Peel Back Blocks

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Does anyone think blindsided peel back blocks should be illegal by rule? We had one last week where the offense player had a 20 yard run at a defensive player who was about three yards behind the ball carrier going down the sideline. The offensive player just launced himself at the defender from the side and knocked him five yards out of bounds. The official did not throw a flag because he said the defender had a play on the runner.

I think if we are going to be concerned about concussions, this type of block is not necessary. The blocker could have given him a little push and the defender would have been out of the play.

I know we can call unnecessary roughness but that is a tough sell now if the defender may have a chance to make a play.

[bigjohn]

9-4-3g

ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary
and which incites roughness.

[JRutledge]

What does the kind of block have to do with a concussion? To me you are making an unnecessary leap from one situation to another. If the hit you describe was legal by all accounts, then why would we make this illegal? If anything I would ask why do states not encourage more officials on the field than going on the cheap. Hard hits are not illegal.

Peace

[maven]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

I know we can call unnecessary roughness but that is a tough sell now if the defender may have a chance to make a play.

These two considerations have no necessary connection: there's more than one way for contact to be illegal, and more than one way for it to be unnecessary.

[Canned Heat]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

9-4-3g

ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall:
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary
and which incites roughness.

Agreed that 9-4-3 could be used in a similar instance...(see Warren Sapp hit on Chad Clifton from a few years back, granted in the NFL)....This is a tough one to sell given the proximity of both players to the ball carrier. I have called this on a few occasions over the years on a play OBVIOUSLY away from the ball....I think almost all instances on a punt or kick return where a kid gave up chase 40 or more yards behind the ball carrier and a player on the receiving team cleaned him out with an unnecessary and violent shot.

If the block and blocking technique is completely legal and within the confines of the rule books, there is nothing here other than a hard football hit.

Not throwing stones, but I also question a thing or two in your statement.

1) Who is to say the kid gets screened for a split second instead of blocked out of the play and doesn't hustle to catch the ball carrier on a cut back or when held up by other defenders or his own blockers? Looking at the play when it is happening rather than after it is over are 2 very different things.

2) Assuming any hard hit automatically is concussion inducing is a bit far fetched, granted the kid that was the unfortunate recipient to the violent block was likely sore for a day or more. I don't think ANYONE here is in favor of concussions, but hard hits are part of the game and always will be.

I will add that the number of kids I've seen over the years with questionable helmet fitting is staggering.....to me that is key #1 to eliminating concussions in the lower levels.

[SE Minnestoa Re]

Personally I think any hit where the blocker leaves his feet to launch himself should be illegal. However, my personal feelings do not come into officiating. We officiate the rules, not our personal statements.

On these blocks, the receiver of the block often doesn't see the guy coming and when he is plastered, his head is the first thing to hit the ground. That's where concussions come into play.

[JRutledge]

Launching is a separate issue and has nothing to do with hitting someone while not looking.

And OK, their head might be the first to hit, that is more because they are not looking and get hit unexpectedly. I had a big hit this past weekend where the hit was not so blind and the blocked player got pancaked big time (not hurt).

And if your issue is someone got hit blindsided and not the nature of the hit, that is going to be very difficult to legislate. Because not all those hits are high or are close to illegal. I agree we should call the high hits and when launching there is helmet contact, but we cannot easily legislate situations where someone is unexpected. One reason the hits are unepected is becuase the player is not looking properly at threats. Heck if you are chasing the ball you have to on some level know someone might hit you. And I doubt all hits are concussion related as well.

Peace

[CT1]

Noty commenting on your specific play (HTBT), but what would take more of these "cheap shots" out of the game is officials who officiate their area instead of ball-watching, and who have enough "sack" to make the UNR call on what would otherwise be a legal hit.