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.

Where is your rules reference?

Peace

I honestly do not care what the game had 50 years ago. I care if a rule has been violated here. If a rule has been violated that is the starting point we should be discussing. If you say he launched at least you have NCAA Rules support and interpretation. But a hard hit is not a very good example or reason to throw a flag here. And you have a player chasing a ball handler with a chance to make a play. Now I do not know of any rule not allowing him to be blocked.

I can ask the crew chief of that game what the official said about the call and what the Big Ten or NCAA might have also said. Maybe they supported the call, but I do not see based on everything I have seen why this was an illegal hit.

Peace

Why are they more apt to health issues because of today's game? I don't really agree with that. I think we are more aware of potential injuries and health issues now, but the equipment is better, the physical conditioning is better, and the medical attention is better than it has ever been. There were just as many issues in the 50s and 60s, but they went unnoticed and no one worried about them.

I don't agree that this particular hit has to be taken out of the game at any level. What is the offensive player supposed to do? Pull up and try to patty-cake with him? This is a physical game and people get hit hard.

2033 NFL Rule 21.3.4d - The game is moving in the direction of solid hits being unnecessary. Players should merely push players while blocking, hoping that is enough.

No, it's completely different. 10% heavier and 5% faster than just 10 years ago. 25% heavier and faster (estimated) than the 1960's. More weight colliding at higher speeds = higher safety issues.

That said, I don't like the softening direction we've gone and continue to go. I don't like legal hits getting penalized and/or fined.

NFHS 9-4-3g

I do not have my football rulebooks in front of me, but since when did this become a High School Game?

Peace

What, you didn't know the Big 10 Championship Game was officiated under high school rules?

Next thing he will try to show me is the rule on the crack back blocks. ;)

Peace

This comment, at least in my experience, isn't as frequent nowadays. Granted, I've only been officiating a little over 10 years, but I don't hear this complaint from the sidelines near as much now as when I started.

I didn't have the NCAA book in front of me, but it's in all codes.

Look at the first sentence of NCAA 9-1.

Let me know if you need me to read it to you.

Well get an IPad or some kind of smart phone and this will be easily available to you. ;)

But for the record this is what 9-1 says:

All fouls in this section (unless noted) and any other acts of unnecessary roughness are personal fouls. For flagrant personal fouls mandating conference review, see Rule 9-6. The penalties for all personal fouls are as follows.

Not seeing anything that says this hit was unnecessary.

Here is what 9-1-12 says:
Contact Against an Opponent Out of the Play

ARTICLE 12.

a. No player shall tackle or run into a receiver when a forward pass to him obviously is not catchable. This is a personal foul and not pass interference.

b. No player shall run into or throw himself against an opponent obviously out of the play either before or after the ball is dead.

He was pretty much in the play.

And with all due respect I do not care what the NF Rules are as it relates to this call. It is not relevant as the game has different examples of contact or actions that are more specific than anything the NF puts out in their books.

Peace

That's correct, but the point he made, and its the same one I made earlier, is that this type of block will soon be illegal. Probably next year. If you decide you want to wait until it is illegal to discuss it, fine, but I think its worth talking about now.

Well that is fine, but it is not in the rulebook now. I would not have called a foul on this on the field this year unless I felt their was helmet contact. That was my only point.

Peace

Everyone gets your point. You don't like a flag here. Fine, at present it's a borderline case, and you're entitled to your opinion (until your supervisor tells you otherwise).

But denying that there's a rule is sticking your head in the sand. UNR is a foul. You say that rule doesn't apply to this play, and others say it does.

The game is not evolving (at every level) in the direction of ruling these hits UNR. That's the point worth discussing.

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.

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??

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.

Actually, by definition, it does.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

In your opinion. In the opinion of those who determine what is supported by rule and what is not, 9-1-4 says it is and should be a foul. Realize that.

If you are saying a rule has been violated, you should reference the rule that was violated. I am still waiting for some explanation so that when I make this call I would be supported. I work for the same people that assign the Big Ten (Midwest Alliance) so I would like to hear their take on this issue. At least these guys have slow motion and different angles. We might get two angles and no slow motion other than what we use for Hudi or some other site that might be used for that game.

Peace

Just like the foul in the Cowboy game...

Coach: "What did my guy do wrong? He didn't hit him in the head or with his head?"
Me: "Well coach, it just looked bad - I had to flag it because it would look bad if I didn't."

Where is this game going...

late to the party
 

I agree with Rut, don't like the fact that there was a flag on the play. I disagree with Rut, in that it doesn't appear to be launching...When I watched the slow motion, it appeared the blocker did "launch" not in the classic sense of launching to someone's head, but he did extedn and appear to leave his feet...None of us are good enough to judge this full speed correctly all the time, that is why they give us philosophys to go by....by philosophy in my opinion this looks like a launch, couple this with the violence (which is just part of the game) and I understand why there is a flag....and since in my opinion the official used philosophy to make the call (yes just my opinion), if I were an evaluator, I would also support the call....the support would look like this, depending on how the foul was written up in the report...I can see why you made the call based on philosophy, however a no call here would have been supported as well....

The launch in itself is not a foul. It is a sign that a foul might be taking place. As was illustrated by Northwestern at Vanderbilt (2011) and the Big Ten apologized for an incorrect call on a "launch" foul that clearly did not involve helmet contact.

So we can split hairs if that was a launch, but the Big Ten did not support another call for that reason obviously a year ago. I am just wanting some evidence of why this was a good call. If they say that there was helmet contact I can live with their position. I am just saying that UNR has to be justified somehow other than, "We support the call."

Peace

Ummmm, was the 9-1-4 referrence not legible enough for you?

Did the Big Ten reference 9-1-4?

And it is debatable if he hit him in that the head and neck area. And it is very debatable if he was defenseless. Hard to call a player 5 yards or so behind the ball carrier. Oh well, then again you have to know the rule to know what they need to say to you to make you feel like this is the right call.

I can be a smarta$$ too ya know.

Peace