Gentlemen,

I was reviewing video from our game this past weekend, and I would appreciate your comments on the video of the three plays linked below.

This is 7th/8th grade youth football, competitive league with players segregated by weight (this level is players from 125 lbs. to 107 lbs.), with NFHS playing rules for blocking.

On each of the three plays in the video I am interested in the legality of the blocking against the Right Defensive Tackle (#65 in the Orange jersey), especially in regards to the Left Offensive end (#34 in the Black jersey).

http://home.comcast.net/~jmvideos/AntBlocking.wmv

The file containing the video is about 3.5MB in size, so it is probably best viewed using a broadband internet connection.

Thanks in advance for your feedback.

JM

What you're looking for here is a chop block call. The first 2 are borderline- are they delayed blocks while 65 is engaged high? Tough to say.

The third looks the worst to me. If it's not called a chop block I think you could argue it's an illegal block below the waist since the ball has left the zone.

Will be interesting to hear what others say about it.

It was a little tough to see but it looks like there might be an illegal chop block on each play. They guy opposite the tackle hits him high and then there looks like maybe a very slight delay before the second guy (who is not opposite the tackle) gets over to hit him low.

I'm assuming this wasn't called and that's why your asking.

Illegal in the third clip. The other two may have included simultaneous contact against B65. Too close to call.

Here's what I got

1.) Legal. The offensive player went high on 65, while the #34 went low on another defenisve player. The high offensive player just pushed 65 into the low guy.
2.) Very close - Its hard to tell when the high blocker iniated contact.
3.) I would say 3 is definitely a chop block. Looks very dangerous.

Just remember this stuff is very hard to see and I even had to watch each clip several times to make this analysis. Not only that I don't see any officials in the video?

REPLY: snake-eyes said it all...

No kidding! There are more cheerleaders than officials. The first block looks iffy but I think the contact is inadvertant. The last one is awful. Dangerous.

1- Legal. The low block doesn't appear to make contact. The high blocker simply pushes the defender back over his teammate on the ground. That's not a chop block.

2- Legal. The contact by the two blockers is simultaneous.

3- Illegal. No doubt about it, the block at the knees is delayed.

In my opinon the first two could be called leg whip penalties or illegal block below the waist. It is very close. The third one is definitely an illegal chop block. As ref it is my responsibilty to protect the players, and at this level that type of blocking needs to be flagged as often as possible. This skill level is to novice to discern between legal and safe blocking below the waist and unsafe illegal blocking below the waist. This is a safety issue for players this young.

I have to disagree greatly, the first two are definitely not "leg whipping" (also not defined in NFHS rulebook), they are good blocks below the waist. The only thing that could make the second illegal is that the block was delayed but I believe they are simulaenous. Niether of those are a leg whip IMO.

I don't think that we as officials are permitted to make such a determination. There's nothing in the rule book that distinguishes a difference in rules, whther it's a game with HS varsity teams or elementary teams. If the blocking is legal, which most here think the first two plays are, then the player is within his rights to block in that manner, irregardless of his age, experience, or skill level.

I wish more coaches would take the time to post videos like this. 99.999% of the time we respond to written questions about the legality of stuff. Now, as a group we're all seeing the exact same thing and comment on exactly what we have right in front of all our eyes.

I needed to watch it a few times and definitely in agreement of legal, legal, and chop in 3rd.

I am going to agree pretty much with the others. 1. Legal
2.Legal but darn close.
3. Illegal. But not because the ball has left the zone, which it hasn't when he starts the block
Now the question being is it the kid or the blocking scheme. It's not the kid. If you go stop motion, in each case, he starts the block immediately at the snap. This is what he's been taught to do and it's an ok technique. The problem is that in 3 definately, and close in 2, he has too far to go to make the contact with the opponent.
The coaches need to be made aware of this problem.

1. Close
2. Closer
3. CHOP BLOCK

I mostly agree with everything else that has been said. I do notice that this is the same play run three times. I also notice that these blocks are by the snapper and the end. I see both the guard and tackle pulling on the play. All players are in the zone and the ball has not left when the blocks are initiated.

In the first play the defensive lineman is lined up close to the snapper and so the end can't actually get to him to block him. Then the snapper pushed the defensive lineman over the end.

In the second play the defensive lineman is lined up between the snapper and the end. This is why both of them get to him at the same time and why the block is legal.

On the third play the defensive lineman is lined up closer to the snapper again so the end can't get to him before the snapper starts his block. This is a chop block.

On a side note, this blocking technique, while technically legal at times, is not a good technique to teach. Often, as we see in this video, something out of the control of the offensive players can make this illegal. The end is just diving at the knee of the defensive player and the coach should be told of the danger in this type of block. I'm guessing that he has seen it blocked this way in an NFL game and he thought that it would also work for his team.

I wish more coaches would post films like this!! Great stuff.

I had legal, legal, illegal.

I've got the first block as illegal - looks to me like Black #34 is blocking Orange #65, and just happens to get Orange #77 in the process.

Second one is simultaneous - no foul.

Third one, as previously stated, is a clear chop block.

Catch is, I doubt that I would have a flag on the first one. At full speed in real time, this would probably be a case of "I <i>think</i> that was a foul; therefore it wasn't."

We did a varsity game 2 weeks ago in which the coach questioned our calls on illegal formation (not 7 on the line). I think we had 2 flags because the receivers were not clearly off the line. On the following Monday, the coach receives a rating card on the crew. I got the card back yesterday and the coach said, "Good job, we looked at the tape and every time we questioned something in the game, we were wrong." The coach gave our crew the highest rating possible. I am glad that some coaches look carefully at the tapes. I guess you can call this un-instant replay, but like most replays, it shows the officials to be correct.

I agree with Roamin'...#1 looks like a chop but the block below the waist just wasn't as effective as in #3. This looks like a blocking scheme against #65. If I saw #3 first in the game, I'd probably flag all 3.

In the first play #34 dives at the legs of #77 who is not within 1 yard of the LOS. #65 is contactd by another player who pushes him over #34 laying on the gound. My call would be an illegal block below the waist by #34.

In the second play #65 is contacted simultaneously by #34 and the center. Both offensive players are on the LOS and #65 is within 1 yard of the LOS. My call would be a legal block in the free blocking zone.

In the third play, #65 is posted up by the center and #34 makes a delayed contact at #65's legs. My call would be a chop block on #34.

Why do I ask?
 

Thanks to all who replied.

In case anyone's wondering, I'm with the orange team.

I did not notice this happening during the game. When I watched the tape, the 3rd play in the sequence was the one that caught my attention. So, I went back through the tape looking for it. The offensive team ran 19 offensive plays from scrimmage in the first half of this game. They used this blocking scheme on 8 of those plays. The blocking scheme was always used away from playside, and, <b>in my opinion</b>, the left Off. End committed an illegal chop block on six of those eight plays.

I'm of a like mind with those who considered the first and third plays posted as chop blocks and the 2nd play as legal (because the double team block was more or less simultaneous on the 2nd play).

To those who commented on the absence of officials in the footage, they are there; they're just outside the frame of the video. These games are officiated by three-man crews who are IHSA-certified. They position themselves in the traditional Linesman, Line Judge, and Referee positions. Nothing was called on any of the plays. My concern is <b>not</b> so much with the officiating. I believe that this is going to be very difficult for the officials to catch because it's happening away from the action of the play, it's on the interior line, and there is no official in the Umpire position, which would be the best vantage from which to see it. I certainly didn't see it happening during the game & if the camera hadn't had such a good angle & unobstructed view of the 3rd play posted, I might not have noticed it even watching the video in slow motion.

(To those who commented on the abundance of cheerleaders, I'll just say it certainly isn't <b>my</b> idea.)

My reasons for posting are twofold:

1. To get some objective confirmation (or not) that this was in fact illegal chop-blocking.

2. To get some opinions/advice on if and how to follow-up.

I believe that if the young man continues blocking this way, it is quite likely that he is going to seriously injure the leg of the player he is blocking.

After carefully reviewing the video, I have formed the following <b>opinions</b>:

1. As Jim S. & BayouUmp astutely observe, the double team is a designed blocking scheme that the player has been taught.

2. The player did not strike me as a "dirty" player. I very carefully watched him on plays where this scheme was not used, & he struck me as just a good player who tried to fulfill his assignment.

3. When the play was run the opposite way, the Right Off. End would double team the Left DT - but he <b>always</b> hit him at/above the waist. Perfectly legal & not that dangerous to the man being blocked. This leads me to the (provisional) opinion that the young man's coaches are <b>not</b> trying to teach him to cripple his opponents through illegal and dangerous techniques. I could, of course, be wrong on this point.

Anyway, this strikes me as serious enough that something needs to be done to stop it.

I would appreciate any advice on how to best follow-up. Contact the team? The league? The Officials' Association? Just drop it?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have on whether this makes sense, & if so how best to proceed.

Thanks.

JM

Old three man mechanics would normally use a Referee, Linesman and an Umpire which might help catch this.

My thought would be to show this to the opposing team's coach and point out to him that this is an illegal technique. That is very clear in the third play that is shown. I'd also show this to your league officials with the recommendation that all coaches be made aware that this is an illegal blocking technique and also made aware of the safety aspect.

That's where I think I would start.

It's also quite possible that the other coach isn't aware of this since it was not called during the game. I agree in approaching him but I'd do so carefully. You don't want to make him defensive from the start. Instead, you just want to show him what you have and ask him to correct it.

In addition to showing this to your opposite number, since he probably isn't aware of it, I would also show this to the officers of the athletic association. Use the fact that a dangerous block like this is being missed to lobby for four officials to be put on games at that level.

We've got the same problem here - only three guys for middle school, frosh, and JV games. (And only four for varsity. - amazingly, Pop Warner also pays for four.)