And doesn't any possible helmet to helmet hit have to be reviewed.....or only of its called on the field first?
What is the actual rule on helmet to helmet?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
I haven't researched it but the rule is apparently different between college and pro. In the NFL, helmet to helmet is pretty much an automatic penalty regardless of intent or inadvertent/accidental. Based on yesterday and the one ref's after-the-game explanation, it looks to be a penalty/possible game ejection only if it is concluded to be intentional.
flag first is a must...contrary to the idiot Golic boys, you cannot have a play that is being reviewed for fumble/non fumble magically become a targeting penalty.
Personal foul flags may be reviewed to determine whether targeting/ejection is warranted but you cannot have an "oh, by the way" on a review of something else...
as far as if it should have been flagged for helmet to helmet tagettting, it comes down to whether Peterman was considered a defenseless player by rule..
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):
- A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
- A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
- A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
- A kick 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.
- A player on the ground.
- A player obviously out of the play.
- A player who receives a blind-side block.
- A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
- A quarterback any time after a change of possession.
- A ball carrier who has obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first.
Last edited:
Doesn't look like the Peterman play fits into any of the above definitions of a defenseless player.
What about the Connor hit - I had walked out of the room briefly when that occurred and didn't see it. From posted comments, sounds like he was a player on the ground or out of play when he got hit.
Sorry Macdad, maybe i'm missing the part (1:16 of the youtube video below), where he was pushed by another NW lineman or even Bisnowaty (Pitt OL) into Peterman. On top of everything else, Peterman got a second head torque once on the ground. In retrospect, it is clear that Peterman shouldn't have come back into the game.
No he was not. He was being wrapped up the a NU player when the second NU player plowed him with a helmet to helmet hit. It was clear targeting and the second NU player should have been ejected....the same holds true for the NU player that hit Conner with a cheap shot
The hit on Peterman was much closer to being a targeting than the hit on Connor. The hit on Connor the NU player didn't even see him. Watch the replay above, the NU player is watching the ball carrier and runs into Connor, unfortunately their helmets collide. He doesn't lunge at Connor at all.
Based on the rule it comes down to if Peterman was defenseless or not, and I don't see anywhere in the rule that would say he was. He was running with the ball. It's the same reason you never have targeting on a hit against a running back.
This is one biggest gripes about bowl games is the inconsistency of the officiating each conference has a different definition on what targeting is some conferences call it very liberal and others don't want to call it. You would think every conference would be consistent but they are far from it.
regardless of the actual rules I just posted? Hey, it may (probably should have) have warranted a personal foul flag but it does not appear to meet the standard of targeting....if you can point out the bullet point above where it does, I'll go with that.
OK, so to be clear, a helmet to helmet hit is ONLY a penalty if it is determined that the hitting of the helmet was intentional?
If that's true, that leaves way too much time for referree interpretation.
I actually thought the Grigsby hit on the Syracuse QB that knocked him out last year should have been a penalty, but was it his intention to do that? I dont like that part of the rule.
If helmets hit, it should be a penalty. Its a 15 yard penalty if you push a guy when he's 1 foot out of bounds. But if you spear somebody with your helmet, its only a penalty if you intended to do it. Makes no sense.
If that's true, that leaves way too much time for referree interpretation.
I actually thought the Grigsby hit on the Syracuse QB that knocked him out last year should have been a penalty, but was it his intention to do that? I dont like that part of the rule.
If helmets hit, it should be a penalty. Its a 15 yard penalty if you push a guy when he's 1 foot out of bounds. But if you spear somebody with your helmet, its only a penalty if you intended to do it. Makes no sense.
"OK, so to be clear, a helmet to helmet hit is ONLY a penalty if it is determined that the hitting of the helmet was intentional?"
Nothing clear at all by this...There is no such thing as a helmet to helmet penalty. There are personal foul penalties that may or may not be based on the helmet contact. Targeting is helmet to helmet or other shots to the head of a defenseless player as defined above. The personal foul standard is a lot loser and subjective than the targeting which may be part of it. I would say that the kid that hit Peterman was guilty of a personal foul (cheap shot while qb stood up and engaged) but not targeting ie, ejection, as Peterman was not in the defenseless player category at that time...
Nothing clear at all by this...There is no such thing as a helmet to helmet penalty. There are personal foul penalties that may or may not be based on the helmet contact. Targeting is helmet to helmet or other shots to the head of a defenseless player as defined above. The personal foul standard is a lot loser and subjective than the targeting which may be part of it. I would say that the kid that hit Peterman was guilty of a personal foul (cheap shot while qb stood up and engaged) but not targeting ie, ejection, as Peterman was not in the defenseless player category at that time...
Here is the actual rule on replays,Rule 12, including a specific paragraph on targeting. It states the replay official can call targeting even if there is no call on the field.
Targeting
ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. The review includes all aspects of the targeting foul to ascertain whether there is at least one indicator of targeting action (Note 1 to Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4), and:
1. Whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact (Rule 9-1-3); OR
2. Whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (Rules 9-1-4 and 2-27-14).
b. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
The rule on what is targeting is rule 9.1.article 3.
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
Targeting
ARTICLE 5 a. The replay official shall review all targeting fouls, Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4. The review includes all aspects of the targeting foul to ascertain whether there is at least one indicator of targeting action (Note 1 to Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4), and:
1. Whether the crown of the helmet is used to make forcible contact (Rule 9-1-3); OR
2. Whether there is forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (Rules 9-1-4 and 2-27-14).
b. The replay official may create a targeting foul, but only in egregious instances in which a foul is not called by the officials on the field. Such a review may not be initiated by a coach’s challenge.
The rule on what is targeting is rule 9.1.article 3.
Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
- Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
- A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
- Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
- Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14):• A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
• A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
• A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return.
• A kick 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..
• A player on the ground.
• A player obviously out of the play.
• A player who receives a blind-side block.
• A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped.
I added the bold font for the Peterman hit. There is nothing about turning your head at the last second or anything like that. That was a creation of the referee.
Golic is an idiot but he's right and you're wrong on this point. A targeting penalty can be called on replay. Whether the rulebook explicitly states it or not it's happened in a few games (without a flag) I watched this year.
It's targeting. The guy launched helmet first at a player already being tackled. The helmet to helmet contact was not incidental....he led with his hat. These are the hits they are trying to prevent. Would that defender make the same tackle without wearing a face mask or helmet?
peterman was as much to blame as anyone as he clearly lowers head as he is being driven into a defensive player that is barely moving
Correct
Targeting and Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet (Rule 9-1-3)
No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul.
The crown of the helmet begins at the top of the facemask and continues to the dome of the helmet. The targeting of a defenseless player is Rule 9-1-4. It prohibits hits on a defenseless player above the shoulders using helmets, forearms or shoulders.
thanks, I was wrong on the create a targeting foul creation. Soory to the Golic family also..The other thing that is hazy, if the bolded forward progress bullet. If the whistle is not blown then forward progress is not considers stopped correct? .Considering the play was being reviewed by the official for a fumble forward progress not deemed to have been stopped.
I hate when players and ex players complain about this rule. Learn to tackle guys. Hits like this didn't start until the 70's when the equipment improved dramatically to allow guys to do this. Before then it was about wrapping the guy up and keeping your eyes at the waist and not leading with your head. It's ridiculous that ex players are having serious life threatening issues because some people are just too lazy to play the game right and actual tackle someone.
The guy is driving down and leading with the crown of his helmet and it's Peterman's fault. And I am a freaking jet pilot.
