Return of the video play...

[TerpZebra]

I'm back with at least one more video play.

During the punt return, Black #2 is called for an illegal block in the back on White #20.

White #20 ends up making the tackle.

What are your thoughts on the flag?

Here it is in regular speed

Here it is in slow motion

[Mike L]

there shouldn't be one.

editted to add...I said the above because I don't think this is a BIB.

[insatty]

Like holding, blocks in the back should generally be called at the point of attack that restricts the defender from making a play on the ball carrier. Cheap-shot blocks in the back may be called as personal fouls anywhere for safety reasons.

Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw.

[FredFan7]

By the book, it's a BIB. However the hit wasn't vicious and it didn't impact the outcome of the pay (the foulee made the tackle).

No flag.

[FeetBallRef]

According to my understanding of the rules, it is a IBB. It just happens that the contact caused #20 to end up in a good spot & he was able to stick out a arm & a tackle just happened to be the result.

I would have thrown the flag. The contact was pretty harsh. If that same contact had happened 10 yards behind the runner, it would have been a PF.

[bcl1127]

Looking at full speed, it was a strong hit in the back, I think that the flag came out correctly. Just because the person gets BIB right into the runner causing the tackle does it mean that is it not a penalty? Nope. Say the runner got by you would bring the ball back to that same spot and march it off from there, so just because the return ended at the point of the penalty does not mean that there should be no flag for something like that, in my opinion.

If you are saying because the illegal block did not "spring the runner" so don't penalize because the play would go back 10 yards, then why would you move the play back ten yards from the spot of the foul if the runner was "sprung". I think that you just need to be consistent. If you think it was a block in the back at that point the penalty should be marked off from that point regardless of if the tackle was made there or not. The end result of the play if the runner got by or not would be placing the ball at the same spot, so really, just because someone commits a penalty and a tackle comes from it the team the foul was committed against is being short changed if you do not throw this flag.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by insatty

Like holding, blocks in the back should generally be called at the point of attack that restricts the defender from making a play on the ball carrier. Cheap-shot blocks in the back may be called as personal fouls anywhere for safety reasons.

Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw.

I think that you have to throw the flag here regardless of the fact that the offended player made the play, because you have to maintain control of the game. By not calling that foul you have a potential situation where white may try and retaliate later on in the game as a result of this play.

I had a very similar stance as you but I recently had a conversation regarding IBIBs with a senior official in my chapter who's opinion I respect that led me to rethink my own philosophy regarding plays like these. I was asking specifically about whether a IBIB in advance of the end of the run was a "quality" foul. His response to my question was if it is there, yes. Unlike holding there's no official philosophy regarding a BIB off the ball. This is mainly because the potential of retaliaion is greater by passing on BIBs that it is on a backside hold. You call the foul in an effort to maintain control of the game.

We also talked about going the personal foul route on a BIB as well, and he said that it would have to be pretty bad for him to go that route, because that extra 5 yard penalty is a tougher sell to the coaches.

[ajmc]

Are you guys serious? "Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw."

Then what the hell are we doing out there? If he hit him with a 2 X 4, but he still made the play, does that excuse everything?

Unless I'm missing something, the blocker took a full 5 step dead aim approach at his opponents back, made contact directly in the back of an opponent who was looking, totally, away from the blocker, and knocked him flying.

I think I've got a pretty good grasp on the concept of "advantage/disadvantage" but anyone letting this one pass because, "the block did not restrict the defender from making a play" should reconsider how he spends his spare time.

[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.

With all due respect to ajmc, the bold fonts he uses lead me to believe that he sees this block as worthy of a personal foul. I don't and I would bet that the current Division 1 supervisors would grade a IBW call here as "marginal," meaning that they could defend the call but counsel against it because the governing philosophy requires a restriction. We are not out there to throw flags, but to manage the game to ensure fairness and safety. The emotion that ajmc's post reflects is not an attribute of a football official that desires to move up.

[bcl1127]

Insatty - you talk about safety, how about the kid who gets blocked in the back and because it is from behind and not expecting, falls into the runners legs and rather than tackling the runner, snaps his neck because his head hits his knee.

A block in the back is dangerous at the HS level because the player is not ready for the impact. Say something here happened where the player who was blocked in the back got hurt, everyone would be saying that the flag was justified. Well, it should be justified anytime at this level.

This is not D1 or NFL, these are young kids who should be protected. If something is a foul it is a foul. just because the guy tackled the player by accident does not mean that the team committing the foul should be rewarded (yes rewarded because they are gaining ten yards). If the guy broke loose, the play would come back 10 yard back from the spot...so in reality you are penalizing the guy for MAKING the tackle.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by insatty

If Division 1 and NFL officials are not calling these fouls, why should HS ball be called differently?

Respectfully, because the game is not the same at the HS and DI levels.

[waltjp]

No flag. No block in the back.

[BoBo]

devils advocate lets say no flag and the kid hits the runner in a weird postion and gets hurt.

now what do we do

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BoBo

devils advocate lets say no flag and the kid hits the runner in a weird postion and gets hurt.

now what do we do

Maybe it is just me, but that should not matter. It either was a flag or it was not a flag based on the play, not who got hurt. Players get hurt no matter what we call or not.

I think it is hard to tell for sure if there was contact with the shoulder or the back clearly. It looks like the back, but not a real good angle in my opinion.

Lastly, the block did not free the player. The tackle was made with the block in question. I have no problem if the official passed on this because it did not affect the play.

Peace

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by BoBo

devils advocate lets say no flag and the kid hits the runner in a weird postion and gets hurt.

now what do we do

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.