Where we going to mark it off at??

[BoBo]

A12 drops back to pass.

B25 intercepts the ball and returns to A's 20.

After the change of possesion on the return A55 blocks B66 in the back. (Yes A blocking in the back.)

Foul on A'30.

Whatcha got????

[Welpe]

1st & 10 for B at A's 10.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BoBo

A12 drops back to pass.

B25 intercepts the ball and returns to A's 20.

After the change of possesion on the return A55 blocks B66 in the back. (Yes A blocking in the back.)

Foul on A'30.

Whatcha got????

CANADIAN RULING:

Since the LS has no signifance, 15 yards (blocking from the rear) or 10 yards (illegal block) from Point Ball Held at time of foul.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by BoBo

A12 drops back to pass.

B25 intercepts the ball and returns to A's 20.

After the change of possesion on the return A55 blocks B66 in the back. (Yes A blocking in the back.)

Foul on A'30.

Whatcha got????

Was the BIB to try to get to the ball carrier and hit him in the back? Are you 100% sure you got the colors and teams straight cuz it doesn't make sense for the defensive team to have a realistic BIB as if they were the blocking team?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by MJT

Was the BIB to try to get to the ball carrier and hit him in the back? Are you 100% sure you got the colors and teams straight cuz it doesn't make sense for the defensive team to have a realistic BIB as if they were the blocking team?

He wrote (Yes A blocking in the back.)

There's always some idiot who feels he's gotta take a cheap shot. That's probably what this was.

[Warrenkicker]

This is why we always talk about actions like this and see if we can call them personal fouls. Yes it is more yardage but the coach of the offending team seems more likely to accept the bigger penalty than the unusual penalty. If A is taking a cheap shot after the turn-over then let's get him for a personal foul as his action really isn't football related any more.

But if you really want to call it a block in the back then Welpe has your answer.

[BoBo]

I was wearing the white hat and did not see the play. I asked if it deserved a personal foul or a block in the back. Was not real malicious but deserving of a flag from player safety. It happened some distance from the runner so NO it was not attempting to tackle the ball carrier.

Just threw it out there for discussion.

Thanks

[MRH]

If the contact occured some distance from the runner as you stated you could rule it a personal foul on that basis alone.

9-4-3b
9-4-3g

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BoBo

I was wearing the white hat and did not see the play. I asked if it deserved a personal foul or a block in the back. Was not real malicious but deserving of a flag from player safety. It happened some distance from the runner so NO it was not attempting to tackle the ball carrier.

Just threw it out there for discussion.

Thanks

On my crew, it's a personal foul or it's nothing. I won't accept it any other way.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

On my crew, it's a personal foul or it's nothing. I won't accept it any other way.

What if it WAS near the point of attack - perhaps the A player was trying to stop a B player from blocking another A player who was closer to the play, and hit the B player in the back. It's odd, yes, but it's conceivable.

I'd lean toward PF on most of these, but wouldn't refuse to accept the BIB unilaterally, as WH.

Incidentally ... isn't the enforcement exactly the same in the OP? 1st and 10 on the 10 in either case, right?

[BoBo]

As we were in discussion the enforcement was going thru my mind that we were ending up in the same place regardless. Thus the BIB vs PF were not going to matter.

Yes I too am aware of player safety is number 1. And would guess 99% of the time it would be PF.

This instant fortunatley it did not matter.