Block in BIG 10 Championship

[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)

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by 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.

Them supporting it doesn't make it correct.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Mike L

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.

It still hasn't been supported by rule...imagine that.