|
We had two different incidences of this in two different games, but they followed the same mode:
**************************
B1 is nearly 30 to 35 yards behind the play as A1 has made a breakaway run downfield. A2 has stopped running and is now walking upfield with his back turned to his goal line. B1 comes from behind and lays A2 out with a hit to the back.
Game 1: B1 is hitting with excessive force with, in my opinion, the intent to injure A2. I throw a flag and recommend Unnecessary Roughness (UNR), but WH decides to go with Illegal Block in the Back (IBB).
Game 2: B1 hits A2 with enough force to knock A2 to the ground but, in my opinion, was not done with intent to injure rather to let A2 know that he is still in play. I throw a flag for IBB and my WH seconds it.
************************
In game one, the coach doesn't think twice about the call being IBB and the game continues. I still felt it should be UNR, but relent to my WH's decision.
In game two, the coach cries foul and insists that there is no such thing as a blocking in the back penalty against the defense. There is defensive IBB, per Rule 2-5-2.
************************
This is a two-part question on my behalf.
1) As described, should the first one be UNR? What would you figure if you deemed the hit to be malicious?
2) What would people think of changing the verbage of IBB for defensive purposes to "Illegal Contact" instead of "Illegal Block" so it is potentially less confusing?
|