Intent of late helmet-to-helmet hit crystal clear

Advertisement

Advertise with us

Nothing like going on the road and winning a game in a difficult environment against a quality opponent, then returning home and reading and hearing that your victory was tainted by the momentum swing of penalties and what others have concluded as questionable officiating.

Read this article for free:

or

Already have an account? Log in here »

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Monthly Digital Subscription

$0 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*No charge for 4 weeks then price increases to the regular rate of $19.00 plus GST every four weeks. Offer available to new and qualified returning subscribers only. Cancel any time.

Monthly Digital Subscription

$4.75/week*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles

*Billed as $19 plus GST every four weeks. Cancel any time.

To continue reading, please subscribe:

Add Free Press access to your Brandon Sun subscription for only an additional

$1 for the first 4 weeks*

  • Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
  • Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
  • Access News Break, our award-winning app
  • Play interactive puzzles
Start now

No thanks

*Your next subscription payment will increase by $1.00 and you will be charged $16.99 plus GST for four weeks. After four weeks, your payment will increase to $23.99 plus GST every four weeks.

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 26/07/2011 (5219 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Nothing like going on the road and winning a game in a difficult environment against a quality opponent, then returning home and reading and hearing that your victory was tainted by the momentum swing of penalties and what others have concluded as questionable officiating.

To that end, all anybody is seemingly talking about in Toronto these days (well at least those who concern themselves with CFL football) is the impact two plays had on the outcome of last Saturday afternoon’s game against the Argonauts: specifically, the play where Bomber quarterback Buck Pierce was hit and an Argonaut player was ejected, and the play where Argonaut QB Cleo Lemon was hit and his tooth was ejected.

Some people are having a hard time determining the difference between the two hits and seem to think referees aren’t capable of determining player intent, so I am here to explain it to them to the best of my abilities.

When Cleo Lemon was hit by Bomber middle linebacker Joe Lobendahn, he was no longer a quarterback. He was a quarterback when he was in the pocket going through the mechanisms of throwing the football and he would have been a quarterback if he had had the wherewithall to start to slide prior to being hit. But once he started scrambling with the football he became a runner and at the moment of contact, since he was making no attempt to slide, he was not afforded the same protection a quarterback would have had in the same situation. From what I have learned from our annual visits with the referees and CFL officials during training camp, in that instance after he scrambled out of the pocket Lemon became a running back who ducked his head and shoulder pads prior to impact and was contacted accordingly.

Conversely, when Buck was hit by Argonaut middle linebacker Ejiro Kuale he was for all intents and purposes still a quarterback. He was behind the line of scrimmage and had finished throwing the ball when the defender took extra steps and initiated contact with his helmet to Buck’s helmet. In our learning sessions with CFL officials these past few seasons, they made it very clear to us that once a quarterback has thrown the football we must make every attempt to avoid him at all costs. That was not done in this instance. We have also been told that while a quarterback is in the act of throwing, we cannot hit him below his waist or above his shoulders, and that was not done either. It was also explained to us that if during a single tackle a player commits a number of transgressions or fouls all at once, it can be determined rough play at the discretion of the official and merit an ejection from the contest.

So in my estimation, if Kuale had simply hit Buck late but in a legal part of his body, he would not have been ejected from the game. He would have received a 15-yard penalty and gone on his merry way. Or, if Kuale had hit Buck helmet to helmet at the exact moment that he released the ball, it is also my understanding of the rule book that he would have been penalized 15 yards for helmet-to-helmet contact but, once again, not ejected from the contest. But once there was a compounding of fouls in a single play (i.e. a late hit and a helmet-to-helmet contact), then it was fairly considered rough play, which constitutes an ejection from the game.

From what I have read and heard, a lot of people are scratching their heads over how a referee can determine the intention of a player. They are right; he can never be sure. But if I hit a quarterback late and I target his head at the same time, it is pretty clear what I was intending to do. One mistake or transgression is understandable and excusable and can be dismissed and penalized as a mistake, but when a player commits two in the course of one play on the football field, it is pretty clear to me, at least in my mind, what they were intending to do.

 

Doug Brown, a hard-hitting defensive tackle with the Winnipeg Blue Bombers and even harder-hitting columnist, appears Tuesdays in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Report Error Submit a Tip

Columnists

LOAD MORE