Approved Rule Changes

[IndyBison]

To try to clarify this a bit, based on my understanding of what Indy has wrote.

If in the above photo, the defender stiff armed the runner from the front, basically pushing his head up and back without grasping a part of the helmet, and yanking it one direction or another, it would be a legal hit. (weather it would be called that way, the rules state it would be).

If the Runner grabs the face mask and yanks in a direction that would be a face mask call and illegal.

However, you almost never see defender stiff arms because its not an effective tackle technique. You see face masks because its and easy grab location and weather its intentional or not, its an effective take down.

So, by rules, its not a double standard - but due to the way the game is played and the most common occurances there in, it can seem that way.

Correct. A personal foul facemask can be called on either the offense or defense. It's most commonly done by the defense in an attempt to tackle the runner. But it can happen during a stiff arm or by a blocker. The stiff arm that results in a hands to the face usually happens by either offense or defense on the line during blocking. It's rare for a defender to do it to a runner, but if he did it would not be a foul. If it did happen it would likely be in response to reaching out to the runner as he's being stiff armed. You do see that occasionally.

It comes down to understanding the two related fouls - face mask and hands to the face. Both apply equally to offense and defense and the runner exception for hands to the face goes both ways.

[Bison Loaf]

Correct. A personal foul facemask can be called on either the offense or defense. It's most commonly done by the defense in an attempt to tackle the runner. But it can happen during a stiff arm or by a blocker. The stiff arm that results in a hands to the face usually happens by either offense or defense on the line during blocking. It's rare for a defender to do it to a runner, but if he did it would not be a foul. If it did happen it would likely be in response to reaching out to the runner as he's being stiff armed. You do see that occasionally.

It comes down to understanding the two related fouls - face mask and hands to the face. Both apply equally to offense and defense and the runner exception for hands to the face goes both ways.

In my opinion, it is almost impossible for a ball carrier to deliver a good stiff arm to the face (I'm saying "to the face" mind you) WITHOUT grabbing or hooking a piece of the facemask in some way, shape or form. And more times than not, the ball carrier is NOT penalized for just that - certainly (in my view) much less than a defender tackling up around the head and inadvertently grabbing the mask.

So that right there is the double standard that I think is being talked about here. I didn't take Izzy as talking about the specifics of the rules, I saw him as railing against the "double standard of the stiff arm" and it's application. In other words, the double standard of damn poor officiating...............and it's not just a one off here and there..............I believe it is systemic with regards to this situatuon.

I defy anyone to say that in Izzy's first photo, the defender's helmet isn't coming off due to the pressure applied to the bottom of the facemask. In my way of looking at things, that facemask is being yanked up and backwards - yes, admittedly not in the normal fashion of coming from behind and yanking up and backwards - but up and backwards, none-the-less. That should be a penalty, by rule, and by fairness, and the fact is, it is most often NOT called as such. A "double standard" due to misinterpretation and misapplication of the rules.

And this coming from a once-upon-a-time ball carrier.

[NorthernBison]

In my opinion, it is almost impossible for a ball carrier to deliver a good stiff arm to the face (I'm saying "to the face" mind you) WITHOUT grabbing or hooking a piece of the facemask in some way, shape or form. And more times than not, the ball carrier is NOT penalized for just that - certainly (in my view) much less than a defender tackling up around the head and inadvertently grabbing the mask.

So that right there is the double standard that I think is being talked about here. I didn't take Izzy as talking about the specifics of the rules, I saw him as railing against the "double standard of the stiff arm" and it's application. In other words, the double standard of damn poor officiating...............and it's not just a one off here and there..............I believe it is systemic with regards to this situatuon.

I defy anyone to say that in Izzy's first photo, the defender's helmet isn't coming off due to the pressure applied to the bottom of the facemask. In my way of looking at things, that facemask is being yanked up and backwards - yes, admittedly not in the normal fashion of coming from behind and yanking up and backwards - but up and backwards, none-the-less. That should be a penalty, by rule, and by fairness, and the fact is, it is most often NOT called as such. A "double standard" due to misinterpretation and misapplication of the rules.

And this coming from a once-upon-a-time ball carrier.

I disagree. An open hand to the facemask or helmet is just that. An open hand pushing the defender. I've seen ball carriers called when they GRAB the facemask. That's different. In the top picture, the hand is open and it looks like he PUSHED the helmet backwards. To yank it, you have to grab it. (That didn't sound good but I'm leaving it)

[Vet70]

And this coming from a once-upon-a-time ball carrier.

During all the conversations we have had you never mentioned you were a ball boy.

[Bison Loaf]

I disagree. An open hand to the facemask or helmet is just that. An open hand pushing the defender. I've seen ball carriers called when they GRAB the facemask. That's different. In the top picture, the hand is open and it looks like he PUSHED the helmet backwards. To yank it, you have to grab it. (That didn't sound good but I'm leaving it)

I can, at least, agree that you are interpreting it as most officials would.

I also note two additional things, however:


1. At that angle and at that direction, one doesn't have to actually GRAB the facemask to get it to go in an unsafe direction. I think that defies the intent of the rule. "Pushing" the facemask should apply here, IMHO.

2. Also, (per Indy) the rule states at the end of 9-1-8b: "When in question, it is a foul." Are we to believe that many of these situations are NEVER in question? Wouldn't the top picture, at the very least, cause an objective person to question the intent of the rule and it's application here? Not trying to pontificate, just asking the question.

[Bison Loaf]

During all the conversations we have had you never mentioned you were a ball boy.

And a male cheerleader. Why else the fixation on pom-poms?

[IndyBison]

If a runner pushes an opponents helmet off like that it's very possible an official could think it was grabbed and twisted and flag it. Depending on the quality of the video it may be supported. This is a pretty extreme example. It could just fall into unnecessary roughness but you would have to see more than a still picture. But by rule without grabbing and twisting it is not a facemask foul and because it's the runner it's not illegal hands to the face.

[Bison Loaf]

Ok, good discussion, gentlemen..........except you, Vet. I've made my case and leave it at the mercy of the court.

Peace and out, Loaf.

[NorthernBison]

I can, at least, agree that you are interpreting it as most officials would.

I also note two additional things, however:


1. At that angle and at that direction, one doesn't have to actually GRAB the facemask to get it to go in an unsafe direction. I think that defies the intent of the rule. "Pushing" the facemask should apply here, IMHO.

2. Also, (per Indy) the rule states at the end of 9-1-8b: "When in question, it is a foul." Are we to believe that many of these situations are NEVER in question? Wouldn't the top picture, at the very least, cause an objective person to question the intent of the rule and it's application here? Not trying to pontificate, just asking the question.

I think we are all well aware of the dangers of single frame pictures used to prove a point.

[TransAmBison]

I think we are all well aware of the dangers of single frame pictures used to prove a point.

Are you still talking about grabbing and yanking?