Took 7 months for me to ask??

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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

[ajmc]

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.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Up-thread you mentioned that the definition of "chop block" in the rules includes the undefined, but understandable, word "block...

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

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ajmc

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.

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.