ChiefsPlanet - View Single Post - Chiefs What if the refs called a penalty on Sorensen

TEX · 01-18-2021, 12:59 PM

A fumble out of bounds, but is there a use-of-helmet foul
A pass to receiver Rashard Higgins ends with Higgins fumbling the ball at the 1 into the end zone. By rule, this is a touchback, which is a long-standing rule to reward the defense for successfully defending their goal.

The ball was jarred loose from a hit from Daniel Sorenson. Was this a legal hit?

At first, the "helmet to helmet" rule does not apply, because Higgins is not in a defenseless posture.The other rule is "use of the helmet" (or UOH) which requires the defender to lower the helmet to initiate contact. The word "to" is operative. The force of the blow must be delivered by contact lead from the top (crown) of the helmet, and the rule is to avoid the transfer of the blow by compressing the defender's spinal column. So, there must be a distinct lining up with the head and the eyes averted to the ground.
Sorenson does initiate the attack with his shoulder, and any shoulder-to-shoulder contact is going to involve helmet contact as well. Sorenson does lower and turn his helmet when contact is imminent, which gives the appearance of avoiding contact. There is simultaneous contact with the shoulder and helmet, so the question is how forcible is the head contact? Had the head not turned about a quarter second before contact, and there was a front-on attack that was helmet-to-helmet, there would not be a foul, but a more violent collision.

The UOH is independent of where the defender's helmet lands, so the fact that the contact is to Higgins' helmet is irrelevant.

There is a clear consensus from those who worked on the field that this is a UOH foul. There is also a clear consensus that an official watching the sideline and goal line in play cannot also be able to catch the UOH from the defender.

But the question is, are we allowing the replay to distort the time element? Was the initial or simultaneous contact from the shoulder, thereby reducing the forcible element of the head hit? Is there more contact from the emblem side of the helmet than the top?

So, we go back to the live play and make those determinations. In my estimation, when viewing the live play, it is not abundantly clear that we had a UOH call; it was only when the pylon camera angle his our screens that we moved off the touchback ruling and then into the UOH. There is no doubt that there was helmet contact in the play, but there are a lot of considerations that do not make it an automatic foul.

http://www.footballzebras.com/2021/0...wns-at-chiefs/

01-18-2021, 12:59 PM	#117
TEX Out Gunning CP's Fandom Police Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Galveston, TX Casino cash: $-1486873	A fumble out of bounds, but is there a use-of-helmet foul A pass to receiver Rashard Higgins ends with Higgins fumbling the ball at the 1 into the end zone. By rule, this is a touchback, which is a long-standing rule to reward the defense for successfully defending their goal. The ball was jarred loose from a hit from Daniel Sorenson. Was this a legal hit? At first, the "helmet to helmet" rule does not apply, because Higgins is not in a defenseless posture.The other rule is "use of the helmet" (or UOH) which requires the defender to lower the helmet to initiate contact. The word "to" is operative. The force of the blow must be delivered by contact lead from the top (crown) of the helmet, and the rule is to avoid the transfer of the blow by compressing the defender's spinal column. So, there must be a distinct lining up with the head and the eyes averted to the ground. Sorenson does initiate the attack with his shoulder, and any shoulder-to-shoulder contact is going to involve helmet contact as well. Sorenson does lower and turn his helmet when contact is imminent, which gives the appearance of avoiding contact. There is simultaneous contact with the shoulder and helmet, so the question is how forcible is the head contact? Had the head not turned about a quarter second before contact, and there was a front-on attack that was helmet-to-helmet, there would not be a foul, but a more violent collision. The UOH is independent of where the defender's helmet lands, so the fact that the contact is to Higgins' helmet is irrelevant. There is a clear consensus from those who worked on the field that this is a UOH foul. There is also a clear consensus that an official watching the sideline and goal line in play cannot also be able to catch the UOH from the defender. But the question is, are we allowing the replay to distort the time element? Was the initial or simultaneous contact from the shoulder, thereby reducing the forcible element of the head hit? Is there more contact from the emblem side of the helmet than the top? So, we go back to the live play and make those determinations. In my estimation, when viewing the live play, it is not abundantly clear that we had a UOH call; it was only when the pylon camera angle his our screens that we moved off the touchback ruling and then into the UOH. There is no doubt that there was helmet contact in the play, but there are a lot of considerations that do not make it an automatic foul. http://www.footballzebras.com/2021/0...wns-at-chiefs/ __________________ "Do we have time to run WASP?"
Posts: 37,113