It would if one would not insist on injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness" into the definition and just accept it the way it is written. There are a few violations that clearly state intent is required (intentional grounding, kicking, batting, etc). Blocking violations are missing from that list.

I doubt you understand this Mike, but "injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness", into the mix is largely the primary reason we are out there to begin with. If you need to demonstrate your superior command of the language of the rules, to the nth degree, you can do that, but likely few will be really impressed with your recollection skills.

"Blocking" as described in articles 2 through 9, of section 3, rule 2 defines what actions arepermissable and those which are not. Although "intent" is not specifically indicated in any of these definitions/instructions, it is certainly implied that the act of blocking is, actually, a deliberate action taken by a player,directly against an opponent.

If the intention of the rules makers was to prohibit inadvertent contact between opposing players, we'd likely have definitions for "bumping into" and have appropriate penalty for "illegal bumping into".

Sometimes, some things really don't need to be spelled out. Perhaps that's why so much of our job is related to judgment.

Maybe I'm too stupid to understand that. Then again, maybe I do understand that with the "standard" this proposes chaos insues because there is no longer any set of definitions or rules because they all get altered by the individuals interpretation or what one feels is fair.
This doesn't take some superior grasp or command of the language. It merely takes an ability to accept the rules as written and interpreted.

When common sense is applied reasonably, it rarely creates chaos. It's when you try and stretch logic way beyond what it was clearly intended for, things tend to get murky.

Fair enough. But common sense tells me if you have a specific definition or an accepted interpretation, one can only make things "murky" by altering it to fit ones sensibilities.

Indeed...such as "out of bounds".

Exactly, really stupid is going to stay really stupid no matter how you try and rephrase it or dress it up. I presume you are referring to the REALLY dopey notion that a player, who has established himself as being OOB, can somehow lose that designation by simply jumping up in the air while OOB.

Sorry Welpe, dumb doesn't get any smarter as it ages.

Nor does it get any smarter by simple volume. Especially when attempting to prove one's point by using an apples to orange comparison. On one hand we have a clearly defined rule regarding blocks. On the other, we also have a clearly defined rule regarding what makes a player OOB but nothing regarding what it takes to be regarded being back in bounds. Two entirely different situations on how the rules have been written and how they should be interpreted.

Mike, I'll be honest with you, I'm really not interested in wasting your time, my time or anyone else's arguing with you about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I wasn't trying to compare apples to oranges, and didn't bring the subject of OOB into the discussion.

I don't have any problem with the verbiage or common interpretation of the blocking rule, I was merely suggesting that not every type of contact, even though the contact may actually, or inadvertently, serve to create some type of obstruction, automatically constitutes a "block". Of course that is entirely dependent on what a covering official actually witnesses.

If you disagree with that assessment, and feel compelled to penalize every technical infraction you are completely authorized to do so. Please feel totally free to ignore anything I may suggest as an alternate or interim solution to, what is a purely hypothetical situation, and is merely intended to highlite the flexibility we are all empowered to exercise in our judgments.

There never was anything to do with dancing angels, fruits or anything else you try to use as a smoke screen. And your attempts to "win" the debate by throwing out something I've never said as my position on technical infractions is, quite frankly, a pathetic attempt to make me and/or my postion look bad.
The original, and really only subject, has been your contention intent is part of the definition of "block" and mine that it is not. Or, that in "my world" the intent of how the block was done does not necessarily relieve the blocker of the chance for foul while you seem to think it does. Maybe I'm wrong about your position, but I don't think so from what you've posted.
Of course we all have flexibility to exercise our own judgement. But I don't think we have flexibility to alter defintions of words or actions to suit ourselves. In this profession, our flexibility lies only on whether the actions rise to the level of their becoming a callable foul.

I bet you apply this distinction all the time, maybe without realizing it, w.r.t. pass interference by team A: distinguishing between a player's route that deliberately gets in a defender's way, and one that accidentally does so.

Robert in the Bronx

You really need to lighten up, Mike, this may be really hard for you to grasp, but there's no "debate", there's no winning or losing of anything. There are different approaches, some that work better for some, not so with others. You seem a lot more interested in semantics and declaring yourself "right" than even considering approaches that may differ from yours, or expand your perspective.

I acknowledged, clearly, that the word "intent" is absolutely NOT a part of the definition of "Blocking", however it should be painfully obvious that "intent" is a (one of many) factor that is usually inherent to the act of blocking. Over the long history of the game, players bumping into, brushing, even colliding into each other inadvertently or accidentally has ALWAYS, largely been ignored.

As with most things we deal with and judge, there is ALWAYS the potential for exceptions, and those are best determined by the experience and competency of the covering official, not some arbitrary interpretation of words that can be twisted to suggest something contrary to the function of the game.

Understand, Mike, it's impossible for me to make you "look bad", that is something only you can do and rigid insistence on overly technical interpretation, based on semantics, at the expense of functional application is a great way to do it.

Yeah, I know you have no ability to make someone look bad. But maybe you don't grasp the concept that when you throw into the discussion things like "If you disagree with that assessment, and feel compelled to penalize every technical infraction you are completely authorized to do so." with absolutely nothing I have said that comes close to that poorly disguised back handed comment, you have indeed tried to make someone look bad. It's an implied accusation that I call every technical infraction, which I think any even somewhat experienced official takes a dim view of. But if that tack is what you have to resort to, knock yourself out.
Sure, you admit intent is not part of the definition, but you seem to force the concept into it when you are on the field apparently to meet your sense of fairness. Me, I'm not that complicated. A block is a block. Intent of the block is not consequential according to the rules. If a player happens to stumble because it's slippery or he trips over his own feet or he's just plain clumsy and falls into the knees of an opponent, I just determine if the block rises to the level of a foul. You seem to want to consider his intent as well and I don't think you have any rule or interpretation support to do so.

Are you suggesting your earlier assessment that, "It would if one would not insist on injecting one's own interpretation of "fairness" into the definition and just accept it the way it is written.", is not a recommendation for reliance on an enforcement based on a generalized technical assessment of semantics rather than one based on evaluation of a specific observation?

Well then, I guess it's a good thing we can each do the job the way we believe it's intended to be done. I must admit, I do tend to consider a "sense of fairness" in my understanding of how the rules, in general, are intended to be interpreted and applied, as they relate to the actual workings of the game.