Free Blocking Zone

[VALJ]

Blocking below the wait, blocking in the back, and clipping are all allowed in the free blocking zone while the ball is in the zone and both players were in the zone on their lines of scrimmage, aren't they? Legal play.

[ppaltice]

Originally Posted by VALJ

Blocking below the wait, blocking in the back, and clipping are all allowed in the free blocking zone while the ball is in the zone and both players were in the zone on their lines of scrimmage, aren't they? Legal play.

Just to be more precise, blocking below the waist is legal as both players were on the line and in the FBZ at the snap. Blocking in the back is legal as A75 was on the line and B99 was in the FBZ at the snap. Clipping is legal by A75 as he could legally block B99 in the back and below the waist.

Now the real question: Is it a Chop Block? Yes.

By Rule 2-3-8, A chop block is a delayed block at the knees or below against and opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free-blocking zone.

This fits the criteria for a chop block.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

Just to be more precise, blocking below the waist is legal as both players were on the line and in the FBZ at the snap. Blocking in the back is legal as A75 was on the line and B99 was in the FBZ at the snap. Clipping is legal by A75 as he could legally block B99 in the back and below the waist.

Now the real question: Is it a Chop Block? Yes.

By Rule 2-3-8, A chop block is a delayed block at the knees or below against and opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free-blocking zone.

This fits the criteria for a chop block.

Interesting analysis. You are technically right but I don't know if this fits the intent of the chop block rule and I'd be surprised if anyone caught this in real time on the field.

[VALJ]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

Just to be more precise, blocking below the waist is legal as both players were on the line and in the FBZ at the snap. Blocking in the back is legal as A75 was on the line and B99 was in the FBZ at the snap. Clipping is legal by A75 as he could legally block B99 in the back and below the waist.

Now the real question: Is it a Chop Block? Yes.

By Rule 2-3-8, A chop block is a delayed block at the knees or below against and opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free-blocking zone.

This fits the criteria for a chop block.

That's a good catch, ppal. I agree with Bison that I don't think that's the spirit of the rule, but you've definitely got a violation of the letter of the rule...

[Jimmie24]

I wouldn't disagree if this was called a chop block in a game. I can't disagree with it being within the spirit of the rule too. They want to protect a defensive player from a very dangerous block.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

Just to be more precise, blocking below the waist is legal as both players were on the line and in the FBZ at the snap. Blocking in the back is legal as A75 was on the line and B99 was in the FBZ at the snap. Clipping is legal by A75 as he could legally block B99 in the back and below the waist.

Now the real question: Is it a Chop Block? Yes.

By Rule 2-3-8, A chop block is a delayed block at the knees or below against and opponent who is in contact with a teammate of the blocker in the free-blocking zone.

This fits the criteria for a chop block.

I guess if you look hard enough, you can find the smallest speck of fly dropping in even a mountain of ground balck pepper.

[Reffing Rev.]

Our group was again divided...
4 said it was a legal play because the defender was not being blocked.
1 said it was a clip because the fbz only applied to initial action on the line and this was too late afterwards. (He is admittedly our regular BJ who doesn't deal much with the fbz)
1 (me) said it was a chop. As I picture the play in my mind it just looked wrong, as I thought about why it was wrong I went with the chop because the defender was engaged and unable to protect himself from the low block.

[svm1010]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I guess if you look hard enough, you can find the smallest speck of fly dropping in even a mountain of ground balck pepper.

Deep man, deep. Pass the OJ

[ppaltice]

What A75 did was dangerous and unnecessary. You don't try and take out the knees of a person making a tackle. It is illegal for safety issues.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

What A75 did was dangerous and unnecessary. You don't try and take out the knees of a person making a tackle. It is illegal for safety issues.

Dangerous and illegal I get. But I think you're the one piling on with the description of it as "unnecessary". A75 was probably trying to rub the tackler off the ballcarrier, but fell early and wound up on the back of B99's legs.

Robert

[ppaltice]

I know what you are saying, Robert. A run up the middle, bodies may be flying everywhere. If one falls on the back of a players legs, that is a no call.

But if you see a player "dive on the back of the legs" and determine this was an intentional block at the knees, you should call it. From my experience, when you see a chop block, you know it. It just looks bad.