Block in BIG 10 Championship

[michblue]

This call was supported by the conference.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by michblue

This call was supported by the conference.

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

Peace

[michblue]

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.

[jeepinchad]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jeepinchad

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?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jeepinchad

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.

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.

[Mike L]

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.

[bob jenkins]

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)