Took 7 months for me to ask??

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

It makes no difference whether it was intentional or not, the defender could have still been injured: which is why the rule exists. Flag.

Gentlemen, with all due respect, acknlowledging and agreeing that a "clip" is always a "clip" and a "chop block" is always a "chop block", does NOT mean that every type of contact, including that which may be incidental, forced or otherwise not measuring up to the definition of a "block", with an opponents lower extremities, is automatically either a clip or a chop block, nor automatically, merits a flag.

One of the most basic and overriding aspects of officiating is that one should see the entire action to determne if any mitigating circumstances might have been in play that would prevent the action from being designated as a foul.

[TrojanHorse]

That's why I pose the question. I never argued the fact that a penalty was called, but I asked because the white had called a chop, but then told me it was accidental because he said the player was going to drive the DT up the field, he lost his footing and blocked below the waist.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

That's why I pose the question. I never argued the fact that a penalty was called, but I asked because the white had called a chop, but then told me it was accidental because he said the player was going to drive the DT up the field, he lost his footing and blocked below the waist.

Another "basic aspect of officiating" is when asked a question about a play you didn't see, keep your response to the letter of the rule, rather than try and address the possible slant applied to the question.

As others have suggested, intent is not a factor in any of the rules under discussion, however what you may recall being told may, or may not, exactly reflect what the official intended to impart to you. How that particular play may have been called reflects specifically what that particular official observed on that particular play.

Apparently, based on his final action, he did not consider the contact he observed to constitute a "block" below the waist or the low end of a chop block. If he believed there was some initial contact with the opponent prior to slipping and falling low that would likely affect his judgment as well.

[Sonofanump]

According to NCAA umpires I know, if a backside guard reach blocks low on a defender who engages into the front side center whose intent is not to block him, but reach block himself, it is still a chop block. We can not judge intent.

[jjrye22]

Here is a good example of needing to get the description as exact as possible.

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

During a game, our OL doubled the DT. In the process of this, one of our lineman slips and unintentionally hit the already engaged DT in the knee area.

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

the player was going to drive the DT up the field, he lost his footing and blocked below the waist.

In your first quote you say they were involved in a double team and the lineman slipped low.
In your second quote you say the lineman was going to block and slipped low.

(Note: I only know NCAA - FED might be different).
There is an important distinction here, since the rule says the INITIAL contact needs to be below the waist.
If the lineman was involved in blocking high, and slipped low, I would say no penalty - but one might come out if the official only saw that later part of the action.
If the lineman was trying to block and slipped and made the first contact low, I have a penalty. Intent is not part of the rule, only the contact.

[Texas Aggie]

It makes no difference whether it was intentional or not

Actually, it DOES matter, though I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion here as its based on the OP play. On that one, obviously, you'd have to see it, but the key question is: did the offense gain an advantage? Yes = flag; no = pass on it.

However, if it is clearly unintentional you are more likely than not to pass on the call. Here's an example that happened in one of my games last year: sweep or pass play to the flat, offensive lineman out there blocking and ends up face down on the ground (no foul involved). Right behind him is his teammate who's engaged with a defender and they both trip over the guy on the ground, who might have been in the process of getting up (I didn't actually see this). Chop block? No way, even though by definition, it fits (and the fact that the coach is yelling for it).

[Welpe]

You apply advantage/disadvantage to a chop block call?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Gentlemen, with all due respect, acknlowledging and agreeing that a "clip" is always a "clip" and a "chop block" is always a "chop block", does NOT mean that every type of contact,...

I didn't say that it did. But intent is NOT an issue. Most players don't intend to grab a facemask, but that doesn't mean it's not a penalty.

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

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Actually, it DOES matter, though I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your opinion here as its based on the OP play. On that one, obviously, you'd have to see it, but the key question is: did the offense gain an advantage? Yes = flag; no = pass on it.

A chop block is a safety issue. It has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

A chop block is a safety issue. It has nothing to do with advantage/disadvantage.

I think it does. It's like the insanity defense. Sure, the act was committed, but punishing it wouldn't deter anyone in a similar position from doing it.

The penalty doesn't make anyone more safe after the fact, only as a deterrent to doing it, either deliberately or negligently. In the case of the player face planting on the ground, possibly getting up, and participating unintentionally in what fits the definition of a chop block, it would do no good to the game to penalize it if the team derived no advantage from it and it was accidental -- not only accidental in the sense of unintentional, but accidental in the sense that it couldn't've been avoided by a reasonable modification of anyone's playing style or assignment.

In the original case, where a slip resulted in a low block, you might judge that the positioning and blocking assignments of team A could be chosen to produce a lesser or greater chance of an accidental chop block by such means, which would give a reason to penalize if one occurred. In the face plant case where the engaged players stumbled over him, no way.

Robert in the Bronx

[ajmc]

"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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think it does. It's like the insanity defense. Sure, the act was committed, but punishing it wouldn't deter anyone in a similar position from doing it.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Well, like the death penalty, the PF penalty is not a deterrent but a punishment for a wrong doing.

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, that's ridiculous if you think about it.

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.

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

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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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

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