Low Block and 2 point stance in shotgun

[bigjohn]

https://www.nfhs.org/media/1015055/2...f-emphasis.pdf


This years Point of Emphasis says it is illegal unless the player is superhuman.

It is nearly impossible for a lineman in a two-point stance to legally block below the waist in this situation because
of the time required for the lineman to drop from an upright position and block an opponent below the waist.
Prior to the snap, game officials should be aware of whether the ball will be snapped hand-to-hand or to
a back in shotgun formation, player positioning and alignment, and which players may legally block below the
waist.




How many state associations have said to call it BBW this year?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

https://www.nfhs.org/media/1015055/2...f-emphasis.pdf


This years Point of Emphasis says it is illegal unless the player is superhuman.

It is nearly impossible for a lineman in a two-point stance to legally block below the waist in this situation because
of the time required for the lineman to drop from an upright position and block an opponent below the waist.
Prior to the snap, game officials should be aware of whether the ball will be snapped hand-to-hand or to
a back in shotgun formation, player positioning and alignment, and which players may legally block below the
waist.




How many state associations have said to call it BBW this year?

We'll still allow it if the player IMMEDIATELY blocks low at the snap, even in a 2-point stance. He can't delay to measure or better time the block.

[HLin NC]

NC actually made this a no-no several seasons ago.

[bigjohn]

what state, Rich?

[JRutledge]

We still allow an immediate block low on any lineman that is doing the blocking. Never been told to change that stance. Any delay, then we have a different issue, whether it be shotgun or hand to hand snap.

Peace

[Cliffdweller]

Arizona.....BBW!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

https://www.nfhs.org/media/1015055/2...f-emphasis.pdf

Does a player have a legitimate chance to make a play? – No
Does the player receive a blindside hit? – Yes or No
Was the contact unnecessary or excessive? – Yes or No
Ruling: Foul for personal foul/unnecessary roughness or excessive contact.

If the answer to the 1st Q is "no", isn't the contact automatically unnecessary? How could it be "yes or no"?

They're being overly wordy in their examples. Only Q3 needs to be answered to determine the outcome.

[bigjohn]

Anyone have a 2015 casebook? What does 2.17.2 situation e say?

[Rich]

2.17.2 SITUATION E:

A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1,

(a) A2 immediately drops and blocks B1 below the waist or
(b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist.

Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the free-blocking zone.

RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist if the contact is made immediately following the snap. Any later, and the ball is considered to have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bigjohn]

So the POE and the Case Book don't really agree. That is really bad but not surprising.




It is nearly impossible for a lineman in a two-point stance to legally block below the waist in this situation because
of the time required for the lineman to drop from an upright position and block an opponent below the waist.

[Rich]

Nearly impossible is a horrible phrase. Either ban it outright or don't.

I paid the $35 to be an NFHS member recently -- worth it for all the digital rule and case books.

[JRutledge]

The NF could easily outlaw a certain kind of block by just saying what should not be allowed. Giving a casebook interpretation and telling us what is unlikely is silly.

Peace

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by Rich

Nearly impossible is a horrible phrase. Either ban it outright or don't.

I paid the $35 to be an NFHS member recently -- worth it for all the digital rule and case books.

I looked at that. Does that then give you access to the iPhone/iPad app...? (No, I can't believe I just asked that either, fellas....but I did.)

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Canned Heat

I looked at that. Does that then give you access to the iPhone/iPad app...? (No, I can't believe I just asked that either, fellas....but I did.)

There's no iPhone/iPad apps for NFHS rulebooks anymore. Last couple of years I bought the Kindle versions.

[HLin NC]

Store it on Kindle Cloud Reader and you can use any platform.