How close does he need to be to the play for the offensive player not to be called for UNR? Five yards? Two yards?

In general a personal foul for UNR does not necessarily constitute a hit on a defenseless player or a player out of the play.

I don't think Jeff was ever saying or even implying that there is no rule for unnecessary roughness. And the rule site you gave merely says that UNR is a PF. Jeff then also sited the section that describes for us what UNR is. You say he's denying something that he's not denied. You say that others believe that this rule applies to this situation ... yet where are these others (other than you, and unfortunately, the official on the spot in the OP).

This is not a foul.

I don't believe THIS hit will be a foul for a long time if ever. I agree with you that protection of players is growing in importance, but I can't see them creating rules such that you cannot blindside block someone who is trying to make a tackle.

Who said anything about the point not being worth discussing? You really need to read what you said and how I responded to it. I do not know about you, but I work college football. I applied these rules all year long. I worked more college games than I did HS games and if I saw this play from my position, I would not have called a foul unless there was a launch or unless there was head contact with the initial block. Also this is not a defenseless player either.

Now if you want to discuss what the rule might change to be, fine. That just is not what I was stating and you are trying to make that point because you wanted to quote the HS rule which has a very different set of standards to call these kinds of plays. The NCAA puts out video every week to show what is acceptable and the NF or many states I am sure do not do the same.

Peace

This call was supported by the conference.

On what grounds? Did they say their felt there was helmet contact?

Peace

I was not given info as to the grounds of support. I was just told from a D1 official that the conference supported the call.

I concur. This was and should have been called an illegal block. If you watch the video, the offensive player made a choice. He could have blocked the guy dead in the belly button and a flag most likely wouldn't have been thrown. He decided to go a little high and then follow through with the arm. I can say that in real time, I would have flagged this.

Can you point to the rule that states a blocker cannot go "a little high" or "follow through with the arm".

To those who think this is a foul, would you still have the foul if the defender saw it coming and everything else was the same?

What is this "type" of block? A violent one? A shoulder block? A block where the primary point of contact is above the numbers on the uniform?

Once you get the players up to a certain speed, there's no way to make any block at a certain point without its being violent. If the peel back blocker had slowed down, he'd've simply missed the block or been using his hands illegally on the opponent's back. If he'd left his feet to make a lower block, chances are fairly good he'd've made the kind of contact that, while possibly legal under the rules he was playing by, is complained about as dangerous to the opponent's knees.

A few months ago I put together for our 12U team a drill that involved players running at an angle to each other, wherein one possible outcome was a hit like that. The players weren't going as fast as these, and because they knew the parameters of the drill, they were not caught off guard, but I did expect some hits to look approximately like that, and one or two did.

True. Such a foul is what it says it is. But in this case the roughness was necessary. There was no way to make a block under those circumstances without its being rough.

The follow-thru looked mean, and could possibly have been flagged as USC, but not PF because I don't think it added anything to the contact. It was a flourish or gesture after the hit was delivered.

Rule 9-1-4. No player shall target and intiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul.

From what I've heard/seen on play tape reviews from my area powers that be (sometimes known as conference supervisors) is that this player in this situation is defenseless and the call would receive a "correct call" designation.
You can argue about their interpretation, you can say the rule doesn't state that, you can even whine about the direction the game is going, but unless you are one of those guys who decides what the officials on the field should be calling, I would suggest you should do what they instruct or consider joining the fans in the seats. It's clear to me at least that the decision has been made that these type of hits with a high potential for head injury are to be removed from the game.

Wasn't there a similar hit in the Alabama-Georgia game (on the QB after he threw an interception; mid second quarter or so)? Should the rulings have been the same?

iirc, it was ruled the opposite way on the field. And, in both cases, the commentator took a position opposite the official's call.

(asked from a fan's standpoint, not an official's standpoint)

Them supporting it doesn't make it correct.

You obviously don't know how football is really played. How is a D1 athlete running at full speed supposed to pull up so he can pinpoint exactly where he is supposed to hit the opponent? Since when is "going a little high" a penalty? You guys sound like baseball umpires who call balks because "It looked funny". The defensive player made a choice as well which was not watching what was going on around him. That's his own fault.

And I would argue that the powers that be aren't interpreting the rule correctly, as this player was not defenseless. If anything he was inattentive for not having his head on a swivel and paid for it. The defender made the choice to not be watching for blockers and it was his fault he got ear-holed.