Good Block or penalty?

[bigjohn]

OK, how about this one?

YouTube - KNOCK OUT BLOCK!!!

[HLin NC]

bigjohn couldn't get anyone to agree with him on the Fed board so he's bringing it up over here. According to him, buttblocking happens all the time.


2009 Fed Case book cite
2.20.1 SITUATION A: From a four-point stance on the offensive line, interior
lineman A1: (a) initially contacts an opponent by driving his face mask directly
into the opponent’s chest who is not the ball carrier; or (b) contacts an opponent
with his shoulder so that his head is to the side of the opponent’s body and the
helmet does not make initial contact; or (c) attempts to block an opponent with a
shoulder, but because of a defensive slant, primary contact with the opponent is
made with A1’s helmet. RULING: The block in (a) is illegal butt blocking. In (b),
even though there was some contact with the helmet, the block is legal because
the helmet or face mask was not used to deliver the blow. In (c), the covering official
will have to judge whether or not it is a foul. Because of defensive slants and
stunts, there will be instances in which the blocker attempts to make a legal
shoulder block, but inadvertently contacts an opponent with either his face mask
or helmet. When this is the case, contact does not result in a direct blow and is
legal. (9-4-3i)

[FredFan7]

I've got nothing.

[bigjohn]

YouTube - KNOCK OUT BLOCK!!!

This one is a clean block? or is this the one you agree is butt blocking

[Ref inSoCA]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

YouTube - Awesome Football block

Of course, the title should be "Good Block or foul?" A Penalty is punishment for a foul. Players commit fouls, not penalties.

Having said that, there is no foul in the video. It was shoulder-first from the side.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

YouTube - Awesome Football block

Nothing. Absolutely nothing but a de-cleating.

[TXMike]

Perhaps this is a case of YOU seeing what YOU want tosee cause there are others who do NOT see that action here

[umpirebob71]

Guys, he does this nonsense on other forums, as well. Whines and cries like a six year-old child when it doen't get its way. Your act is getting old, bigjohn. Time to retire it.

[bigjohn]

anyone that looks at that clip and doesn't think the kid led with his head should retire.

it doesn't say a thing about first in this description of butt blocking.

Butt Blocking in 1 and 2 and face tackling in 3 are both tactics which involve driving the face mask, frontal area or top of the helmet directly into an opponent in blocking or tackling respectively. both result in a foul for illegal helmet contact

[Mike L]

John,
the problem is NOT that many officials here fail to acknowledge what is IHC and the importance of calling it. We are all pretty much in agreement on that.
What is the problem is the videos you've submitted do NOT meet that standard in our eyes. We get it that in your eyes it's clear. But from our view, it must be a clear no doubt about it foul. The contact must be initiated by the helmet. Not that he simply drops his head, not what we think he intended to do, not what probably happened. It's what we can clearly, and that's CLEARLY, see.
Perhaps you might consider since you are in the very small minority here that the problem is not what we are failing to see but what you are imagining to see.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

it doesn't say a thing about first in this description of butt blocking.

You're not interpreting the definition of IHC correctly, as everyone else has said.

Originally Posted by 2009 NFHS Football Case Book

2.20.1 SITUATION A: From a four-point stance on the offensive line, interior
lineman A1: (a) initially contacts an opponent by driving his face mask directly
into the opponent’s chest who is not the ball carrier; or (b) contacts an opponent
with his shoulder so that his head is to the side of the opponent’s body and the
helmet does not make initial contact; or (c) attempts to block an opponent with a
shoulder, but because of a defensive slant, primary contact with the opponent is
made with A1’s helmet. RULING: The block in (a) is illegal butt blocking. In (b),
even though there was some contact with the helmet, the block is legal because
the helmet or face mask was not used to deliver the blow. In (c), the covering official
will have to judge whether or not it is a foul. Because of defensive slants and
stunts, there will be instances in which the blocker attempts to make a legal
shoulder block, but inadvertently contacts an opponent with either his face mask
or helmet. When this is the case, contact does not result in a direct blow and is
legal. (9-4-3i)

In the clip you posted, everyone else seems to agree that the initial contact was not with the helmet. Thus, no foul.

It's not that difficult.

[bigjohn]

This is directly from the S&I guide.

Butt Blocking in 1 and 2 and face tackling in 3 are both tactics which involve driving the face mask, frontal area or top of the helmet directly into an opponent in blocking or tackling respectively. both result in a foul for illegal helmet contact


So you are saying casebook trumps S&I?

[parepat]

First, thanks to BigJohn for posting the links. It is just these types of close calls and the discussion about them that is helpful about this and other sites.

However, it seems that all too often when folks disagree the discussion breaks down to personal assualts and childish criticisms. I don't get it. That is the sole reason I don't go on NFHS much. Takes the fun out of it.

That being said, I think the first two plays involved clean blocks and I would have a foul for face tackling in the third.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

YouTube - Awesome Football block

CANADIAN RULING:

Legal.

[bigjohn]

you guys are nuts. It is slowed down for you and while the shoulders do make contact, the blocker clearly hits the defender with his helmet first, in the helmet.
This is very dangerous and should be flagged every single time.

IHC shall be strictly enforced, my behind.