What to call

[LI Ref]

Two scenarios - Ball carrier is on the 5 yd line when offense clips defender on the 35. Block in back / spot of foul - PF / suceeding spot OR USC / Suceeding spot.
#2 - Ball carrier on the 25 same foul as above - Thanks

[waltjp]

If the foul occurred 30 yards behind the play I'd probably go for a personal foul. It definitely wouldn't be a USC because of the contact.

If it happens 10 yards behind the play with the ball carrier on the 25 I'd probably go with a block in the back providing the defender was near the blocker. Penalize from the spot of the foul.

Generally you need to determine if the defender was out of the play.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by LI Ref

Two scenarios - Ball carrier is on the 5 yd line when offense clips defender on the 35. Block in back / spot of foul - PF / suceeding spot OR USC / Suceeding spot.
#2 - Ball carrier on the 25 same foul as above - Thanks

There is definitely a foul here. The type of foul is in the judgment of the covering official. After seeing the hit, the official should locate the ball,then throw the flag.

If the hit has nothing to do with the play, it is UR. If the block could be constued as a tactical hit for blocking purposes, it is blocking from the rear.

UR: 15y from PBH, convert, resulting KO, induced KO (if last play of half), next quarter (if last play of quarter), or OT (if last play of game).

BFR: 15y from PBH.

Bottom line: ref decides - it's why we get paid and what we learn from studying.

[Smiley]

Originally Posted by waltjp

If the foul occurred 30 yards behind the play I'd probably go for a personal foul. It definitely wouldn't be a USC because of the contact.

If it happens 10 yards behind the play with the ball carrier on the 25 I'd probably go with a block in the back providing the defender was near the blocker. Penalize from the spot of the foul.

Generally you need to determine if the defender was out of the play.

All clips should be called. This is a safety issue. You can't call blocking in the back if its a clip. If the ball is live, it is a live ball foul. If the ball is dead, its a personal foul for unnecessary roughness. Where on the field the clip takes place and where the ball is are irrelevant. Unless the ball is in the endzone and therefore dead.

[ChickenOfNC]

Isn't a live ball personal foul part of the all-but-one, just like a block in the back or clip?

This is in response to the original post that mention PF as a succeeding spot enforcement.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Smiley

All clips should be called. This is a safety issue. You can't call blocking in the back if its a clip. If the ball is live, it is a live ball foul. If the ball is dead, its a personal foul for unnecessary roughness. Where on the field the clip takes place and where the ball is are irrelevant. Unless the ball is in the endzone and therefore dead.

I should clarify - yes, all CLIPS should be called. Now, how many do you actually see? Most coaches and fans incorrectly identify any block in the back a clip. My original reply assumed that this was a block in the back and not an actual clipping penalty.

(I think I even referred to the foul as a 'block in the back'.)

[Smiley]

The foul in the OP was a clip. You didn't say you were modifying the OP, only that you would call a block in the back in some instances.

Now, if the foul is a block in the back, clipping should never be called. If the block isn't severe (doesn't knock the player down), it could be ignored if away from the play. On the other hand, if it is rough, it could be called unneccessary roughness. And could be live or dead depending on the status of the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LI Ref

Two scenarios - Ball carrier is on the 5 yd line when offense clips defender on the 35. Block in back / spot of foul - PF / suceeding spot OR USC / Suceeding spot.
#2 - Ball carrier on the 25 same foul as above - Thanks

Did he clip or did he block in the back?

[Theisey]

I sense the issue LIRef is trying to get at is this, would you call the illegal block a live ball or call it a dead ball foul.
The basic premise is one way gives the team a TD and the other does not.

One has to assume that the official covering the runner may not have been the official flagging the foul. Time to huddle up and come to an agreement as to did the foul occur before or after the score.
Should the flagging official be the same one covering the runner, it shouldn't be a too much of a problem making that determination.

The bottom line is to get the result right despite the fact the foul was behind what looks to be a sure score. A totally unnecessary block by the offense player.

[Ed Hickland]

Think the point of the original question was whether a "stupid" illegal block should negate a sure score.

If all things were equal and done entirely by the book, the foul would be penalized from the basic spot, that is, where the foul occurred.

This has been discussed in our Association meeting and consensus was penalize this as a USC, which, is totally wrong because there was contact and it is a personal foul. The reason for the USC it is a method to penalize "correctly" albeit it wrong without taking away the score.

Another method was to simply lie about when the foul occurred and say the score had already occurred when the contact occurred. Dead ball foul, penalize from succeeding spot. But what if the runner was tackled on the one yard line? Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

The real answer is that coaches should teach players not to block illegally.

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

Foul was on A, so it would still be a 15 yarder.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Smiley

The foul in the OP was a clip. You didn't say you were modifying the OP, only that you would call a block in the back in some instances.

Now, if the foul is a block in the back, clipping should never be called. If the block isn't severe (doesn't knock the player down), it could be ignored if away from the play. On the other hand, if it is rough, it could be called unneccessary roughness. And could be live or dead depending on the status of the ball.

Why are your shorts all tied in knots? The original poster used the terms "clip" and "block in the back" interchangeably. I assumed it was a block and the back. Okay, have it your way. Clipping, 15 yards from the spot of the foul. Replay the down.

"Ball carrier is on the 5 yd line when offense clips defender on the 35. Block in back / spot of foul - PF / suceeding spot OR USC / Suceeding spot."

Jeez oh Pete. Relax.

[Smiley]

Sorry, my shorts are not in knots. I just didn't read far enough.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

The operative word is "unnecessary". This contact is covered in the rules.

Rule 9 Conduct of Players and Others
Section 4 Illegal Personal Contact
Article 3 No player or non-player shall:
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness.

Notice, the rule does not differentiate between otherwise legal and illegal contact. It states that any unnecessary contact which incites roughness is illegal. Whether you call it or not depends on your philosophy of what is unnecessary. I am very strict on this myself. I do not tolerate cheap shots way behind the play, even if the contact is from the front and above the waist. If the blockee sees the block coming and has time to prepare for the impact, I usually pass on a call as it is not likely to incite roughness.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Think the point of the original question was whether a "stupid" illegal block should negate a sure score.

If all things were equal and done entirely by the book, the foul would be penalized from the basic spot, that is, where the foul occurred.

This has been discussed in our Association meeting and consensus was penalize this as a USC, which, is totally wrong because there was contact and it is a personal foul. The reason for the USC it is a method to penalize "correctly" albeit it wrong without taking away the score.

Another method was to simply lie about when the foul occurred and say the score had already occurred when the contact occurred. Dead ball foul, penalize from succeeding spot. But what if the runner was tackled on the one yard line? Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

The real answer is that coaches should teach players not to block illegally.

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

Our association had a film session on this type of play this year, and after some lengthy discussion, it was agreed that it should be a personal foul, not USC. Bring it back.