thing for a player to lower his head to absorb a hit and it's another thing for a player to lower his head when trying to punish another player and using his helmet as a weapon. As an official myself, I tend to think of a few things when judging a play like this..... I think to myself "who is initiating the contact" and " is he trying to 'punish' the other player by lowering his head". I am not going to flag a kid simply for lowering his head when trying to absorb a hit nor am I going to flag a kid because his facemask made contact first. The facemask in some cases is going to make contact first because of the design of the helmet BUT if the player tries to "face tackle" or "butt block" then it should be penalized. We have talked and talked about this issue at our association meeting and it is something that WILL be called this year. To me, it's not too difficult to tell when a kid is trying to punish another player. If a RB is running and lowers his head to absorb the hit coming then that is OK BUT if that RB turns and lowers his head and steps toward the defender then more than likely you will see a flag on that play. You shouldn't worry about constant flags everytime a player lowers his head. It's only meant to penalize the player who lowers his head to "punish" the other player. It's a hard thing to explain but this is my best explanation of the issue of illegal helmet contact.

 

I understand what you are staying, and it sounds like you are applying a lot of common sense to your rulings and that is the way it should be. Hats off to you for that.

 

My concern is, I was told:

1. That if a RB dives for the endzone and makes first contact with a defender with his helmet that is a penalty.

2. If a tackler makes first contact with a runner with his facemask that is a penalty.

 

I questioned, the multiple, officials that told me that, to make sure we were both understanding that, and I understood what they were saying clearly. I coach in JFL, and wanted to properly relay that information to the kids that I coach. My JFL team has had two games and two officials have told me to tell my RB's to stop leaning forward with their head forward and making contact with the helmet when running. That is impossible when running, am I supposed to tell them to lean back or run straight up? We have not been penalized as of yet, and I did not see any such calls in the one Varsity game that I have attended.

 

I know that the rule has not changed, it is just a point of focus. The same thing happened when "blocking below the knees" was a focus, I had linemen being penalized for legal blocks in the "free blocking zone."

 

I think you, as well as, many officials will do a good job in applying common sense to this point of focus, but I worry that some will over due it.