Crack Back Block

[CoachG6]

Guys

What constitutes an illegal crack back block? I've seen plays where, at the snap, a split end moves down the line toward the ball and blocks an unsuspecting defensive end. Under what circumstances is that legal?

Thanks
Coach G6

[chris s]

Originally posted by CoachG6
Guys

What constitutes an illegal crack back block? I've seen plays where, at the snap, a split end moves down the line toward the ball and blocks an unsuspecting defensive end. Under what circumstances is that legal?

Thanks
Coach G6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
My understanding is if the motion man blocks the DE legally and not from behind, all is well. I've seen sweep plays to the motion side where the DE is turned towards runner and gets NAILED from behind, definate flag! I'm sure others will chime in soon....

[TXMike]

Under NCAA rules (and in Texas and Mass HS's), if that block is above the waist and from the front it is legal. If it is below the waist and from behind it is a clip. If below the waist and from the front it is an illegal block below the waist. If from the back and above the waist it is an illegal block in the back.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by CoachG6
Guys

What constitutes an illegal crack back block? I've seen plays where, at the snap, a split end moves down the line toward the ball and blocks an unsuspecting defensive end. Under what circumstances is that legal?

Thanks
Coach G6

It's only legal if the defender is hit in the side or the front above the waist.

Below the waist or in the back is illegal.

BTW, it doesn't make a tinker's damn whether the blocker's head is in front or not.

[keystoneref]

Hey BBR whats a tinker's damn?

[TXMike]

And some folks say you can't learn anything on these ref discussion boards!!!!! ;-)

From the Word Detective:

"I don't give a tinker's damn" means that the speaker does not care at all, "tinker's damn" being a very old slang synonym for something "utterly inconsequential." There are two theories about "tinker's damn," but before we get to them, a little discourse on Medieval cookware.

Before the advent of mass-produced kitchen implements, pots and pans were quite expensive, and handed down for generations. Thus, a hole in the stewpot was a calamity, and repair, not replacement, was called for. This was the job of a "tinker" (possibly from the "tinkling" sound of pots clinking together, but more likely from the Middle English "tinnkere," tin worker). Tinkers were itinerant handymen who made their living mending pots and pans and generally fixing household items.

Though tinkers were performing a useful service, they were held in low esteem, and "tinker" was for several centuries also a synonym for "vagrant," "rogue" and even "thief." Tinkers probably used earthy language, probably with abandon, and thus the first theory. Tinkers swore so often, it is said, that their oaths lost the power to shock, and "not worth a tinker's damn" came to mean "worthless."

The second theory maintains that the phrase should be "tinker's dam," not "damn." A tinker's "dam," goes this theory, was a small piece of dough, clay or paper used to block the hole in a pot while solder was applied. When the job was done, the "dam" was discarded, and thus "tinker's dam" came to mean something utterly inconsequential.

And now, the envelope, please. Theory number one is almost certainly correct, and "tinker's damn," which appeared around 1839, is probably simply a variant on "not worth a damn," which also means "something utterly worthless." Theory number two, which was first proposed in 1877, was probably a prissy Victorian attempt to sanitize the "damn" into "dam" with a cute but baseless story.

[Forksref]

I didn't give a Tinker's Damn about a Tinker's Damn until today. I learned something.

As long as the block is above the waist and not from behind (side is legal) the block is legal. Crackback is not a term used by officials in NF. In NCAA, blocks may be below the waist except in change of possession plays and if the block is from a player moving toward the snap.

[TXMike]

The NCAA rule is a bit more complicated than that as it also prevents some stationary players from blocking below the waist towards the original position of the ball at the snap.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by keystoneref
Hey BBR whats a tinker's damn?

You never know what you'll learn!

Thanks for the educational contribution, TXMike!

[Rich]

Originally posted by Forksref
I didn't give a Tinker's Damn about a Tinker's Damn until today. I learned something.

As long as the block is above the waist and not from behind (side is legal) the block is legal. Crackback is not a term used by officials in NF. In NCAA, blocks may be below the waist except in change of possession plays and if the block is from a player moving toward the snap.

We use it all the time. We remind each other to watch for crackbacks that are illegal blocks.

[andy1033]

This is an illegal shift if the split end is not 5 yards behind LOS at the snap.

[seanireland]

Originally posted by andy1033
This is an illegal shift if the split end is not 5 yards behind LOS at the snap.

Agreed, but it seems he moved toward the defender at the snap.

As far as "what constitutes an illegal crack back block?" The answer is whatever constitutes an illegal block, period. Let us not forget that a legal block is described in 2-3-1 through 2-3-10 inclusive. The fact that the defender doesn't see the block coming has no bearing. The block just has to be legal.

[seanireland]

Actually, illegal motion. 7-2-7 PENALTY. Sorry.

[jrfath]

It is only illegal motion if the man in motion did not get set off the line of scrimmage before going in motion. My thought process on this play as a wing official is to key on this man's block to make sure it is legal. Plays developing like this (receiver in motion towards the middle of the field before the snap) are most likely sweeps to that side. Back Judges also key on this block.

[tchaap]

NFHS Rules

Does the "expanded neutral zone" play in to this type of situation at all?

At first I thought you could have a legal block in the back in this situation if the player in motion was in expanded neutral zone. Then I read the post that mentioned that the man in motion needed to be 5 yards off the LOS...this would outside of the expanded NZ?

Just wondering if the motion man was in the expanded NZ at the time of the snap, could he legally block in the back. Of course if he was in that position he would not need to block in the back.