Free Blocking Zone

[Reffing Rev.]

Another play from study group...

QB A1 takes a hand to hand snap and turns to his side to hand ball to FB A45 who crashes into the line. The ball is clearly still in the zone. B99 who was a DT on the line of scrimmage and in the zone at the snap has A45 in his grasps when RT A75 who was also on the line and in the zone at the snap dives on the back of his legs, contact occurs in the zone.

What do you got?

Legal?
Clip?
Chop?

[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.

[Jimmie24]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Another play from study group...

QB A1 takes a hand to hand snap and turns to his side to hand ball to FB A45 who crashes into the line. The ball is clearly still in the zone. B99 who was a DT on the line of scrimmage and in the zone at the snap has A45 in his grasps when RT A75 who was also on the line and in the zone at the snap dives on the back of his legs, contact occurs in the zone.

What do you got?

Legal?
Clip?
Chop?

A very pissed off coach and probably a hurt DT.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's not quite what I was writing. I mean that even if you do flag it -- intent not being necessary (we had a thread on an even stranger case of putative chop block recently here, and some pointed that out) -- there's no need to heap on condemnation by describing it as "unnecessary". Fouls are just part of the game, players will risk doing it in an unintended but foreseen case even to their best friends.

Robert

[patalia]

By rule, the dive block by the linesman is only illegal if it is at or below the knees. Otherwise, it is a legal clip. I am not advocating whether or not this should be called if above the knees, I am just stating the rules. If below the knees, you have a chop block. It may help to remember that you can never have clipping or illegal blocks below the waist by linesman against linesman who are in the FBZ and the ball is still in the FBZ. The only thing you can ever have is a chop block. How far above the knee you want to call this is up to you, but by rule, it is a chop block when at or below the knee. Whenever you can establish these absolutes in regards to rules, it can definitely help to determine if you had a foul or not. Once you know you can't have clipping or blocking below the waist, it only leaves one choice. Then all you have to do is determine if the action meets the criteria for the remaining choice. Same thing can be said for the new horse-collar rule. If the runner fumbles, you know you can't a horse-collar, but you could still have a PF if the action warrants it. Same principle. Already knowing what it can't be gives you less to sift through in determining fouls.