Return of the video play...

[BuckeyeRef]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Same as we do on any other play when a player gets injured. Call time out and call for the trainers.

Stop the video at the point of contact. This is clearly in the shoulder, not the back. In fact, you can still see the numbers on the back of the defender's jersey as he's being hit.

Back to the original question, if this were a BIB I'd flag it regardless of whether the player who was blocked made the tackle or not.

While I disagree with your assessment of the block, I agree with your philosophy. If you don't think it is a BIB and call it that way, that is fine with me. However, to not throw a flag becuase it did not affect the play is not the reason to hold off on the flag.

I believe this is a block in the back and should be flagged regardless of whether the blocked player made the tackle or not. First, the block is pretty violent and potentially harmful. These types of blocks need to be discouraged. Second, if we don't call fouls just because they don't affect the play, where do we draw the line. When the right tackle gets his facemask intentionally grabbed and gets thrown to the ground, do we hold the flag because the play was a sweep left? It didn't affect the play, but it could lead to injury. I know holding is different, but because that is not likely to lead to injury there is a stated preference to avoid calling holding.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by insatty

With all due respect to the senior official in Refbuz's association, that advice does not reflect the governing philosophy in Division 1 and the NFL. If Division 1 and NFL officials are not calling these fouls, why should HS ball be called differently? The whole idea of governing philosophies is to encourage officiating consistency and proper game management.

I am well aware of game management philosophies.

Would it change you opinion if I told you that the senior official that spoke with works FCS football and his boss assigns games for 8 of the top 25 FCS teams?

[Forksref]

BIB - Flag - Safety issue. Just because he made the tackle doesn't make it a safe play. My judgment is safe vs. unsafe not tackle vs. no tackle. tough time selling a no flag call on an injury.

[FeetBallRef]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRef

While I disagree with your assessment of the block, I agree with your philosophy. If you don't think it is a BIB and call it that way, that is fine with me. However, to not throw a flag becuase it did not affect the play is not the reason to hold off on the flag.

I believe this is a block in the back and should be flagged regardless of whether the blocked player made the tackle or not. First, the block is pretty violent and potentially harmful. These types of blocks need to be discouraged. Second, if we don't call fouls just because they don't affect the play, where do we draw the line. When the right tackle gets his facemask intentionally grabbed and gets thrown to the ground, do we hold the flag because the play was a sweep left? It didn't affect the play, but it could lead to injury. I know holding is different, but because that is not likely to lead to injury there is a stated preference to avoid calling holding.

Best posting yet, AGREE 110%.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRef

While I disagree with your assessment of the block, I agree with your philosophy. If you don't think it is a BIB and call it that way, that is fine with me. However, to not throw a flag becuase it did not affect the play is not the reason to hold off on the flag.

I believe this is a block in the back and should be flagged regardless of whether the blocked player made the tackle or not. First, the block is pretty violent and potentially harmful. These types of blocks need to be discouraged. Second, if we don't call fouls just because they don't affect the play, where do we draw the line. When the right tackle gets his facemask intentionally grabbed and gets thrown to the ground, do we hold the flag because the play was a sweep left? It didn't affect the play, but it could lead to injury. I know holding is different, but because that is not likely to lead to injury there is a stated preference to avoid calling holding.

The only time I would not call a "technical" BIB is when the player actually makes the tackle. Personally I do not care what others do. I do not see a BIB in itself simply a violent or safety foul. For one thing, players run into each other all the time and I would not consider those a foul. It really comes down to your philosophy or what you have been taught. It even matters what others do in your area so that you fit that philosophy on some level. And this is the same on many levels as holding. I am not calling a very minor hold when the play is going in the other direction. That is a talk to just about every time. And in my opinion BIB do not automatically lead to injury. IF that is the logic, then any tackle from behind is a dangerous act. We are not talking about a clip here.

Peace

[Jimmie24]

By rule that is borderline. Looks to me like it is more of a shot to the shoulder, which by rule is not a block in the back. It is not nearly as violent as some are saying. If we call a block based by the violent nature of it, then we are going to have to call a lot of straight up blocks too.

A block in the back needs to be called, when the force is directly in his back. In this video it is not. Even the direction that the player goes, shows that the force was not in his back. He turned with the ball carrier.

[Warrenkicker]

Perhaps I am seeing it differently than others but I think that K20 turned just prior to the contact. I see his shoulders parallel to the sideline while tracking the returner. R2 coming up to him from the side when the returner cut back inside. This turned K20's shoulders from parallel to the sideline to about a 45 degree angle to the sideline when the contact occurred. I know contact from that angle will get a lot of flags at the high school level though I might not agree with that call.

So I don't think that the call is there even with none of the surrounding situation. However I feel K20 turned his "back" to the blocker after the blocker was committed to his charge. Thus I feel there is no foul no matter what you think of the location of the contact.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

Perhaps I am seeing it differently than others but I think that K20 turned just prior to the contact. I see his shoulders parallel to the sideline while tracking the returner. R2 coming up to him from the side when the returner cut back inside. This turned K20's shoulders from parallel to the sideline to about a 45 degree angle to the sideline when the contact occurred. I know contact from that angle will get a lot of flags at the high school level though I might not agree with that call.

So I don't think that the call is there even with none of the surrounding situation. However I feel K20 turned his "back" to the blocker after the blocker was committed to his charge. Thus I feel there is no foul no matter what you think of the location of the contact.

I had a spirited discussion with an experienced official a few years back on a video that was shown in an association meeting. There was a block flagged as an IBB that definitely was not between the shoulder blades. He said it was more to the back than to the front and should be flagged "for safety". I disagree with that myself, but can verify that this mentality sure does exist. And of course, this block will always generate moans from the sidelines

[JasonTX]

Why is it that there are some opinions that a block in the back is a "safety" foul, but it's only a 10 yard penalty. If it were a true "safety" foul it would be a 15 yard penalty like the others are.

[Jimmie24]

It is the same as the two different face mask penalties. The rules committee separated clip and block in the back. They wanted the block in the back called more so they lessened that penalty.

[bossman72]

For those of you who would not call this BIB based on philosophy of not affecting the play, what would you call if the punt was a touchback, but during the punt R blocks a K player in the back?

I posted a thread on this a while ago and the vast majority of you agree to flag this. I find the original play very similar. In my example, the BIB did not affect the play, but everyone said to call it. Why would this play be any different?

For reference:
Philosophy

[FeetBallRef]

Originally Posted by bossman72

for those of you who would not call this bib based on philosophy of not affecting the play, what would you call if the punt was a touchback, but during the punt r blocks a k player in the back?

I posted a thread on this a while ago and the vast majority of you agree to flag this. I find the original play very similar. In my example, the bib did not affect the play, but everyone said to call it. Why would this play be any different?

For reference:
Philosophy

great counterpoint !!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bossman72

For those of you who would not call this BIB based on philosophy of not affecting the play, what would you call if the punt was a touchback, but during the punt R blocks a K player in the back?

I posted a thread on this a while ago and the vast majority of you agree to flag this. I find the original play very similar. In my example, the BIB did not affect the play, but everyone said to call it. Why would this play be any different?

For reference:
Philosophy

The problem with this play and the video, it does not look clear this was a foul. I would only call a foul if I am "sure" there was a block in the back. If I am not sure, then I would pass on the play.

And if you have a TB, that is a different set of circumstances. But if the play was a ways away from the action and it was not clear, I would pass on that as well. That has always worked for me.

Peace