BBW or not ?

[Texoma_LJ]

Fullback leads the Tailback thru a gap on the Defenses right side, LB charges and dives directly into the FB's legs. FB does not touch the LB with hands or arms. Should this be considered Blocking below the waist be the defender ????
Please be rule specific, if possible.
(No ball fake to FB, No initial contact above the waist)

[jumpmaster]

I am thinking that this would be legal. The fullback could be a ball carrier. As a LB I must neutralize the threat the the FB has the ball as he simulates a dive up the middle.

When in HS, in TX, running the power I, we had a play that faked to the FB, then handoff to the TB up the middle. Almost every play the FB was tackled, it was designed this way.

No foul.

[Patton]

Not legal!

2-17-2 Blocking below the waist is permitted in the free blocking zone when the floowing coditions are met:
a. all players involved in the blocking are on the line of scrimmage and in the zone at the snap.
B. the contact is in the zone.

The fullback was not on the LOS and I bet neither was the LB. Illegal block below the waist on the defense is correct.

However, if there's any question the fullback might have the ball then he's just getting tackled.

[mcrowder]

I think it had be VERY obvious to EVERYONE that FB does not have the ball before you think about calling this defensive BBW. If FB has arms at the waist, as if faking a carry, or in any other way behaves like a runner, you dang well better not flag the defender on this.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by mcrowder
I think it had be VERY obvious to EVERYONE that FB does not have the ball before you think about calling this defensive BBW. If FB has arms at the waist, as if faking a carry, or in any other way behaves like a runner, you dang well better not flag the defender on this.

I agree, I doubt I'd ever have a flag here, unless it was a sweet wide open in the field, up the middle it is hard to have this call.

[JRutledge]

If the initial contact below the waist is when a defender is in the air that is legal block. Rule 2-5-2 makes that very clear. You must have one or two feet on the ground to have a BBW.

Peace

[Bob M.]

REPLY: If the FB is leading the runner through the line and the LB takes him out with a BBW to clear the way to the runner, it is most certainly an illegal BBW. If the FB fakes having the ball, I'd give the LB the benefit of the doubt. But if it's clear that the FB is a blocker, I have a flag against the LB for a BBW. Patton's citation is the correct one.

[Texoma_LJ]

The responses are along the lines I was thinking. I would say if it is clear that the FB is a blocker (this would be even more true on a sweep play once he's outside) and he gets taken out in the legs, then a flag on the defense in this situation is warranted. I would believe the farther to the outside the play happens the more apparent it is that the FB is a blocker and not a runner.
I also believe that the defense must be given full latitude to believe that the FB is a runner first and blocker second.

[SJoldguy]

A more clear example of BBW foul would be by K on a free kick. K1 attempts to breakup the blocking wedge in front of the R player returning the kick by diving into the legs of the blockers. BBW on K1.

The scrimmage play in the middle of the line as described here is a difficult call for the reasons stated. But if you have it, then you call it.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by JRutledge
If the initial contact below the waist is when a defender is in the air that is legal block. Rule 2-5-2 makes that very clear. You must have one or two feet on the ground to have a BBW.

Peace

Rut,
I think you need to read the situation again, it is the defender who is committing the BBW...he dives at the fullbacks feet, and the feet of the blocker committing the BBW has no bearing on the legality of the block...