How 'bout this "defenseless" player nonsense ??

[justobserving]

I am in need of help. Could someone please explain to me this ridiculous rule dealing with "hitting a defenseless player" ?

I have seen this "disaster" of a rule called now for two weeks and I can not for the life of me figure it out. There were already rules in place for late hits, leading with the head, piling on and just plain blatant personal fouls. So what is this rule for ?

Last week at the West Texas A & M game I saw it called three times. Once for a defensive player hitting the quarterback just as he finished releasing the ball. The defensive player could not avoid the contact and was not overly aggressive with the hit. Another was on a D back hitting a receiver as the ball passed the receiver. The other was on a block on a defensive player chasing a kick returner.

I saw the call made again tonight. A receiver was on an out route at about 12 yards. The ball was just a bit high and the receiver reached and stretched above his head for the ball. The ball grazed off his finger tips and then he got leveled and I mean leveled. Legal clean hit that cracked like a gun going off. He was hit with a lead shoulder and not a head gear. Tackler was committed to the hit and could not avoid it. He was going on the assumption, as you have to, that the ball was going to be caught. He was trying to jar the ball loose and make the tackle.

It seems to me unless you have 5 guys standing around you defending you - you are defenseless. It's called getting the crap knocked out of you while playing the game.

If we are going to this nonsense, let's just strap on the belts, attach the velcro flags and just play flag football.

This rule application is way too subjective and way too wide ranging in it's criteria to even be feasible. There are rules in place to protect the players, in my opinion this one is just not needed and is a real blight on the game. Now as a player you have to make a split second judgement as to "am I gonna hit this guy too hard ?" that may cost you making the tackle or block you need to make but don't because you have to hesitate or pull off.

JMHO but that's a CROCK….

 

[CowboyP]

I agree. This rule is needs to be clarified or trashed.

 

[High Plains Drifter]

Afraid you need to talk to the folks that believe in everyone getting a trophy and everyone gets to play. The intent of the rule to protect players who are either in a position that they are unable to protect themselves ( a receiver stretched out) or folks who are clearly away from the play ( kid ambling down following the play and gets lit up). It is supposed to prevent injury, does it? Cannot say. I have never had occasion to call it, but guess it is like they say, when you see one you will know it.

The was a player from a former state champion team whom I consider one of the meanest defensive players I ever coached against. He was involved in a "targeting a defensiveless player", the player was one of mine who was jogging along 30 yards behind the play and this cat got lit up like a Christmas tree. I was not too upset as figured he should have had his eyes and head on a swivel. I often kid this young man about the incident and his reply has been and still is, if you do not want him hit, put a dress on him.

Just sayin

 

[justobserving]

Afraid you need to talk to the folks that believe in everyone getting a trophy and everyone gets to play. The intent of the rule to protect players who are either in a position that they are unable to protect themselves ( a receiver stretched out) or folks who are clearly away from the play ( kid ambling down following the play and gets lit up). It is supposed to prevent injury, does it? Cannot say. I have never had occasion to call it, but guess it is like they say, when you see one you will know it.

The was a player from a former state champion team whom I consider one of the meanest defensive players I ever coached against. He was involved in a "targeting a defensiveless player", the player was one of mine who was jogging along 30 yards behind the play and this cat got lit up like a Christmas tree. I was not too upset as figured he should have had his eyes and head on a swivel. I often kid this young man about the incident and his reply has been and still is, if you do not want him hit, put a dress on him.

Just sayin

This is my point. Aren't there rules and guidelines already in place for instances like the one you point out above ? It could just be called a flagrant personal foul - unnecessary roughness I believe it use to be called.

This rule just seems to be a catch all for an official who just "feels like" the hit was wrong and it gives him an avenue to make the call. I don't want officials making calls on what gives them a clear conscience or helps support their feeling that "that hit was just too hard and in my opinion was not necessary".

This is gonna be a booger over the years in the controversial calls that are gonna be made and you won't really have any definitive guidelines to make an argument one way or the other….

It seems the rule is actually 2 rules. Hitter can't target with the opponent with the crown of the head gear or cannot hit the opponent in the head or neck area. Like I asked above, aren't there rules that already cover these situations?

In the 4 calls I have seen neither of these conditions applied. It just seems the went on the official just made his call on the perceived severity or danger presented by the hit.

 

[ZeroRisk]

Sadly, I think you are right about the rule being a "catch-all" provision that allows for us to flag plays with particularly viscious hits against players in positions where they cannot brace themselves for the hit or otherwise react to the two-ton train that is about to run over them.

In the instances where we have flagged players in situations that would fall under the "defenseless player" doctrine, we have penalized them for the "other" rule that applies to the exact same situation -- i.e. unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer, leading with the crown of the helmet, etc.

I can't remember of a situation where I have needed to flag a player for a hit and couldn't justify it by one of the existing rules other than "defenseless player."

 

[justobserving]

Sadly, I think you are right about the rule being a "catch-all" provision that allows for us to flag plays with particularly viscious hits against players in positions where they cannot brace themselves for the hit or otherwise react to the two-ton train that is about to run over them.

In the instances where we have flagged players in situations that would fall under the "defenseless player" doctrine, we have penalized them for the "other" rule that applies to the exact same situation -- i.e. unnecessary roughness, roughing the passer, leading with the crown of the helmet, etc.

I can't remember of a situation where I have needed to flag a player for a hit and couldn't justify it by one of the existing rules other than "defenseless player."

As an active member of the officiating community what is the recourse to this ? Can the officials contact the governing bodies and request the rule rescinded ? I don't think that the UIL has to follow the NCAA lead to the letter and they do have the option to modify or not include a rule in the state rules. What is the coaches avenue in voicing their opinion on this ?

Any coaches out there that have an opinion they would share ?

 

[Howdy_85]

As a guy who wears stripes on Fridays, I can tell you that we do not make the rules - coaches do. If coaches want the rules changed, they need to contact their rule-making committees.

As far as this foul is concerned, it seems pretty simple. Yes, it can be a judgment call. Typically, I follow "Stripes" approach -most of the fouls are covered by another rule. For example, the cheap shot 20-30 yards behind a play is, quite simply just that - a cheap shot. That's covered under UNR or other rules. Most coaches don't want a player injured, whether it's on their team or the other and don't coach that way.

Finally, I'll just say this: if a coach supports the blatant attempt to injure an opposing player (which that "earhole" shot is), then that coach needs to question whether or not he's in the right profession. Sportsmanship is a fading virtue.

 

[ZeroRisk]

Agree completely with Howdy.

As far as changes the rules, there are two governing bodies that make the rules what they are.

1. The NCAA writes the official rules.

2. The UIL carves out official exceptions to those Rules.

As officials, we don't have any pull with either organization. The UIL is make up of superintendents, so coaches are far more in the know and have the pull when it comes to the governing body that can work with the rules that the officials. We do our best to interpret them and call them as best we can, but we don't have a dog in the fight when it comes to writing the rules.

 

[david9h]

You guys saying "Put a dress on them" and "Just strap on the velcro and call it flag football" scare the crap out of me. What size dress do you think Daryl Stingley should wear? You want to put his flag on the front of his wheelchair or the back?

What if it's your kid lying motionless on the ground after he was "lit up like a christmas tree" or hit so hard "it sounded like a shotgun going off." What are you going to tell him, "Hey son, should have had your head on a swivel."

It's a game played by kids who should be playing for fun and learning the value of teamwork and sportsmanship. Rough sport - yes. Violent - shouldn't be.

The bloodthirsty "fans" who yearn for the knockout hit, the killshot, the "separate his head from his shoulders" need to find a baby seal to club or a good old fashioned cock fight.

Scary!

 

[CowboyP]

I have seen my son deliver hits that "sounded like a shotgun going off". I have also seen him get lit up like a Christmas tree. It's part of the game. I don't like seeing a kid get hurt, but I also don't want to see football turned into a no-contact sport. IMO, if you're scared your kid will get hurt, you should have them play baseball or soccer instead of football.

 

[david9h]

I don't disagree hard hits are part of the game. My son has taken and delivered hard hits, too. I believe in the tackling theory that a player ought to "get there in a hurry and be mad when he gets there." That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about situations where player safety is threatened. I think there are situations where a player is defenseless and, as such, should have some measure of protection. I've seen coaches coach and players play with the intent to injure rather than block or tackle. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's what the game is about. Whether you call it the defenseless player rule, unsportsmanlike contact, roughing the passer or whatever is really immaterial.

Football is in no danger of becoming a non-contact sport. 99% of the plays in a game are clean, hard and physical. Ear-holing a QB whose wrapped up by the ankles, decapitating a receiver whose left his feet just because you have a clean shot, decleating a player whose trailing a play by 20 yards or targeting a player's knees has no place in the sport.

My child's safety and welfare is my primary concern. It always will be. The day I stop worrying about his safety and welfare will be the day I consider myself unfit to be a parent.

The next time you see a former football player sitting in a wheelchair or lying in a bed feeding himself from a tube, give him your cute little advice about playing soccer or tennis. Go ahead and ask for his dress size while you're at it!

JMHO

 

[justobserving]

You guys saying "Put a dress on them" and "Just strap on the velcro and call it flag football" scare the crap out of me. What size dress do you think Daryl Stingley should wear? You want to put his flag on the front of his wheelchair or the back?

What if it's your kid lying motionless on the ground after he was "lit up like a christmas tree" or hit so hard "it sounded like a shotgun going off." What are you going to tell him, "Hey son, should have had your head on a swivel."

It's a game played by kids who should be playing for fun and learning the value of teamwork and sportsmanship. Rough sport - yes. Violent - shouldn't be.

The bloodthirsty "fans" who yearn for the knockout hit, the killshot, the "separate his head from his shoulders" need to find a baby seal to club or a good old fashioned cock fight.

Scary!

These expressions are part of the game and describing the game. Participants get injured in all myriad of sport and sports related injuries. Certain games present certain risks - just a fact. If you do not want to have you or yours at risk it is your or your choice for yours not to participate.

Yes it is a game. Yes it is a game for fun. Yes it is a game where you strive to be victorious ( sorry the guy that scores less points loses ). It a game that teaches perseverance, tolerance for adversity and purpose to an end within the rules.

I was a participant, coach and father of athletic participants. Never would wish that anyone get injured, would not want mine injured and would never encourage anyone to injure anyone.

You mss the whole point of the discussion. Rules are already in place to protect the participants - this rule seems to be a rule to do just what we have done in every other walk of our society, make one more rule that overrules other rules so the other rules don't have to apply. You won't need to apply the existing rules just find an excuse to use the catch all rule.

No one wishes their child or athlete to be lying motionless on ground after being hit in football game, tripped in a soccer game, undercut making a shot in BB game, slammed to the mat in a wrestling match or even being slapped up beside the head with a hockey stick or many other situations. That is ludicrous thought to even consider one would not be upset be such a situation.

Football is CONTACT sport. CONTACT within the rules. Football is a violent sport simply by it's nature. It is a controlled violence and disciplined violence. If you take the intensity from the game you destroy the game at a competitive level. IMHO

Baby seals and cocks have no choice and no way to protect themselves - that is a moot and non applicable comparison. Football players are trained and train for the situations they are exposed to and do have some responsibility to take care of themselves.

On the other hand - the guy why cut blocked the Houston Texans linebacker should be banned from the game for life.

 

[david9h]

We're probably more in agreement than you think. I use sarcasm and hyperbole as a defense mechanism when I get my hackles up.

I get your point. My point is that whatever you call the penalty, cheap shots are cheap shots. And anyone who justifies a cheap shot with "it's part of the game" is just plain wrong...and still a little bit scary.

 

[loveofgame]

David, I agree with you to a point, and to a point I don't. At NO TIME while on the football field should you NOT be expecting to get hit, never. THAT's the safety concern. However, there is a difference between getting out there and being mean and trying to hurt somebody. The only real thing that bother's me is clipping and helmet to helmet hits. I've seen way too many fouls called on what most call "crack backs" lately, and it's really annoying, it's a perfectly legal and makes the "shotgun" sound you speak of however, it's no worse than a really good monster RB running over a Linebacker.

 

[Dawgville3]

David9h I can so agree with you...I was at a game this pass Friday my son was running the ball he was gang tackled and I could hear someone from the other side yelling snap his head off.... Football is a contact sport,injuries occur but as a parent to hear someone saying that about your child is frightening.... And I want the refs and coaches to do their job in keeping these players safe....Their young lives can be changed in an instant...Its hard to enjoy the game when you know the other team is gunning for your child because he is the glue.... Play the game fair,if you win.... you win....If you lose...you lose...

 

[bulldawgs]

I think the conversation veered way off topic. What was originally described was a receiver that is going for the ball and a defender making a big hit on him. Not a helmet to helmet hit but a big time crushing hit. On any pass play, it is the defenders responsibility to not let a receiver make the catch. You either make a play on the ball or you make a play on the receiver if you cant get to the ball. If you make it on the receiver, you have to hit him hard enough that he does not make the catch. Again it is tackle football. This is not a cheap shot nor is it dirty. In fact if anyone wants to complain about a coach, they may want to complain about the offensive coach who should be coaching his quarterback on what passes shouldn't be thrown. I have seen too many games where a middle linebacker is playing zone and the coach will call a pass where the receiver is supposed to make the catch as he comes across the middle. Yes the receiver is going to get blown up. No it is not the defense's fault. Now as far as the cheap shots away from the play, going for the head or going for a players knees.. I think those should be called without question.