BBW in FBZ in Ohio
 

BM has spoken!

2015 Quiz 5 – Your Call | OHSAA Football Officials

4. After*a*down*a*B*lineman*(on*the*LOS)*asks*the*U*t o*watch*an*A*lineman*(on*the*LOS)*that*is*blocking *
below*the*waist,*in*the*free*blocking*zone,*as*the *QB*is*in*the*shot*gun*position.*The*U*tells*the*A *
lineman*that*he*can’t*block*below*the*waist*from*a *2*point*stance*since*his*QB*is*in*the*shot*gun.
Ruling:*Incorrect.*The*lineman*can*block*below*the *waist*if*the*block*is*immediately*after*and*nearl y*
simultaneous*with*the*snap.*(2*17*5)*and*2015*Poin ts*of*Emphasis.*POI*states*this*block*is*“nearly”*
impossible*not*impossible.**Both*linemen*need*to*b e*on*their*respective*LOS.

49 states couldn't possibly care.

This is what caught my eye:

I'm stunned that they have officials starting on the field in Ohio. We're fighting those 1980s mechanics with old-timey crews here and your state director *actually mandates them*?

We have been told, it is nearly impossible for a lineman to legally block below the waist in a two point position, and QB in the shotgun. The reasoning being, that by the time the O-lineman gets to the block the ball has already left the free blocking zone.

That has been the NC interp for quite a few years now. I think the Fed added it this year.

They should just stop with the wishy-washy language, then, and say that it's a foul if the lineman blocks low from a 2-point in the shotgun. Some states have done that and I'm all behind that, personally.

What if, while they're in shotgun, the ball is actually snapped to another player who is within the FBZ?

What is the rule intended for, and what would be the intention of what you propose? Is the idea that when you face an opponent in the 2-pt. stance, you're less likely to protect yourself against a BBW? If that's the case, what difference does it make whether the ball is snapped to a point outside the FBZ?

Because the FBZ disintegrates when the ball is snapped outside it and since there's no FBZ, you can't BBW.

Of course if I had my way, all low blocking would be eliminated.

But that's already the rule.
So is the reason for your proposal that the more circumstances in which you can make BBW illegal, the better? Then wouldn't it be more efficacious to allow BBW from a 2-pt. stance & outlaw it from a 3-pt. stance, than vice versa, under the condition you laid out upthread?

It's already the rule, but define immediate for me. States seem to have trouble consistently deciding if nearly impossible is the same as impossible or illegal.

To further muddy the waters...the Case Book page 15 2.17.2E says that with A1 in the shotgun...and immediately after the snap to A1 (a) A2 immediately drops and blocks B2 below the waist ...Ruling in (a) it is a legal block.

It says if the block occurs immediately it is legal. Yet, the ball leaves the zone "immediately" as well, likely faster than the block can occurs...

A few states have said immediately can't happen if the lineman is in the 2-point stance.

Till I get that direction, however, if I think it's immediately, it's not a foul.

I strenuously object!! Nearly impossible means one must be superhuman to perform such a task but the U is not allowed to say it is illegal because it is humanly possible, Holy Shiit Batman!!! :D

When you strenuously object, we'll ignore you like we usually do. :D

I enjoy reading the weekly OHSAA bulletins.