|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 12:23am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I had someone try telling me that if an A player egages a defensive player high he can then slide down and cut the player, even if it ends up out of the free block zone or after the ball left the free block zone.. I do know if a player egages in front and if the defender turns and gets pushed in the back that it is a clean block but this one was totally new to me and to me not right.. Am I correct?
Also, did my first varsity WH last night and it went pretty well other than the coach arguing his guys can block like above and other than having a wing official that was pretty week (heard he was a good one so he may have had an off night).
__________________
Jim Need an out, get an out. Need a run, balk it in. 
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 04:36am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Congrats on your first Varcity game . May you have many more . BTW ....just what wing were you on Jim? 
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 09:57am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
How about this? 10 yards downfield, blocker dives at the defender. The defender sticks his hands out to avoid the block and touches his shoulders. The blocker then contacts the defender at the knees. That's a legal block. The defender made the block legal by allowing the initial contact to be on the hands.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 01:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
True, true, true. The problem with this type of play BBR is using as an example is that blocker made no attempt to make a legal block. It is because the defender thought it might be better if he could still walk after the game that there was no foul. I'm not advocating any rule change just pointing out that sometimes a player doesn't get a flag no matter how hard he tries.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 04:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Our deputy state director has brought this before the Rules Committee several times but to no avail.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 04:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why would you want it changed? The purpose of the restrictions against BBW is to protect the unaware player who may not see the block coming. Clearly if he has time to try to fend off the blocker then he is protected somewhat.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 05:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Who said that it was only to protect the player who's unaware that he's about to be hit? :confused
Just because the player is able to touch the blocker with his hands doesn't mean he's able to avoid the contact or protect himself.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 05:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
No he may not avoid but at least he can prepare for it and take the blocker on. This is football and it is a collision activity. Furthermore, if you modified the rule to exclude those situations when the blocker is contacted by the blockee's hands how are you going to be able to determine if the block was low because of the blocker or because the blockee pushed him down?
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 07:27pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
TXMike, you need to re-read my post. I'm not advocating this. Our deputy state director is the individual who has brought this before the Rules Committee, not me. He has tried to get it changed several times, as many NFHS members would like to see all blocking below the waist eliminated. However, there are still those that don't want to eliminate it.
It doesn't matter to me either way. But it does make it more difficult to call. I can clearly see a block below the waist. But I may not detect whether the hand touches the blocker or not.
|
|
Sun Oct 26, 2003, 10:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Since I brought it up maybe I will finish it. I said that I didn't advocate changing this rule. NF won't ever change it because it will just create an exception. You know, like PSK, even though they say it isn't.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
