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.

Love your explaination. It's probably just that simple. Everyone can tell the difference.

Do you remember the films of Miami great Larry Czonk?sp, he would deliver his helmet as a ram to buck. That is what we are looking for, players who want to punish other players. Contact with helmets will be made, no doubt and all of them are not penalties.

 

Another, player is down and another player leads with helmet into the pack, flag. I don't think this is much of a change as it has been the past couple of years. Officials will penalize conduct on the side of safety.

They could stop most injuries by removing all protective equipment and replacing it with these.

 

Do you remember the films of Miami great Larry Czonk?sp, he would deliver his helmet as a ram to buck. That is what we are looking for, players who want to punish other players. Contact with helmets will be made, no doubt and all of them are not penalties.

 

Another, player is down and another player leads with helmet into the pack, flag. I don't think this is much of a change as it has been the past couple of years. Officials will penalize conduct on the side of safety.

 

Thanks, that is the way it should be.

Do you remember the films of Miami great Larry Czonk?sp, he would deliver his helmet as a ram to buck. That is what we are looking for, players who want to punish other players. Contact with helmets will be made, no doubt and all of them are not penalties.

 

Another, player is down and another player leads with helmet into the pack, flag. I don't think this is much of a change as it has been the past couple of years. Officials will penalize conduct on the side of safety.

In other words a running back who is squatted down low to run over or thru the opposing players. Heaven forbid that two players make contact. It would be a tragedy. However did my generation survive?

1. Initial contact with the head while blocking and tackling has been illegal in highschool football since 1976.

 

2. There is no new rule. Criteria for calling the foul has not changed (See post 4 above for the definition of the foul.) There is no new interpretation as to determining the foul.

 

3. The state athletic associations who make the rules (collectively, the NFHS) simply want officials to call the foul when it meets those criteria. No more, no less. They cite "risk minimization concerns" for the reason behind making this foul a recent Point of Emphasis.

 

4. So, what are "risk minimization concerns"? Player safety is one, obviously. Do you think litigation is also a risk that the highschool associations might also want to minimize? Hmm...

 

Bottom line is that Illegal Helmet Contact might be called a little more often going forward simply because we're talking about it more often these days and are more likely to recognize it. Hopefully, it won't be called in the absurd manner that some of the preceding posts are suggesting.