Vance Walker

Cartersville Jacket

Cartersville Jacket

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
18
If you want to see "TRUE" helmet to helmet contact; look at the play where Vance Walker went down; the VT TE #44 gives a perfect demonstration of leading with the crown of the helmet.

Is helmet to helmet contact only a penalty if used on the ball carrier or quarterback?

Vance suffered the injury at the 9:16 mark in the fouth quarter just prior to the Cooper Taylor penalty.

Check it out, some of you experts let me know how you intrepret this contact.
 
Last edited:
Sigh...

Here's some info on the helmet rule...
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]1. Player Safety.
Helmet Crown and Defenseless Players (Rule 9-1-3). The committee has refined the rules regarding the use of the helmet as a weapon and the targeting of defenseless players. (The Points of Emphasis section of the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations lists a number of examples of defenseless players.) Emphasis on these actions highlights concern about potentially debilitating injuries. It is now a foul when a player targets an opponent and initiates contact with the crown (top) of the helmet. This rule is intended primarily for the safety of the player who initiates the contact. It is also a foul if a player targets a defenseless opponent and initiates contact above the shoulders. Each of these is a personal foul and thus carries a 15-yard penalty."

The rule is about hitting defenseless players. It also says there are examples that have been used to describe what that means. I'm sure one must be a player going out of bounds. I'm also willing to bet it doesn't include a DT making a play during a game.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
ncjacket said:
Sigh...

Here's some info on the helmet rule...
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]1. Player Safety.
Helmet Crown and Defenseless Players (Rule 9-1-3). The committee has refined the rules regarding the use of the helmet as a weapon and the targeting of defenseless players. (The Points of Emphasis section of the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations lists a number of examples of defenseless players.) Emphasis on these actions highlights concern about potentially debilitating injuries. It is now a foul when a player targets an opponent and initiates contact with the crown (top) of the helmet. This rule is intended primarily for the safety of the player who initiates the contact. It is also a foul if a player targets a defenseless opponent and initiates contact above the shoulders. Each of these is a personal foul and thus carries a 15-yard penalty."

The rule is about hitting defenseless players. It also says there are examples that have been used to describe what that means. I'm sure one must be a player going out of bounds. I'm also willing to bet it doesn't include a DT making a play during a game.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Click to expand...

If that is their definition of defenseless, then we might as well move to collegiate flag football and quite teaching kids to play to the whistle. I'm sorry, but until the ball carrier is down or out of bounds he is still a threat to your team.
 
Here's text from the rules regarding defenseless players (page FR-9):

PROTECTION OF DEFENSELESS PLAYERS—The 2008 committee introduced a separate rule prohibiting initiating contact with and targeting a defenseless opponent (Rule 9-1-3).

The following are situations in which defenseless players are susceptible to serious injury:
• The quarterback moving down the line of scrimmage who has handed or pitched the ball to a teammate, and then makes no attempt to participate further in the play;
• The kicker who is in the act of kicking the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to regain his balance after the kick;
• The passer who is in the act of throwing the ball, or who has not had a reasonable length of time to participate in the play again after releasing the ball;
• The pass receiver whose concentration is on the ball;
• The pass receiver who has clearly relaxed when the pass is no longer catchable;
• The kick receiver whose attention is on the downward flight of the ball;
• The kick receiver who has just touched the ball;
• The player who has relaxed once the ball has become dead; and
• The player who is obviously out of the play.

These players are protected by rules that have been in place for many years. It is of the utmost importance that participants, coaches and game officials carefully
and diligently observe safety rules.
Click to expand...
 
ncjacket said:
Sigh...

Here's some info on the helmet rule...
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]1. Player Safety.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Helmet Crown and Defenseless Players (Rule 9-1-3). The committee has refined the rules regarding the use of the helmet as a weapon and the targeting of defenseless players. (The Points of Emphasis section of the NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations lists a number of examples of defenseless players.) Emphasis on these actions highlights concern about potentially debilitating injuries. It is now a foul when a player targets an opponent and initiates contact with the crown (top) of the helmet. This rule is intended primarily for the safety of the player who initiates the contact. It is also a foul if a player targets a defenseless opponent and initiates contact above the shoulders. Each of these is a personal foul and thus carries a 15-yard penalty."[/FONT][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The rule is about hitting defenseless players. It also says there are examples that have been used to describe what that means. I'm sure one must be a player going out of bounds. I'm also willing to bet it doesn't include a DT making a play during a game. [/FONT][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

NC-
You need to reread your own post. If you lead with the top of the helmet, NO MATTER WHAT, it is a 15 yd penalty.
 
ncjacket, I've lost a load of respect for you this week since you continue to argue that the call was correct. For two reasons:
1.) It was a horrendous call even as I read the loosely defined rule you supplied.
a.) Regarding the player that was targeted, He was the ball carrier, which is contradicting to the whole Damn point of football. Targeted to me means going out of the way to target a player. So at that point the ref needs to use a little bit of ****ing common sense when calling it. He clearly did not exhibit common sense.

b.) The rule as defined is used expressedly to protect the player using his own helmet. I can understand if a play puts his head down and it looks like he put himself in danger. That's what the rule is intended for. Did Cooper look like he was risking danger in the way he hit Taylor? No.

2.) You have for the last 4 days defended this call. Even if you were correct, all you are doing is rubbing salt in the wound with a lot of fans who know that the call was complete horse ****. Your timing is obnoxious. It makes me want to slap some common sense in you like the ref who used none.

At least you both have something in common.
 
I didn't say it was correct, I said it's a reasonable application by the ref given what he saw and what the rule says.
 
ncjacket said:
I didn't say it was correct, I said it's a reasonable application by the ref given what he saw and what the rule says.
Click to expand...

ncjacket, your summation above makes it a borderline call at best. To make a borderline call in a 17-17 game in the 4th quarter is plain out, patently wrong. I have no problem with the later call on MJ. He got the facemask. Nothing borderline about it. But to call a borderline call in tie game in the 4th quarter on a possession down is a crappy thing to do.
 
Hye guys, I didn't make the call. All I'm saying is that it's at least borderline and refs are supposed to call what they see without considering when it happens. They don't always do it, and the better ones do exhibit some common sense. But let me ask a question. What if the hit had put TT out of the game? Would it be right to call it then? Again, I'm ont saying he should have made the call, just that it wasn't completely bogus or ridiculous. Also my main point all along is that saying we lost because of that call ignores the other things we should have done that would have led to a win in spite of any ref's call.
 
stinger78 said:
ncjacket, your summation above makes it a borderline call at best. To make a borderline call in a 17-17 game in the 4th quarter is plain out, patently wrong. I have no problem with the later call on MJ. He got the facemask. Nothing borderline about it. But to call a borderline call in tie game in the 4th quarter on a possession down is a crappy thing to do.
Click to expand...


I try to stay out of these discussions because I generally think how the teams play over the entire 60 minutes is a helluva lot more important to the outcome of the game than any one call whether it was right or wrong. However, I think this a point that a lot of people seem to make that doesn't sound right to me at all.

I think that a foul is a foul (or not a foul) regardless of the game situation. To say that a ref should or should not make call based on the score or time is just asking for trouble. Isn't the ideal to have the refs make as few "judgment" type calls as possible? Asking the refs to modify their calls based on game situation is just adding a huge amount of judgment to the situation. That is the wrong path to go down.
 
Last edited:
ncjacket said:
Sigh...
The rule is about hitting defenseless players. It also says there are examples that have been used to describe what that means. I'm sure one must be a player going out of bounds. I'm also willing to bet it doesn't include a DT making a play during a game.
Click to expand...

Here's your example, from page 228 of the rulebook

(and a previous poster showed that TT did not qualify as defenseless)

http://www.ncaapublications.com/Uploads/PDF/Football_Rulesadc982b5-03fb-4e27-828c-c2d26b95e6c1.pdf

"As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers his head and contacts defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him. The players meet helmet to helmet. RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89 is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense of Rule 9-1-3."

Rule: 9-1-3
"No player shall initiate contact and target an opponent with
the crown (top) of his helmet."
 
ncjacket said:
Also my main point all along is that saying we lost because of that call ignores the other things we should have done that would have led to a win in spite of any ref's call.
Click to expand...

Well you've done a crappy job getting your point across, but your point is well taken. I completely agree. That said, the call itself was still awful.
 
BHP12345 said:
I try to stay out of these discussions because I generally think how the teams play over the entire 60 minutes is a helluva lot more important to the outcome of the game than any one call whether it was right or wrong. However, I think this a point that a lot of people seem to make that doesn't sound right to me at all.

I think that a foul is a foul (or not a foul) regardless of the game situation. To say that a ref should or should not make call based on the score or time is just asking for trouble. Isn't the ideal to have the refs make as few "judgment" type calls as possible? Asking the refs to modify their calls based on game situation is just adding a huge amount of judgment to the situation. That is the wrong path to go down.
Click to expand...

I disagree. IMO, "borderline calls" should never be made, period. If it's not a clear foul then don't influence the game by calling it. If in doubt, leave it out, as the old saying used to go. If you're a ref who makes borderline calls, then don't make them at critical points in the game. That call was borderline *at best.*

Everyone makes mistakes, and refs are just as much a part of the game as the players. Refs need to err on the side of non-calls, rather than close calls... IMNSHO.
 
The rule is intended to prevent axial loading on the cervical spine of the tackler which is associated with cervical fracture. This only happens with an impact that occurs directly on the top of the helmet with the force being directed in line with the neck. This is often too complicate for the refs and gets simplified to be any helmet to helmet impact. The penalty was bad because the alignment of the helmets was not even close to being the "crown" of the helmet.
 
BME, they also refer to a definition of defenseless player at something called FR-9. Any idea what that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top