Where are my stripes.
- Thread starter godfthr53
- Start date
What he said! It seems its at their discretion. Lesson learned and just hope the kid is ok. It definitely wasn't intentional for anyone who think otherwise such as the staff who flipped their lid on the sidelines.
Last edited:
If deemed flagrant ejection is an option. I'd say it would have to be pretty obvious he was not trying to make a football play and just hurt someone for me to eject in a hs game. I'd also consider if a player has multiple incidents in a game to eject for both his safety and everyone else
Yes. Maybe someone applied a college rule to a hs game or they thought it was flagrant, tough to say without their perspective on it. Targeting is tough to get right(NCAA reviews all theirs in games with replay and even initiates when they think the guys missed one). i think HS has made it just 15 so we do call it more knowing that it is a tough one to get and we never want to get it wrong and DQ a kid
I have no idea which game this happened in, or what actually happened. Was just trying to help clarify how someone could be ejected with a targeting call
Naz game. Naz pouches a kickoff. The return man waves 2 hands over his head like he doesn't know what to do. Which in itself it illegal fair catch. The up man then takes the ball off his chest. As it's bouncing off his chest Naz defender hits him in his chest sliding up under the facemask. Gets tossed. Ok the man was defenseless but it wasn't a tossable offense. If that's the case there will be 3 guys tossed every on side kick. If I knew how to post film i would.
Last edited:
Still waiting for a recap of the game, there was nothing posted here, haven't seen an article either.
The ejection was influenced by the immediate screams to "throw him out" by the sidelines of opponent which were ongoing during the referee huddle after the play. News is the kid is ok which is good, downside is the Naz kid will be watching the conference opener.
Your post above indicates a possible invalid fair catch. Regardless of whether it was valid or invalid, if he's in a position to catch the ball, he can still be deemed defenseless. If the group thought it was flagrant, he gets the thumb.
Seeing it live, it was a huge hit. Seeing the tape, it was a huge clean hit. It was essentially a scramble for a live ball in the air, the kid running forward while the gunners shot for it. No helmets, hits the kid more in the shoulder than chest.
It didn't look like a fair catch attempt at all, he never signaled.
It didn't look like a fair catch attempt at all, he never signaled.
There is no such thing as a scramble for a live ball in the air on a kickoff. Especially on that type of play. The IHSA created a rule that makes driving the kickoff into the ground illegal to avoid those types of plays.
The receiver is given an unimpeded opportunity to receive the kick as long as it is in the air. The kicking team has no right other than to defend themself from a blocker.
If the player is hit after giving a fair catch, that's an easy 15 yards. If the player is hit in the head or neck area, with a player leading with his helmet, it is an ejection.
Any hit with the crown of the helmet in the head or neck region is going to get you 15 yards and an ejection.
While it may technically not be correct, when a player is laid out like that you will see ejections on that play.
All that being said, you'd actually have to see it to make a decision either way.
The receiver is given an unimpeded opportunity to receive the kick as long as it is in the air. The kicking team has no right other than to defend themself from a blocker.
If the player is hit after giving a fair catch, that's an easy 15 yards. If the player is hit in the head or neck area, with a player leading with his helmet, it is an ejection.
Any hit with the crown of the helmet in the head or neck region is going to get you 15 yards and an ejection.
While it may technically not be correct, when a player is laid out like that you will see ejections on that play.
All that being said, you'd actually have to see it to make a decision either way.
He was unimpeded to the ball, and got there first. He caught it. He was then crushed.
As far as scramble for the ball part, I meant he didn't stand there calling the FC.
If he had signaled and was "crushed" high, it's an ejection. He's a defenseless player and that is a big IHSA point of emphasis.
It is a penalty if he runs with it but he can still not be hit. My guess is this player did not run with it but I did not see the play so that would be a big difference. The description of the play seems a little different between the two on this thread.
Again, has to be deemed flagrant. The size of the hit doesn't eject a player, his intent does. If he's doing something outside making a football play then you can toss him. Player safety is obviously important but we can't add in our own interpretation of rules. Targeting of a defenseless player=15yds. Flagrant targeting=15 and DQ. It's the same of roughing the passer, if he "crushes" the qb it's the same 15 as if he just pushes him late. If he's not making a football play and he's trying to hurt someone he can/should be tossed
That is not true he still cannot be hit. He has protection through the whole play. The defender can go for the loose ball and that is where things become unclear.
epicbret said he caught the ball and was then hit. That is what I am referring to.
Again without seeing the play everything is a gray area.
Hitting a player that calls for a fair catch is the flagrant part as that is outside of making a football play. If he did not call for a fair catch then there is some questionability to the ejection.
The new blind side block and the outlawing of the certain types of onside kicks, play into this ruling and why you will see that.
To give benefit of the doubt may well have been an auto-correct from his intent to type "return man."
How do you deem if the player saw or did not see the signal? You can't. Intent is not something you can just make black and white. There is nothing in the book that says a hit on a fair catch is an ejection. It's all about how you perceive the players intent. I don't think we just lump in a foul on a player calling for a fair catch as flagrant, especially on an onside kick where a lot of happening in a very short time
The onus is on the defender to see the fair catch. It is not black and white, that is why you have to see the whole play.
The hit on the fair catch itself is not an ejection but the hit becomes more microscopic because it is on a fair catch, pooch kick, high hit on a defenseless player.
From what I hear the DeLaSalle kid is ok which is most important. It's in the books, moving on with a hard lesson. Our guy will sit and support his teammates to be ready for ND. This is my son and he is still defending himself 3 days later so it's hard for him to grasp what he did wrong. Like I said before no intention to hurt I just think when 5'9 squats down and 6'2 is full speed with intent to put a shoulder in the chest this is the result.
All I'm saying is you DQ on intent. Fair catch/no fair catch, punt/kick, defenseless or not, if you deem he's trying to hurt someone and not play football that's all that matters. Not play type
Refs, I presume the following is the rule that has been modified for this year that you are referring to, am I correct?
The NFHS Football Rules Committee also expanded Rule 2-32-16 regarding a defenseless player by adding specific examples of a defenseless player. Those examples include, but are not limited to:
e) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier;
The NFHS Football Rules Committee also expanded Rule 2-32-16 regarding a defenseless player by adding specific examples of a defenseless player. Those examples include, but are not limited to:
e) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier;
Yes. But I think a main factor in the play was the returner didn't catch the ball it bounced off his chest.
But why would that matter based on what the clarification of the definition says?
Face tackling or Butt blocking where the helmet initially makes contact in the chest and then drives UPWARDS under the facemask is a PF 15 and possible DQ. Officials are taught "when in question" defenseless or not defenseless.... rule Defenseless. Then you have to factor in "Intent" for the DQ. More times than not any BIG blow to the head regardless of "intent" is gonna get the thumb.
A punt returner will always be provided extra protection, hes looking up. As the rule states hes provided this protection until he establishes himself as a runner. So as a tackler you cannot T-off on a returner as soon as the ball is touched as he is still deemed defenseless.
Kids need to be taught to break down and tackle low with shoulders. Anything high with shoulder or helmet is gonna cost the team they play for.
That's the whole point with all the rule changes. Kids need to learn to take the helmet out of the game or we will have no game. Helmet is for protection not a weapon.