High-low combination?

[Robert Goodman]

As the ball is snapped, A1, starting on the line, blocks B1 at or below the knees. B1 is deflected slightly from his charge, but continues on his feet. A2, starting immediately behind A1, seeing B1 coming, stands his ground and uses palms-forward technique, taking a short step sideways to more squarely get into B1's path, to contact him above the waist.

Is this a high-low combination block of the type either Fed or NCAA disallows?

Does it make a difference if you know A2 is carrying out an assignment by blocking B1 in that manner?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

As the ball is snapped, A1, starting on the line, blocks B1 at or below the knees. B1 is deflected slightly from his charge, but continues on his feet. A2, starting immediately behind A1, seeing B1 coming, stands his ground and uses palms-forward technique, taking a short step sideways to more squarely get into B1's path, to contact him above the waist.

Is this a high-low combination block of the type either Fed or NCAA disallows?

Does it make a difference if you know A2 is carrying out an assignment by blocking B1 in that manner?

Seems like (considering the way you've worded your question), these would be two separate and independent blocks, so high-low is not a relevant factor, or appropriate consideration.

Can't tell what A2 is thinking, but what his plan, or intention might be, it's his action we're supposed to be observing.

[JRutledge]

I'm all kinds of confused as to what you are asking. Are you basically saying that the defender made contact with the offensive player after being blocked by another player? If that is the case, then I am not sure I would consider that a "block."

Peace

[BIG UMP]

A1 and B1 have to be engaged when B2 blocks. As I read your description B1 has either avoided or disengaged from A1 when A2 blocks him.

No foul if I am interpreting correctly.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I'm all kinds of confused as to what you are asking. Are you basically saying that the defender made contact with the offensive player after being blocked by another player? If that is the case, then I am not sure I would consider that a "block."

The plan is for the blocking back to act as backup behind the lineman who's making an at-or-below-the-knees block. If the lineman knocks the opposing lineman down, the back doesn't make contact. If the lineman doesn't knock the opposing lineman down, the back is ready to block. The contacts might occur in quick succession, but only according to the defender's charge.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The plan is for the blocking back to act as backup behind the lineman who's making an at-or-below-the-knees block. If the lineman knocks the opposing lineman down, the back doesn't make contact. If the lineman doesn't knock the opposing lineman down, the back is ready to block. The contacts might occur in quick succession, but only according to the defender's charge.

None of that sounds like a foul. Not even sure why I would consider this illegal in any way.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The contacts might occur in quick succession, but only according to the defender's charge.

A chop block is illegal because of the high potential for catastrophic injury to the blockee. If I can’t tell there’s an obvious separation between the two blocks, it’s a foul every time.

Why don’t you just put that back on the line and use a legal doubleteam block, instead of trying to game the rules?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

A chop block is illegal because of the high potential for catastrophic injury to the blockee. If I can’t tell there’s an obvious separation between the two blocks, it’s a foul every time.

Why don’t you just put that back on the line and use a legal doubleteam block, instead of trying to game the rules?

Because we couldn't run the other plays we want from that formation. A2 takes the snap on some of those plays. (A2 is the quarterback, A1 is the snapper.)

A1 & A2 could instead combine to each block "half" of B1, but if at the snap B1 moves toward the side of him that A1 expected to block, A2's effort would be wasted, and B1 might still defeat A1's block.

P.S.: All of football consists of gaming the rules.

[bisonlj]

Almost every chop block by linemen is miscommunication. 95% of the chop blocks I call don't result in complaints by either linemen. They result in the two of them arguing who was supposed to block that defender.

It's baffling when a back cuts a defender who is already engaged because he can clearly see that guy is engaged as he's approaching him.

Another example I haven't seen in a few years is when one lineman is trying to get to the second level and he's being held by a defender and a second offensive player then cuts the defender. That's not a chop block unless the first blocker is addressing the defender. If the only reason he's on contact with the defender is because he's being held then it's a foul for defensive holding and not a chop block. The defender was baffled the one time I called that.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

Almost every chop block by linemen is miscommunication. 95% of the chop blocks I call don't result in complaints by either linemen. They result in the two of them arguing who was supposed to block that defender.

It's baffling when a back cuts a defender who is already engaged because he can clearly see that guy is engaged as he's approaching him.

Another example I haven't seen in a few years is when one lineman is trying to get to the second level and he's being held by a defender and a second offensive player then cuts the defender. That's not a chop block unless the first blocker is addressing the defender. If the only reason he's on contact with the defender is because he's being held then it's a foul for defensive holding and not a chop block. The defender was baffled the one time I called that.

I agree with all of this. Except I have seen a few instances of a non-chop-block due to a defensive hold in the last couple of seasons.



I did have one absolutely perplexing block a few years back. Started out as a textbook chop block... the C engaged the NT above the waist, and the LG came in and hit the NT right at the knee. Remarkably, the NT was able to remain upright, and as I was throwing my flag for the Chop Block, the NT performed a classic hook-and-turn defensive hold on the C, who by that point was attempting to escape to the second level. At no point when the chop block happened was there any defensive holding, the DH only developed about half a second after the Chop.

Hopefully that's the only time in my career as an umpire where I call a Chop Block and a Defensive Hold on the same play. When I reported it to my Referee he looked at me like I was from outer space, but when he saw the video he agreed with my call.

I've since shown the video of that block to 7 or 8 D-I and NFL umpires, and so far there's no consensus on if I should have called the CHB, the DH, or both.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I agree with all of this. Except I have seen a few instances of a non-chop-block due to a defensive hold in the last couple of seasons.



I did have one absolutely perplexing block a few years back. Started out as a textbook chop block... the C engaged the NT above the waist, and the LG came in and hit the NT right at the knee. Remarkably, the NT was able to remain upright, and as I was throwing my flag for the Chop Block, the NT performed a classic hook-and-turn defensive hold on the C, who by that point was attempting to escape to the second level. At no point when the chop block happened was there any defensive holding, the DH only developed about half a second after the Chop.

Hopefully that's the only time in my career as an umpire where I call a Chop Block and a Defensive Hold on the same play. When I reported it to my Referee he looked at me like I was from outer space, but when he saw the video he agreed with my call.

I've since shown the video of that block to 7 or 8 D-I and NFL umpires, and so far there's no consensus on if I should have called the CHB, the DH, or both.

Definitely unusual but based on your description entirely possible.