T1B

So I'm watching the Stanford-Oregon St game, and once again Stanford receiver Chris Owusu gets knocked out from a hit to the head. The same thing happened to him last week vs USC.

Here's the question: If the defender leads with his shoulder towards the receiver's shoulder, only to have the receiver suddenly drop lower, thereby bringing his head in line with the defender's shoulder, should that be a defensive penalty? If so, what does the NCAA expect the defender to do? Is tackling via wrapping up rather than knocking down an opponent a defender's only recourse?

That was never how the game has been played, much less officiated, yet it seems that that is what we're coming to.

all I know is that there are too many flags thrown for what initially looked like helmet to helmet contact but after watching replay you see it was the shoulder, not the helmet.

Van wrote:So I'm watching the Stanford-Oregon St game, and once again Stanford receiver Chris Owusu gets knocked out from a hit to the head. The same thing happened to him last week vs USC.

Here's the question: If the defender leads with his shoulder towards the receiver's shoulder, only to have the receiver suddenly drop lower, thereby bringing his head in line with the defender's shoulder, should that be a defensive penalty? If so, what does the NCAA expect the defender to do? Is tackling via wrapping up rather than knocking down an opponent a defender's only recourse?

That was never how the game has been played, much less officiated, yet it seems that that is what we're coming to.

They dont call penalties on those hits in the SEC, the Pacs refs neuter the defense and then you have to hear how nobody hits in the Pac.

Whats worse is McDonald was suspended for making that hit, he hasnt hit anyone with his helmet all year, nothing but good hard hits, not even targeting players heads. Now he is tainted as refs are looking to flag him every time he hits someone and he is second guessing himself out on the field wondering if he should play the game the way a db should play the game.

The first thing they teach you in JAAF is to get your pad level down. We build pvc tunnels for players to duck under the first few weeks of hitting starting at 7 years old to teach the ball carrier and the hitter to drop their shoulders and get low. Now the Pacs worthless, shitty refs are flagging kids for what they have been trained to do. just because a player gets knocked on his ass doesnt mean the hit was dirty, it is only illegal when you lead with the crown of your helmet and if a 5-9 guy is dropping his pad level how is a 6-3 guy going to get lower without leaving his feet or giving up his leverage?

the Pac needs to fire their entire Ref crew and hire assholes who have played, coached and understand the game.

Owusu is just a big softie with a mush head

My main issue is with those plays where the defender clearly wasn't head-hunting. He's going for a standard, legal hit, leading with his shoulder, when suddenly the offensive player dips low after the defender has already committed himself. In the case of today's hit the defender never even left his feet. It was a perfectly normal shoulder-to-shoulder hit, right up until the point where the receiver dipped low. There was nothing the defender could do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QR5XJJodR0

TJ hits him in the chest, Owusu had no leverage and it was the ground hitting the back of the helmet that rings his bell.
Also, watch Stanfords center tackle USC MLB Chris Galipo before Luck gets rid of the ball

That bad call costs USC the game as without Stanford is facing 4th and 6 and kicking the ball back to the Trojans with 2 minutes to go and down by 7. The Pac officials were trying to protect Stanford and Luck, Stanford as a BCS contender and Luck as a Heisman hopeful. Kiffin mentions the motive and is hit with a fine by Larry Scott who frankly needs to get the hell away from the Pac as he has done nothing but screw USC since getting there.


What is baffling is that Owusu got his bell rung last Saturday, you are supposed to wait 10 days after the last symptom of a concussion before facing contact again and 6 days later he gets a worse concussion and has to be carried off the field, that is on Stanford's training staff. you didnt see the players from USC who got concussions playing vs Colorado and USC only took 51 scholarshipped players to Boulder.

That one was at least iffy since TJ left his feet to make the hit. Clearly, though, he did not lead with his helmet. The clip even shows him trying to pull his head out of the way. Like Musberger kept saying, TJ was really unlucky there. When he left his feet, he was targeting a shoulder-to-chest hit.

Today's hit in the Stanford game was nothing like that one. The Oregon St defender never left his feet. He simply lowered his shoulder and tried to knock Owusu down. Had Owusu not dropped so far on his own at the last second, it would've been a routine tackle.

There were plenty of horrible calls in that game, going both ways. The Pac12 officials are horrible all around.

The call on Owusu was bullshit, admittedly. There was a hit on Luck a little later, where they guy let with the top of his helmet up under Luck's chin, that was a lot more callable. Luck got right up though.

Mikey, I don't know whether that call was bullshit so much as maybe the rule requiring the call is bullshit. I think they had to make that call since the defender did end up hitting Owusu in the head. It wasn't the defender's fault, though, which is why I'm asking the refs here about the rule. How is it supposed to be applied? Is the idea to make the defender guilty under any circumstance, or do the refs have some leeway to go with a no-call when the intent of the defender was clearly to make a legal hit?

I guess technically it was a penalty, but there should be some room for intent. The guy was obviously not going for the head shot.

Hopefully Lefty will provide an answer.

Mikey wrote:I guess technically it was a penalty, but there should be some room for intent. The guy was obviously not going for the head shot.

Yet Scott suspended him for making that hit.
Larry Scott is the problem, to kill a snake you cut its head off. Scott needs to step down as Pac commissioner or USC needs to leave the conference and go independent

SoCalTrjn wrote:Scott needs to step down as Pac commissioner or USC needs to leave the conference and go independent

You may just be the dumbest motherfucker alive today. Even before the sanctions SC going indy would have been idiocy.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Mikey wrote:I guess technically it was a penalty, but there should be some room for intent. The guy was obviously not going for the head shot.

Yet Scott suspended him for making that hit.
Larry Scott is the problem, to kill a snake you cut its head off. Scott needs to step down as Pac commissioner or USC needs to leave the conference and go independent

Actually, I was referring to the hit in the OSU game. Believe it or not, it's not all about USC. In fact, any penalty they assess against USC is too light - by definition.

First off I have not seen the hit in the Oregon State vs Stanford game. If someone has a link to it I will be happy to review it.

In the very front of the NCAA rule book there is a section called Points of Emphasis. The first point is Protection of defenseless players and crown of helmet action. This lays out in detail what we as officials should be looking at. Of course SoCal is totally incorrect in this statement:

Homer who quit on his team wrote:it is only illegal when you lead with the crown of your helmet

As usual he couldn't be more incorrect. In 2008 the committee introduced separate rules prohibiting initiating contact with the helmet and targeting a defenseless opponent. These are not the same thing. Two totally different rules. We all understand leading with the crown of the helmet, but not everyone understands the defenseless player. You can be flagged for a personal foul for targeting a defenseless player even if you don't hit him in the head, or the neck or even leave your feet. Part of the confusion is the word targeting. TV people are using it as if it is some official term, it isn't. Targeting doesn't even appear in the index to the rules.

Now the POE's themselves are not rules, but areas officials should take note of. So we have to go to the actual rules to see what is and isn't a foul. In rule 9 Section 1 which covers personal fouls in article 3 we have this:

Targeting/Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question it is a foul.

Again we all understand this rule, even SoCal.

If we turn the page to rule 9 Section 1 article 4 we have this:

Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question it is a foul.

But what does a defenseless player mean exactly you ask? Well rule 2 is all definitions so if we look there we find Section 27 Article 14:

Defenseless Player
A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless players are:

a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking the ball.
d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.
e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.
f. A player obviously out of the play.

The only other area we need to address is what exactly is the head or neck area. This is not defined in detail in the rule book but it has been told to us that it is anything at the top of the numbers or above.

So given all of that let's look at the only clip that has been tagged in this thread. The Stanford receiver is looking back for the ball and is focused on making the catch. The USC defender leads with his shoulder and makes contact with the Stanford receiver above the numbers. So this is clearly not foul under Rule 9, Section 1, Article 3 because the crown of the helmet wasn't involved. Now lets look at if from Rule 9, Section 1, Article 4. We have contact above the numbers against a receiver that meets the criteria for being defenseless and the contact was with the shoulder which is prohibited.

So again SoCal is totally wrong and this hit is illegal by rule 9-1-4. Notice how both of the officials in that area throw their flags.

War Wagon wrote:all I know is that there are too many flags thrown for what initially looked like helmet to helmet contact but after watching replay you see it was the shoulder, not the helmet.

Hope the above clears that up, it doesn't have to be helmet to helmet.

Mikey wrote:I guess technically it was a penalty, but there should be some room for intent. The guy was obviously not going for the head shot.

Intent doesn't make it into the rule book. The defender has to make sure he doesn't make contact above the numbers with head, shoulder, elbow, forearm, etc. Hell, even if the defender wants to leave his feet he can but just fit it into the above criteria.

Van I hope this all answers your questions too. Shoulder to shoulder is still illegal if it is on a defenseless player.

The first thing they teach you in JAAF is to get your pad level down. We build pvc tunnels for players to duck under the first few weeks of hitting starting at 7 years old to teach the ball carrier and the hitter to drop their shoulders and get low. Now the Pacs worthless, shitty refs are flagging kids for what they have been trained to do.

The fact that you don't understand the rule and are teaching players incorrectly is hardly the officials fault. Sounds like the local association should require a test of their coaches knowledge of the rules before they allow you to "teach" players anything.

Two questions, Lefty...

Left Seater wrote:Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question it is a foul.

This one gets right to the heart of my original question posed in this thread: What if the defender clearly was not targeting a blow to the head or neck area of his opponent? If the defender is in the process of making a perfectly legal hit to the body, only to have the receiver suddenly fall to such a point that the already-committed defender's shoulder makes contact with him above the letters, must that still be flagged as an illegal hit? Does a ref have any leeway to keep his flag in his pocket if in his determination it was the receiver's slipping and falling and not any intent of the defender that caused the contact above the letters?

Next...

But what does a defenseless player mean exactly you ask? Well rule 2 is all definitions so if we look there we find Section 27 Article 14:

Defenseless Player
A defenseless player is one who because his physical position and focus of concentration is especially vulnerable to injury. Examples of defenseless players are:

a. A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.

Shoulder to shoulder is still illegal if it is on a defenseless player.

Now how can that be? Hitting a QB in the shoulder with your own shoulder as he's throwing a pass is illegal? We see that every game. It's practically the goal of every blitzer. For that matter, attempting to knock the ball loose from a receiver by drilling him in the shoulder with one's own shoulder as he's trying to catch a pass is Job One of every DB in football, and we see it a hundred times per weekend. How can either of those be considered fouls? Clear shoulder-to-shoulder contact in the middle of a bang-bang play never gets flagged.

Van wrote:Two questions, Lefty...

my original question posed in this thread: What if the defender clearly was not targeting a blow to the head or neck area of his opponent? If the defender is in the process of making a perfectly legal hit to the body, only to have the receiver suddenly fall to such a point that the already-committed defender's shoulder makes contact with him above the letters, must that still be flagged as an illegal hit? Does a ref have any leeway to keep his flag in his pocket if in his determination it was the receiver's slipping and falling and not any intent of the defender that caused the contact above the letters?

Yes it must be called. The ref has no leeway to not throw the flag. The rules spell out exactly where we can wave off fouls, an uncatchable pass and DPI for example.

Next...

Now how can that be? Hitting a QB in the shoulder with your own shoulder as he's throwing a pass is illegal? We see that every game.

We don't see that every game. I have seen only two shoulder to shoulder hits on a QB this season. Most defensive guys are going after either the ball or they are putting their facemask in the middle of the QB's numbers while wrapping up and driving him to the ground.

For that matter, attempting to knock the ball loose from a receiver by drilling him in the shoulder with one's own shoulder as he's trying to catch a pass is Job One of every DB in football, and we see it a hundred times per weekend. How can either of those be considered fouls? Clear shoulder-to-shoulder contact in the middle of a bang-bang play never gets flagged.

Read the rule, as we saw in that USC clip it is a shoulder to shoulder hit on a defenseless player. Therefore it was flagged. They are considered fouls because the coaches recently changed the rules. Players used to be able to block below the waist on kick plays or fumble or INT returns. No more. Offensive holding behind the LOS used to be a spot foul, no more. The rules are always evolving because the coaches are always changing them.

Lefty, in the case of the USC hit I think the ref mistakenly felt that the receiver got clocked in the head, not the shoulder. That happens quite often, and it's not until we see the replay in slo-mo that we discover the guy wasn't actually hit in the head. Also, doesn't that hit seem to fall more easily into a flaggable situation simply because it was arguably late and a bit excessive?

Anyway, I'm referring more to a hit where sole responsibility for above-the-numbers contact lies with the receiver who simply slipped and fell, thus creating a situation beyond the defender's control. You're saying the ref has to flag it even under those circumstances, though.

That's a stupid rule, but okay, if that's how it is, then that's how it is. Thanks.

If the offensive player drops his pad level after the defensive player has committed to making the hit, any ref who calls that is a cunt and deserves to be sodomized with a red hot piece of rebar attached to a jack hammer. The only defenseless player on the field is a kicker/punter who is making the kick. Call shots to the guys head or hitting with the crown of the helmet, in a sport where players are moving at that speed and are already standing at various heights you can not call a player for hitting with their shoulder, it is ridiculous and over regulation.
The reason 2 refs threw their flags on that McDonald hit is because Stanford is being protected by the conference as they are the lone team with a BCS Title game shot. SEC refs keep their flags in their pockets because that conference isnt concerned with neutering the defensive play.

Lefty, please do not confuse him with me.

Again, thanks.

Van,

It is always tough to talk about what ifs or hypothetical situations. There isn't much wiggle room in the call especially with the part that says if in doubt it is a foul. The intent is to reduce head injuries that are on the rise in college football because players are bigger, faster, stronger, and the equipment is so advanced. A hit like that one in the USC clip could some day kill a player from brain trauma. We don't make the rules we just enforce them.

Why am I not surprised that SC goes to the sodomy card. Guy just doesn't get it and his view is the only acceptable one in his world. Could you imagine his poor wife or kids?

Lefty, you gave me the answer I was seeking by telling us that no, refs don't have any leeway to gauge intent, not even in the case of a receiver simply falling and dropping his head. Right or wrong, it's a flag, period. That's all I was trying to find out.

Cool. Next time lets tackle something easier like man in motion blocking below the waist towards the original position of the ball.