Fed FBZ accidentally ends
 

A1 snaps on the A35. A2 at the A33 seems to unintentionally have the snap glance off him. The ball rolls to the A29, where A2 picks it up and runs to the A40, where he is down. Meanwhile A3, playing a position on A's line within 4 yards of where the ball was previously spotted, takes one step back before cutting B1 at the knees.

Does the recent Fed interpret'n on blocking below the waist help determine whether A3's action is legal? Do you decide on the basis of whether the errant snap looked intentional?

What do you do about cases where a player of A appears to carry out an assignment that involves clipping, blocking in the back, or blocking below the waist on a play where the ball appeared to have first accidentally left the FBZ without that player's being aware of it? Do you rule on the basis of strict liability because it's a safety rule (although it's not clear to me that the rule about blocking in the back is so)? Do you rule on the basis of what the player knew or should have known?

I am not aware of any interpretation that allows leeway for the ball "unintentionally" leaving the FBZ.

Thre isn't one and I've no idea what in the world he's talking about.:confused:

What I'm talking about is that Fed has published an interpret'n based on how to rule when the ball is apparently intended to be snapped to a point outside the FBZ and does leave the FBZ. They're saying that in that case you don't actually have to observe when contact is initiated relative to the time the ball leaves the FBZ, they have another way to rule on it which is the same as some state associations had adopted.

So what I'm looking for is whether you think the same interpret'n would apply or not to a case where the ball leaves the FBZ apparently accidentally but quickly on the snap, or indeed whether this ruling has any bearing on how you'd rule, by clarifying the intention of the rule.

Can you cite the case book reference to which you refer?

I saw it quoted at Huey's last week:

2.17.2 SITUATION E: A1 is in shotgun formation, lined up seven yards behind the line of scrimmage ready to receive the snap. Immediately after the snap to A1, (a) A2 immediately drops and blocks B1 below the waist or (b) A2 rises, and slightly retreats as if to go in traditional pass blocking protection, but then dives and blocks B1 below the waist. Both A2 and B1 were in the zone and on the line of scrimmage at the snap. The contact between A2 and B1 takes place in the freeblocking zone. RULING: It is a legal block in (a) and an illegal block below the waist in (b). It is legal for A2 to block B1 below the waist if the contact is made immediately following the snap. Any later, and the ball is considered to have left the free-blocking zone and the block is illegal.

Robert,

I am not following you. What ramifications are you worried about or what is changed by a new rule? I might be like others here, not sure what has changed or what makes this illegal?

Peace

Don't make it more difficult than it is. If the ball is out of the FBZ blocking below the waist is prohibited.

What's changed is that Fed is now saying that in the case described, don't look for whether contact occurred before or after the ball left the FBZ, just deem it legal or illegal as specified. (This is not brand new thinking. Rulings from state ***'ns saying the same thing were brought up here & elsewhere last year. At least one state ***'n adopted a different ruling in that case, and most said nothing.)

So what I'm saying is, if the conditions are altered a little as I wrote above, do you try to adapt that case ruling to the altered conditions, or do you treat the case ruling as sui generis and just go by the rule?

I have trouble understanding why you have trouble understanding what I'm asking.

I guess what I was confused because I see nothing in the case play you showed that is a representation of a change. A shotgun formation means that the person receiving the snap is likely out of the zone and if there is a delay that would be too late because the ball is out of the zone. I think your situation that you created is kind of muddying the water by only focusing on an unusual situation. I would do the same thing I always did. If the ball has "left the zone" then they cannot block below the waist. If the ball is still in the zone, they can. Keep it simple.

Peace

First off, I went through all the free blocking zone case plays from 2010 and 2011. There was no change in the wording so it isn't new.

I think what he is trying to proffer is this: the interpretation for BBW in the FBZ on shotgun snaps was that the block by A had to occur on the initial charge. A could not delay the block for any reason- couldn't rise and/or step back.

He's saying (I think) that you don't have to see the ball under that interpretation, you just look for the initial charge. However, he throws in a piece by saying that the ball deflects off an A player on the snap and doesn't immediately "fly" out of the FBZ.

I think you have to go back to all the elements of the FBZ. I don't believe we delve into intentional and unintentional errant snaps. The ball is in the zone or it isn't. Where was the ball when A BBW'd B? The snap struck A2 at the A33. The FBZ ended at the A32. Its going to be close but since A3 took one step backward first, its probably going to be an illegal block at that point.

Yeah? But how do you know that even without a delay, the ball didn't leave the FBZ 1st? Otherwise why would a ruling have been issued? Why would there have been at least one state association that said that if the ball is snapped out of the FBZ, even an immediate BBW is disallowed?

There are various blocking techniques that take various amounts of time, even if delay doesn't make up any part of them. If I'm trying to cut an opponent a position and a half over on the line, the steps to get there are going to take longer than to cut an opponent lined up between my shoulders. Similarly if I'm on defense and the player I'm trying to cut has to take an extra step to get to where I'm laying out.

So you're saying that unless the details of the case play match pretty close to exactly, go by the rule instead of the ruling. Meaning that the case play was a narrow exception, only for cases where the ball was both intended to be, and was successfully, snapped out of the FBZ.

Of course I still have the questions about the ruling, concerning what constitutes "delay". It's not like Fed couldn't be clearer than that; the USFA was in the variant rules they wrote concerning the initial charge. For instance, they could say that the case applies as long as the player making contact was moving continuously forward; or if they wanted a narrower exception, they could say it applies to opponents who were within a certain distance at the snap and the one making contact was moving forward continuously.

Who cares what some state association wants if you do not work for them. I am sure the NF does not really care what they want anyway or based their ruling based their interpretations. Again, keep it simple. If the ball is in the FBZ then BBW is allowed under previous circumstances. You seemed to have thought up something that would not only be rare, but unlikely. Why worry about a third world situation that is not likely going to happen in the first place?

Peace

I don't think we have to deal with intent. The ruling never said "don't look to see what actually happened to the ball at the snap." The ruling deals with a narrow situation in which the committee assumes its a successful shotgun snap and thus allows an A lineman to commit a legal BBW in that limited circumstance. Add any other variable to it and you now don't have the case play, you've created your own and trying to extrapolate a ruling from a limited circumstance.

Botched plays occur all the time. We don't waive ineligible downfield on a busted scrimmage kick because A intended to punt but ended up throwing a pass while some of their lineman drifted off downfield.