2013 Linfield College Football: Hampden-Sydney Punt Return

[maven]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

#30 is on the receiving team and those are both side blocks. Not even close to blocks in the back. I see those blocks commonly called blocks in the back by HS officials though.

My HS crew had a long (and admittedly rather one-sided) conversation about getting off IBB this season. We were flagging these side blocks left and right last year, almost always getting them wrong.

To their credit, I did not see one bad IBB this season (and we flagged about 90% fewer).

The blocks in the video are not IBB.

[Robert Goodman]

I didn't see any fouls, but one thing these years of coaching has done to me is that now I'm very sensitive to noticing the ballcarrier carrying the ball in the wrong arm, i.e. the infield one. I see it all over the place now.

One thing I'd like to know, though, is what that 2-arms-forward signal is the U gives while awaiting the snap.

[Terror]

This is Roger Reddings response posted in another forum on this video.



These blocks all look legal to me. While it is true that they are blindside blocks, they all appear to be low enough--that is, not to the head or neck area, but rather to the side or the chest. In addition, I don't see any markers of targeting, such as a launch or attacking with the crown of the helmet.

Hope this helps.

Rogers

[JRutledge]

I do not see a single foul on this play. The first block looks like it is with the arms and shoulder and not near the head. The defender just did not see the hits coming, but clearly legal based on what I saw on this video.

Peace

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Terror

This is Roger Reddings response posted in another forum on this video.



These blocks all look legal to me. While it is true that they are blindside blocks, they all appear to be low enough--that is, not to the head or neck area, but rather to the side or the chest. In addition, I don't see any markers of targeting, such as a launch or attacking with the crown of the helmet.

Hope this helps.

Rogers

Hmmm... then I stand corrected.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the blockers are playing with fire by hitting their opponents the way they do. Especially in a D-III game where replay isn't available.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

especially ... where replay isn't available.

Why would this have anything to do with it?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Why would this have anything to do with it?

Because if the officials call targeting, there's no review to overturn the associated ejection.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Rich

Because if the officials call targeting, there's no review to overturn the associated ejection.

...which makes borderline blocks especially risky and thus even more inadvisable.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

Because if the officials call targeting, there's no review to overturn the associated ejection.

Well, there is a review, sorta.

If the ejection happens in the second half, the film gets sent to Rodgers and a committee that will look at it to determine if the call was correct. If the call was incorrect, player's suspension for the first half of the next game gets rescinded.

Doesn't do anything for anyone ejected in the first half, of course.