Video Play #3 from last friday night

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to have to disagree with most here. I think this was a clean block. The player falling is only an indication as to the foul; it is not the deciding factor. It looks to me like he was hit on the side and it took him a while to fall. If anything, the two were running side by side and the defender kind of turned on him. I would pass on this based on what I just saw.

Peace

I agree. I don't see a foul.

[Welpe]

Hmmm...well maybe I need to adjust my philosophy. Kant get them all right.

[ChickenOfNC]

Not the biggest BIB I've ever seen, but it qualifies in my opinion and, more importantly, it looks like an advantage was gained. I'd flag it.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC

Not the biggest BIB I've ever seen, but it qualifies in my opinion and, more importantly, it looks like an advantage was gained. I'd flag it.

Before the clarified and division of the clipping rule in 2002 this might have been considered as an illegal block. Now, the rule plainly states "in the opponent's back, inside the shoulders and below the helmet and above the waist."

So, initial contact outside the shoulder blade is perfectly legal. In watching this play the A player catches up to the B player on his side. Play close attention to the A player's left arm. Since he is on the side of the B player in order to block in the back he must raise his arm and he never does.

[Texas Aggie]

I don't know what the fed rule says specifically, but under NCAA, I've got an illegal block. Key def out of Rule 2: "...the force of the initial contact is from behind..." That's met here.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I don't know what the fed rule says specifically, but under NCAA, I've got an illegal block. Key def out of Rule 2: "...the force of the initial contact is from behind..." That's met here.

That's interesting. Before the 2002 NFHS rule change this would have been a clip (there was no block in the back). I believe the NFHS sought specificity on the rule and in effect gave blockers some additional latitude and officials a more concrete definition.

[ChickenOfNC]

I know what the rule says, and in my opinion, there is contact here that meets the rulebook definition of a BIB.

I usually give the blocker a good amount of lattitude. If it is a block from the side or shoulder, I have nothing. But in this one, most of the contact looks to be in the back.

[Texas Aggie]

two were running side by side

Watch it again. He's clearly a yard (at least) behind him. Closer to the sideline by 6-8 inches to be sure, but easily behind him. But I can't comment on the Fed rule.