"The referee was there and he disagreed with you. That's why he threw the flag".

That's not what I understood at all. Unless I missed something, the referee threw a flag had n opportunity to reflect about it, then changed his mind.

Apparently he didn't go through the formality of waving the flag off, which would be appropriate mechanics wise, but he changed his assessment.

I realize the suggestion is "the referee said" it was because the player slipped making the contact, but considering memories are often not exactly what we choose to remember tham as, I'm going with there simply was a change in assessment.

As has been repeated, intent is not a prerequisite of something being a chop block, but it's somewhat difficult to imagine an action, that was not intended to be a chop block, somehow actually turned out to be one.

Is a player who, actually, falls into the rear of an opponent clipping him? (empasis on the word actually). Is every contact made with an opponent from the rear, below the waist a clip? I don't think so, because even though a slip and inadvertent fall into the back of an opponent can cause the same, if not more, threat and damage as a deliberate and intentional clip, it's just not the same thing and I doubt would be called under most circumstances.

Intent is not mentioned as a requirement for certain fouls being certain fould but in most instances it does enter into the decision thought process for an official deciding if the behavior is prohibited by rule.

Well, like the death penalty, the PF penalty is not a deterrent but a punishment for a wrong doing. In the world of officiating football, personal fouls are "felonies" and accidental or not, should be penalized when they occur.

No, that's ridiculous if you think about it. It applies to cases where an advantage is gained by means contravening the rules, provided the advantage can be negated by the penalty, but it would be silly to apply such a standard in a game for a safety issue alone. The penalty does nothing to help in the case a player's knee ligament is injured. It's not as if the penalized player has to kick in for the medical bill or something. When it comes to safety, the only reason for a penalty is as a deterrent.

Welpe's assertion would be even stranger as applied to the personal foul of butt blocking. The penalty is there as a deterrent against a player's endangering his own neck. What good would punishment do in such a case? It would only add insult to possible injury.

Robert in the Bronx

You're confusing 'punishment' with 'compensation'.

Why can't a penalty be both punishment and deterrent?

Good point, I suppose a penalty can be both. I now see that flaw in my argument.

That said, I do not think advantage/disadvantage should be applied to a safety related foul such as chop blocking.

It can be, but it isn't in all cases, and if you're distinguishing punishment from compensation then there is no reason for official punishment in a game, because it's just a game. In languages where the words for punishment and penalty are the same, this distinction does not exist, but in English the words have subtly different meanings.

Robert in the Bronx

On the contrary, I think it's the only good way to apply the penalty as a deterrent in cases like this.

There are situations sometimes related to safety where advantage/disadvantage is not involved, i.e. where a player just does something hotheaded to an opponent, without hope of producing an advantage. Such is not the case here.

There would be no rule against chop blocking were chop blocking not effective in the game, as it was proven to be for many years. Because it is effective, teams are motivated to use it. When it was decided that this move was too dangerous to be allowed to continue to be used, the rule was adopted.

As has been explained in this thread, there are situations that fit the definition of chop block but which no reasonable mode of play could be adopted to avoid. It is easy to see that no advantage would be gained by a player who simply falls and is trying to get up, while opposing players who are engaged happen to sidestep into him. Whether there were a penalty for chop blocking or not would have no bearing on the actions of the first player which led him to face plant, because he had no motivation to do so. So it would be useless to apply penalties in such cases.

The situation might be different in the case of the adjacent players reach blocking in the same direction. Such a blocking scheme may be adopted with the knowledge that it could sometimes produce a chop block that was not assigned but could be reasonably expected to occur in certain cases. In that case the existence of a penalty against chop blocking could be expected to figure into the team's preparation and the players' actions on the field, which might be modified to have a greater chance of avoiding a chop block.

Robert in the Bronx

Let's agree to disagree on this one. As an official, if I pass on an obvious chop block because I felt there was no advantage gained, I will be downgraded by my association. This is how I have been taught and that is what is expected of me.

Trying to use the "Advantage/Disadvantge" umbrella to describe this topic may be the cause of confusion. I don't think there is any (or at least much of an) argument over whether a "chop block", or other safety related personal fouls, should be called regardless of the Advantage/Disadvantage factor. However the issue seems to be more about dealing with contacts that, although perhaps satisfying a technical terminology of a foul, don't measure up to the official's perception of what actually constitutes a particular foul.

Our role is best targeted for an ability to recognize bad behavior, that happens,and apply the proscribed penalty for exhibiting it, rather than seeking borderline infractions that may only approach a level of behavior in a loosely defined technical manner.

I agree.

Three possibilities with a chop block (or any foul, really):
1. Intentional
2. Negligent
3. Unavoidable accident

In my experience, the vast majority fall under (1), and the vast majority of the remainder fall under (2). Both deserve a flag.

If the tiny percentage under (3) draw a flag, well that's a shame, but the rules don't permit an exception.

Up-thread you mentioned that the definition of "chop block" in the rules includes the undefined, but understandable, word "block", and IIRC the player who face planted and was getting up could cause contact without being said to block. I think this does introduce either an intentionality or advantage factor into the judgement.

Quite a while back I asked whether, under rules similar to Fed's but either prohibiting BBW altogether or restricting it to the immediate line charge, one should be judged to have BBW by deliberately sprawling in front of one or more opponents, as in the "shoe shine" or "Superman" block, and waiting for them to trip over you. (The "shoe shine" gets its name from the instruction given a down blocking TE to give his C a quick shoe shine, i.e. dive with your hands landing near his feet. By doing so you can sometimes delay 2 opponents from penetrating on the back side. The instruction includes a subsequent back roll into the opposing line, but for purposes of the example we omitted that part of the move.) The answer was yes, because even though the opponent was moving and the blocker was stationary, the blocker intended to produce the contact and the blocker's team would gain an advantage by doing to. If that's a BBW, what's the difference between that and the face plant example given in this thread? The criterion must be intent and/or advantage. The face planter did not intend to be blocking the opponent who stumbled over him, and his team could not have expected to gain an advantage, or they didn't get an actual advantage, by his face plant.

Robert in the Bronx

Sorry Robert, you're getting way too deep into this for me to keep up. I'm afraid what we do is not rocket science and no matter how complicated we may try and make it, it's not going to become rocket science.

As for your, "shoe shine" block, as it is with so many things we do, you just have to see (with your own eyes) the action to really determine if someone did something you perceive to be improper and/or illegal.

If so, you have to determine whether the action rises to the level of being flagged, or may be better handled with a subtle word of caution or advice. There are precious few absolutes and each game, each play and each situation are unique and should be judged on what is actually observed.

Competency in our work is not measured either by how many, or how few, flags we throw. The objective is to flag each and every action that merits a flag, and deal with any other actions that fail to merit a flag judisiously and maturely without unduly interrupting the flow of the game.

True in varsity ball, maybe so in JV ball. At Reserve or Freshman level, I think (2) tends to outnumber (1), and even (3) might outnumber (1).

REPLY: "Block(ing)" is most certainly defined in both the Fed and NCAA books and the concept of intent isn't mentioned.

Although the NF definition of blockin (NF: 2-3-1) simply states, "Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker's body.", I wouldn't think the most liberal interpretation would include any player stumbling around (and genuinely) inadvertently contacting an opponent.

It's not unusual that attempts to examine the specific language of a rule, when applied to a universal context, creates more questions than provides answers.