Block in BIG 10 Championship
 

Kenny Bell Huge Block - YouTube

Legal or not in NCAA? The offensive player doesn't lead with his helmet. Does that matter?

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/ZY0pOGP9d1c?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/ZY0pOGP9d1c?version=3&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

There was definitely helmet to helmet contact, although I'm not sure if that was the first contact. (My guess is that it wasn't.)

This would be an easy call if the player were a defenseless player like a pass receiver, but he's not. By the current reading of the rule, this should not be called a foul. I suspect the NCAA will change the rule and make ALL targeting at the shoulders and above illegal (except maybe against the ball carrier) next year.

The current rule is that they can't target with the crown of the helmet and can't target above the shoulders against a defenseless player. Neither happened on this play and it was a clean block.

Players going from inside out should know they're going to get lit up.

Penalized for too good a peel-back block! Maybe he wouldn't've drawn it if not for the arm flourish on the follow-thru.

I am not in love with this call at all. It does not look like a launch. It does not look like a direct head hit. It does not look like the player is defenseless. If any of those things took place than fine, but this is why I think the "call it no matter how close" is a bad thing. I get they are trying to take head hits out of the game, but sometimes close hits are legal.

Peace

Looking at the statistics for brain disease among football players, getting head hits out of the game is a good thing.

However, for cases like this I think what you'd want is a collar that immobilizes the neck against forward, backward, or sideways flexion while sill allowing rotation of the head on it. Anyone propose such equipment for the game? Because that's the only thing that'd work here unless you outlawed all hits "above the numbers", which would give you a narrower strike zone than baseball.

Then you have missed the point. He could have gotten a head injury by falling, not the actual hit or contact with the blocker. But by rule this does not look illegal. That is the only point I am addressing. And if the hit was a little lower and in his chest, would be be having this conversation?

Peace

Which rule? The UNR rule prohibits unnecessary roughness. The game is moving in the direction of judging this hit unnecessary.

I haven't missed the point at all. Head hits will be out of the game. Maybe this call is a bad call today. But I don't think it will be for long.

The contact with the head did not occur because of a duck or a slide or other. This will be flagged more often as time goes on.

Why would this be unnecessary? The defensive player was chasing the ball carrier and had a realistic chance to make a play. If this is going to be illegal, I don't like the way football is headed.

The phrase I like from CJ is "head or neck area". He wants the target area to be the torso with all contact there.

Ask someone of an older vintage about the game 50 years ago. They will undoubtedly tell you that the game isn't the same. The game has changed a lot since the 80s and even the 90s.

The law of conservation of momentum being what it is, players are more suspect to health issues because of today's game. And it has to be taken out.