Bib

[bigjohn]

Anyone got a a foul toward the end of this run back?



Tabor Play 163366 - YouTube!

[Welpe]

No.

[maven]

Nice run back.

No foul for IBB: the A player is ahead of the runner and needs to be cutting back into the blocker to reach the runner. Being blocked while you're facing the wrong way is not IBB.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by maven

Nice run back.

No foul for IBB: the A player is ahead of the runner and needs to be cutting back into the blocker to reach the runner. Being blocked while you're facing the wrong way is not IBB.

I agree with your answer, but disagree with your premise. There's nothing in the book that says BIB is OK if the player blocked is not doing what you think he should be doing.

I don't have BIB (given the 2 bad angles) because I'm not positive the contact was in the back. Given a better angle, it might be.

[CT1]

I can't even tell if there was any contact.

BTW, kudos to this crew for excellent whistle control!

[JugglingReferee]

No foul. Not even close actually.

I like how the R started reverse mechanics when B was still in his EZ.

[bigjohn]

OK, lets assume there is contact, my question is do you think this is a foul since the defender never faced the ball carrier? Isn't that the same as turning your back to a block?

[JRutledge]

No foul and very suspect if it was called.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

OK, lets assume there is contact, my question is do you think this is a foul since the defender never faced the ball carrier? Isn't that the same as turning your back to a block?

I don't think "not facing the ballcarrier" eliminates blocking in the back from consideration. I DO think, however, that it makes it less likely for that to be the call. This is not "equivalent" per se to turning your back. When you turn your back, you are turning a previously legal block into one in the back, and you should not get the benefit of that. THIS case is not the same, exactly. On this defender, he's worked himself into a no-win situation... if he turns EITHER way, the ball-carrier will zip right past him the other way --- his only hope is to slow down and make the ball carrier react before turning. Slowing down into a block is similar to the above. However, if the blocker CLEARLY blocked him right in the numbers (as opposed to just running into him because he slowed down) to prevent him from making a play, you still have to call it. I'd almost have to see the guy faceplant though.

I don't believe the player in this video does that.

[JRutledge]

It takes a little more than contact to have me call this foul. The contact would have to knock him completely out of the way of making the play and that did not happen here. I also do not consider a BIB a safety foul either (some will disagree). And this did not put the player in danger, if anything his moving away from the play made any contact insignificant.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It takes a little more than contact to have me call this foul. The contact would have to knock him completely out of the way of making the play and that did not happen here. I also do not consider a BIB a safety foul either (some will disagree). And this did not put the player in danger, if anything his moving away from the play made any contact insignificant.

Peace

I don't consider it a safety foul either. If it was, it would be 15 yards.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

I don't consider it a safety foul either. If it was, it would be 15 yards.

Agreed. It is just that some usually suggest that this should be called no matter what.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

it takes a little more than contact to have me call this foul. The contact would have to knock him completely out of the way of making the play and that did not happen here. I also do not consider a bib a safety foul either (some will disagree). And this did not put the player in danger, if anything his moving away from the play made any contact insignificant.

Peace

+1