First off, I went through all the free blocking zone case plays from 2010 and 2011. There was no change in the wording so it isn't new.
I think what he is trying to proffer is this: the interpretation for BBW in the FBZ on shotgun snaps was that the block by A had to occur on the initial charge. A could not delay the block for any reason- couldn't rise and/or step back.
He's saying (I think) that you don't have to see the ball under that interpretation, you just look for the initial charge. However, he throws in a piece by saying that the ball deflects off an A player on the snap and doesn't immediately "fly" out of the FBZ.
Quote:
|
A1 snaps on the A35. A2 at the A33 seems to unintentionally have the snap glance off him. The ball rolls to the A29, where A2 picks it up and runs to the A40, where he is down. Meanwhile A3, playing a position on A's line within 4 yards of where the ball was previously spotted, takes one step back before cutting B1 at the knees.
|
I think you have to go back to all the elements of the FBZ. I don't believe we delve into intentional and unintentional errant snaps. The ball is in the zone or it isn't. Where was the ball when A BBW'd B? The snap struck A2 at the A33. The FBZ ended at the A32. Its going to be close but since A3 took one step backward first, its probably going to be an illegal block at that point.