Block in BIG 10 Championship

[rockyroad]

Question: was the flag thrown by the official trailing the play or by the official who was downfield from the block? It appears it was the official who was behind the play...if so, there is no way he had any kind of look at what the block actually was, just saw the defenders body whiplash. Maybe that's why he threw the flag??

[sj]

With the arguments about the legality of the hit aside for a little bit the announcers and everybody else are asking, "what else is he supposed to do?"

He could have easily lead with his hands and just shoved the defender. Put one or both hands on his right shoulder and push him. A block like this would also totally eliminate him from being able to make a play on the runner.

And it would remove any doubt about any possible foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by sj

With the arguments about the legality of the hit aside for a little bit the announcers and everybody else are asking, "what else is he supposed to do?"

He could have easily lead with his hands and just shoved the defender. Put one or both hands on his right shoulder and push him. A block like this would also totally eliminate him from being able to make a play on the runner.

And it would remove any doubt about any possible foul.

Two problems with this ... A) do we think that every other blocker in every other situation also needs to use minimal force to move their opponent? If not (and I hope your answer is not), then why do we expect it from THIS blocker? B) it required the blocker moving at top speed to get to the defender when he did - is there now some expectation that he can stop his full-speed charge and just tap the defender? If so, why. I'm not just saying this shouldn't be a foul now under current rules, but also saying it should NEVER be a foul. Yes, it's a hard hit... but outlawing this simply means it makes it easier for defenders to escape blockers.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Them supporting it doesn't make it correct.

Actually, by definition, it does.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

Actually, by definition, it does.

Did the NFL "supporting" the GB-Seattle play "correct" in your opinion?

[sj]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Two problems with this ... A) do we think that every other blocker in every other situation also needs to use minimal force to move their opponent? If not (and I hope your answer is not), then why do we expect it from THIS blocker? B) it required the blocker moving at top speed to get to the defender when he did - is there now some expectation that he can stop his full-speed charge and just tap the defender? If so, why. I'm not just saying this shouldn't be a foul now under current rules, but also saying it should NEVER be a foul. Yes, it's a hard hit... but outlawing this simply means it makes it easier for defenders to escape blockers.

For A) No. I just think he would have been able to. So if we disagree then that's fine.

For B) If the rule was definitively such that everybody would call this a foul then he would have to slow down and try something else.

No doubt It would make it easier for defenders to escape blockers. But it would apply equally to both teams and both offenses would have to deal with it.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by sj

With the arguments about the legality of the hit aside for a little bit the announcers and everybody else are asking, "what else is he supposed to do?"

He could have easily lead with his hands and just shoved the defender. Put one or both hands on his right shoulder and push him. A block like this would also totally eliminate him from being able to make a play on the runner.

And it would remove any doubt about any possible foul.

Oh my...now this is good.

That is not how blockers are taught to block, and "leading with his hands" probably means the defender runs right by the blocker and he doesn't make the block.

The defender could have avoided the block too, but he didn't.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Did the NFL "supporting" the GB-Seattle play "correct" in your opinion?

They didn't stick with that conclusion long, IIRC.

We are told in NCAA football to err on the side of safety on these types of plays and that we'll be supported. So none of this surprises me.

[sj]

So you don't think he could have just shoved him?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sj

So you don't think he could have just shoved him?

He could of but that is not what the rule says or requires. And if we are not using rules, who is to say that would not be UNR if the player went tumbling head over heals?

I have stated this before, I do not understand the rules that apply here. Because if the player was within an arm length of the ball handler, I would have seen this as legal. I know I had similar blocks in my games this year (not quite as violent) but players laid out and no one said we should have thrown a flag.

Peace

[sj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He could of....

Peace

That's my only point. So I wasn't making a commentary about what the rule should or shouldn't be nor whether the call was correct or not. Thanks.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by zm1283

That is not how blockers are taught to block, and "leading with his hands" probably means the defender runs right by the blocker and he doesn't make the block.

Actually I teach it both ways. The drill I wrote about upthread with 12Us was to simulate OL releasing at the line, aiming for a safety in the middle while not allowing a defender (simulating OLB) to cross his face from outside in. Their paths crossed at about a right angle as 0 to 2 defenders were sent at a target simulating the runner on a middle dive play.

I instructed the blocker that if it looked like the opponent was going to go behind them, to slow down and collision him with the shoulder much like the play pictured here. I wanted them to go lower than that, but told them they couldn't go lower than the opponent's waist (Fed rules) and so would tend to err on the high side of that, but I realized that the higher they went, the more they would need to brace with the far foot, and much of the time if they went high they would be knocked over -- which was fine if the opponent was at least knocked off his path if not down.

I also instructed blockers that if it looked like the opponent was going to beat them to the intersection, they should try to use their hands on the opponent's side, like in the armpit, just to shove the defender off line.

In the case shown here, it's likely either technique would've been just as violent. Once players get up to that speed and collide, they're going to go down out of control.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by sj

So you don't think he could have just shoved him?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Actually I teach it both ways. The drill I wrote about upthread with 12Us was to simulate OL releasing at the line, aiming for a safety in the middle while not allowing a defender (simulating OLB) to cross his face from outside in. Their paths crossed at about a right angle as 0 to 2 defenders were sent at a target simulating the runner on a middle dive play.

I instructed the blocker that if it looked like the opponent was going to go behind them, to slow down and collision him with the shoulder much like the play pictured here. I wanted them to go lower than that, but told them they couldn't go lower than the opponent's waist (Fed rules) and so would tend to err on the high side of that, but I realized that the higher they went, the more they would need to brace with the far foot, and much of the time if they went high they would be knocked over -- which was fine if the opponent was at least knocked off his path if not down.

I also instructed blockers that if it looked like the opponent was going to beat them to the intersection, they should try to use their hands on the opponent's side, like in the armpit, just to shove the defender off line.

In the case shown here, it's likely either technique would've been just as violent. Once players get up to that speed and collide, they're going to go down out of control.

The bolded part is what I was going to tell sj above. Even if he shoves him, the defender still gets blown up because of the momentum of the blocker. I don't think it really had anything to do with which body part the blocker used.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by zm1283

The bolded part is what I was going to tell sj above. Even if he shoves him, the defender still gets blown up because of the momentum of the blocker. I don't think it really had anything to do with which body part the blocker used.

Not just the momentum of the blocker, but the defender's own momentum. Once he's knocked off his feet, he's going to land at high speed, even if he isn't deflected far off the line he was running. Both players were running fast.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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.

Well, that's your opinion vs their opinion. I bet for now you can guess whose opinion should count on the field. And it's clear to me the onus of who has to make the adjustment is on the hitter vs the hittee in any of these type cases.