|
|||
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers |
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Don't make it more difficult than it is. If the ball is out of the FBZ blocking below the waist is prohibited.
__________________
I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell! |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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. Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It never ends | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 9 | Sun May 23, 2010 09:14pm |
Odds and Ends... | jdmara | Basketball | 13 | Sun Nov 16, 2008 01:10pm |
And so ends my season... | wadeintothem | Softball | 6 | Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:07pm |
Throw-In ends, huh | RushmoreRef | Basketball | 32 | Wed Dec 19, 2007 03:47pm |
Throw-in ends | Kelvin green | Basketball | 8 | Fri Dec 15, 2006 08:45pm |