A defense of NFL refs
The new rules are not nearly as widespread as people seem to think.
A defense of NFL refs
Rich Hofmann, Daily News Sports Columnist
It is a lonely burden, but it is the life I have chosen.
I am here to defend NFL officials.
Whether or not you like the way the hit on Indianapolis' Austin Collie was officiated on Sunday -- and I happen to think Collie was not defenseless when he was pinballed and concussed by Quintin Mikell and then Kurt Coleman -- everybody needs to stop yelling and complaining and talking about flag football and players wearing dresses. This new rule isn't that bad, and the referees are just doing what their bosses want and what the rulebook says they should do.
Read the book sometimes. Read Page 83, which contains the end of the section on unnecessary roughness. Read the final line of that section, which is included in italics:
Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.
That line is right there in the book. That line is why the flag was thrown on Sunday. And in a sport where everybody in their heart is really worried that somebody is going to get killed if they don't find a way to tone it down, how can that be wrong?
Now, to the specific rule. You've never been allowed to use your helmet as a weapon. As the book states, it is unnecessary roughness:
If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures...
What that paragraph means is that, unless you are doing some really egregious head-hunting -- and we all know what that looks like, and anybody who doesn't want to take that out of the game is an imbecile -- they're really not going to call it in the overwhelming majority of situations. A running back or a receiver streaking down the field with the ball gets no protection. As long as you're not a total idiot about it, you can pretty much hit him with anything and get away with it.
The only people who get protection are quarterbacks who are throwing or just released the ball, a player already on the ground at the end of the play, a player fielding a kick or punt in the air, a running back who has already been stopped and is essentially being held up by a defender as a target/pinata, and a defenseless receiver.
The only thing new is the defintion of a defenseless receiver. Yes, it is a little bit tricky -- but we're talking about a pretty small percentage of plays in a game where it is an issue. This is not the wussification of football. It is a couple of plays a game. And here is what you can't do to a defenseless receiver: you can't launch into him and hit him in the head or neck with any part of your body, even if you start by hitting him in the chest or shouder and then the helmet slides up; you can't make head-to-head contact; and you can't lower your head and hit him anywhere on his body with your helmet.
Even if he is defenseless -- which means he hasn't yet had the opportunity to protect himself, which can be a close call (see: Collie) -- you can hit him with your shoulder on his torso. You can tackle him with your arms. You do not, as some people have suggested, have to stand there and watch him run away from you before you can hit him. That isn't the rule and that isn't how the rule is being called.
You just can't hit him with your helmet when the player is defenseless. And you can't launch and hit him in the head with any part of your body.
Again, it is a small percentage of plays. This isn't about a running back lowering his shoulder and, because of that lowering, finding himself getting hit in the head by a tackler. That running back has no protection except in the most egregious circumstances. This isn't about incidental clashing of heads, which is permitted during a legal tackle. This is simply about the need for defensive players to aim a little bit lower on defenseless receivers, and lead with their shoulders and not their heads.
Again, I don't think Collie was defenseless after seeing the replay a couple of times -- but it was close, and he did end up getting hit in the head by Coleman, and both the emphasis of the league office and the rulebook are clear: if in doubt, throw the flag.
What is the alternative? What until the concussion data becomes so overwhelming that Congress steps in? Wait until somebody dies, God forbid?
The game needs to head in this direction. So don't blame the officials -- they are merely the instruments of a policy that absolutely needs to be implemented, however imperfectly. Because the alternative is no longer acceptable.
VOTE: Eagles midterm report card
I agree that we don't blame the officials. The league office tried to change too much in the season for anyone, officials or players, to absorb. What they really need is a redesign of the rock hard helmets. That way when someone gets inadvertantly hit in the head, as in the plays with Coleman and Cole, no real damage is done.- The only thing i do not like about the new enforcement is the overemphasis. It was only one play, but it could have cost the Eagles the game. The referees are scared to not call it, then have the player get fined and look bad. It's not the refs fault, but it's just a sucky situation.— sasquatches
put foam on the outside of the helmets to absorb shock- I think if they are changing the enforcement mid season, they need to make it subject to review. Every one agrees it is a bang bang play, so slow it down. It was clear, at least to me that Collie caught the ball in real time. In slow motion it is perfectly clear 1 step, 2 steps, he tucks, step three and he is hit by Mikell, then into Coleman, the ball comes free, Collie then hits the ground.
It isn't good for the NFL when there is more talk about officiating than the game itself. Help the referees make the right call, a 15 yard personal foul is huge, especially on plays that happen down field.
If the NFL really cared about its players it would mandate newer helmets be worn by all players and it would also require that leg pads be worn. Sure pad slows down the players that is part of the solution. It also extends collision time when contract is made with the pad creating a less violent impact. Sort of like "soft walls" in Nascar. Come on NFL use your head for physics instead of tackling.— pking222 - -pking222: Good point - USE REPLAY!!!!! — dennis27
- First of all Collie got the concusion when he whacked his head on the ground not because of the hit...My main problem was that horrible call on Trent Cole. Seriously, 15 yard penalty, which could have cost the Eagles the game, all because he grazed the Chosen One's helmet? Weird, I could have sworn the refs were trying to give that game to the Colts.— EaglesBleedMoney
- The only thing (aside from trying to do this mid-season) that I have a real issue with is the "when in any doubt, throw the flag" part. Changing anyone's ingrained behavior is not easy. If you want it to actually work, you have to do it the right way. Throwing in the 'when in doubt' clause is doing it the half-assed way by trying to absolve officials of the burden of actually getting the call right. You tell players not to lead with the head. You tell them not to aim for the head. You tell them not to hit a defenseless receiver. Mikell and Coleman followed all those rules and they still got flagged. How does this provide them an incentive to hit legally the next time? Maybe they're safety-concious enough that they will just stop hitting altogether in that situation, I guess. Is that what we want football to be? Is that really what the players want football to be (DeSean Jackson - who has every incentive to want that - didn't seem to)? Even if you do think that's a good scenario there's no guarantee you get that result. You know there is a certain faction of players out there who will think "Well if I'm going to get flagged regardless, then I'm really going to make this count". I'm fine with them cracking down on overly violent hits. But I think they're undercutting their own efforts by telling the officials that they are under no obligation to call the game properly. Although, admittedly, the alternative is that you make their jobs considerably harder. Which is why it's really not a good idea to do this mid-season.— dennis27
- Agreed - while waiting for my post to post...you cant use penalties to deter conduct when there is no intent in the first place. — jamesiri
- It was a completed pass, the receiver took steps after the catch and protected the ball before he was hit, the receivers helmit made the contact when he was tackled not the other way around, anyone who watches the replay can clearly see that. I have no problem protecting the players, but, when a call is made like that it should automatically be reviewed. aparently the refs reviewed it after the game and then said it was an incomplete pass! Really now, I guess the refs don't mind looking like idiots, just sayin'...— DJ
- Hofman is wrong. He claims that erring on the side of the flag is a deterrent to death or serious injury. But penalties cant be a deterrent if there is no intent in the first place. Flags are throw after the event, not before, so the only consideration should be to set the rules and get the call right.— jamesiri
The problem is that Refs have no accountability. There is no appeal process to speak of. Only a limited set of calls can even be challenged. Any player or coach who criticises a call is fined severely for the offense. Refs become arrogant and dictatorial without checks and balances.— Pelti
Comment removed.- The refs do have some accountability we just can't see their ratings. The best refs work the playoffs and I hope Carl Cheffers and friends don't see any post season work.
Help the refs, use replay so they can make the right call instead of throwing the flag every time there a receiver takes a hit. It also gives the NFL another delay to show a commercial. Thats big bucks to the league. The league could take that money and make the officials full time. If the players are faster shouldn't the refs get faster too. Pay them to work out 3 x a day during the season. I would love ESPN to have an officials combine. (joke).
Lastly, soft helmets would create friction and result in more neck injuries.— pking222 - They should go back to leather helmets and pads....if hitting someone also hurt you when you did it....you would be more cautious in trying to hit someone hard.....whatever happened to wrapping up like youre taught in pee wee....make the hit and wrap up instead of just trying to crush someone and these calls and more importantly, injuries wouldnt happen as often.— dennis14
- Comment removed.
- For all the money they make, just like crabbing in the North Sea, it's worth the risk. Chances are nothing is going to happen, so why fret about it?— mccloudmj
- Rich, NFL officials already seem among the worst in professional sports. Now, this new layer of interpretation is straining their inherently low skills. Sometimes watching NFL refs is like watching WWE refs.— Bob1
- -CRichards: Of course no one wants to see anyone get hurt. And most of us understand what the league is *trying* to do. But at some point, there has to be a realization that football is inherently dangerous to some degree. The only way to make football 100% safe is to not play it. You can try to make the game as safe as you can - again, I'm not against regulating out the unnecessarily vicious hit made for the sake of a guy trying to get himself on SportsCenter. But as well as not getting people hurt, we'd also like to see the calls get made properly. Incidental contact can't be regulated out of the game. That's absurd.
And of course calls have to be made in the blink of an eye. But that's true of just about every call - not just personal fouls. If a ref makes an egregiously bad holding call, do you normally just sit there and say "That's OK, that ref has a tough job. He has to make that call in a split second" or are you upset about it?— dennis27 - Comment removed.
- I agree that the players need to be protected somehow, and that we shouldn't blame the refs for enforcing the rules as they are written, BUT we should blame the refs for enforcing them in a one-sided manner. Manning gets an incidental glancing tap on the helmet that wouldn't have broken an egg, and the Eagles almost lost as a result, yet Vick is slammed to the ground after a throw and no flag?! Collie gets hammered on a clean hard hit three steps after a catch when he has clearly braced for impact, yet the Eagles lose what should have been a fumble recovery and get penalized to boot, yet when a Colt intentionally head butts Jackson, who has just returned from a concussion, the result is off-setting penalties?! Come on!! The officiating was extremely one-sided, and that's something for which we can blame the refs. They can err on the side of caution, just not always in one direction.— elvispes
- While the NFL should perhaps be commended for addressing this issue (one wonders why it's taken this long), their "solution" is nothing more than a poorly conceived band-aid. While thyen league is trying to eliminate egregious fouls (by making them all egregious?), it does absolutely nothing to address the issue of head injuries that occur during the normal course of play (e.g. Kevin Kolb's injury against Green Bay)— PJB42
- Pelti, that is the problem, when is the league going to start fining the refs for making bad calls they should be held accountable for making bad judgement calls which in this case almost cost the Eagles the game. And, it's not just in football it's every major league sport, look what happened to the pitcher this year that should have had a perfect game and the ump blew the call, later admitted he blew the call and said "I'm sorry", "I'm sorry" this guy should have gone down in the records books and you screwed up. Well I'm sorry too, if you want the players to be held accountable for "bad" contact then the people who are judging need to be held accountable as well. Three steps he becomes a runner no longer a receiver, and the rule then changes, the ref's should know that. Football is a contact sport, for now. I also don't hear anyone screaming about the violence in Ice Hockey, they actually have fist fights and it's okay.— annec
- I see some idiotic comments, and I see some well thought out, intelligent ones. The fact that the latter is more prevelent than the former DOES surprise me. But I'm thinking: Had that call cost us the game, the opposite would most certainly be true! The inadvertant swipe of Peyton's helmet by Cole on the 3rd-18 play (Actually, the flag that followed!) almost caused me to throw something at the flatscreen.....but I settled for a long string of heart-felt obsceneties screeched out while boiling at the thought that THIS was going to lose the freaking game for us! But thankfully, no. I think the zebras do a pretty good job as a matter of fact. And I have NEVER entertained any thought whatsoever that any NFL official would "throw" any game...EVER. There is no doubt whatsoever that each and every one of them are striving to be perfect with their duties. The job is hard enough as is without having to worry about an INSTANTANEOUS interpretation of certain types of hits, perhaps seen imperfectly, or blurred by wind, rain, dust, etc. The zebras are the poor schlubs caught in the middle really. They all KNOW the rule book frontwards and backwards. And now there comes added pressure from the Commissioner. And no real "hard and fast" rule, nothing black and white to consider....just an INTERPRETATION of something perhaps seen imperfectly, or partially obscured. Hooo BOY...sign me up for some of THAT! When you think about it, it's amazing that so MUCH of what they call is absolutely correct....congratulations to all of them.— TBear
We pay to see them bleed. They are modern day gladiators. We need looser refereeing, not tighter calls.
Let's face it....the game is dangerous and when played by Gods it is critically dangerous. I have no solution...I don't think anyone does. I see the NFL on the horns of a really serious dilemma. Imagine, God forbid, if there's a Stingley type incident.- Honestly, if the NFL is going to make player safety a priority, they should stop playing. These collisions are extremely violent, but the effects of less violent collisions also are detrimental to the long term health of the players and is affecting far more former players. The league is two-faced to continue these games under the premise that they are protecting the players with officiating adjustments.
That said, if they want to continue to make billions of dollars in exchange for admitting that it is a violent sport that has health consequences, the need to make use of readily available wireless technology. It would be fairly easy to put transmitters in every player’s helmet that sense when another helmet is in close range and then have both helmets emit mild magnetic signals with opposite polarity to lessen the blow of the ensuing collision. The helmets would in effect repel each other with low levels of magnetism. They could also put the same technology in the players’ gloves, which would have prevented T.Cole's hit on Manning on 4th down.
— blood_green - i agree whole-heartedly with eaglesbleedmoney that the cole hit was disgusting and an insult to those of us that ref games and take our craft seriously,....i've been reffing highschool since the CYO was around and take the craft seriously and that call on cole in that situation was an insult to quality officiating— SyddBarrett
- Yes, but they could also wear more protective heaadgear that is available, but they don't wear it because the "look" is too big...— M60tanker
