2013 Linfield College Football: Hampden-Sydney Punt Return
 

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/dZOUes2PmFs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

First block is targeting... blocker launches and makes contact to the head/neck area of a defenseless player (specifically "a player who receives a blindside block"). End zone view shows it perfectly.

Second block is borderline, but probably legal.

Third block is clearly legal. Blocker puts his shoulder directly into the chest of the defender; exactly what he SHOULD do.

I totally disagree, the first block was with his hands and arms to the shoulder. Don't think he even hit him with any other body part. Block 2 looks pretty dang close to H to H and close enough to draw a flag if calling on the side of safety. Block 3 looks like shoulder to chest or shoulder but against a guy turned away and wouldn't be shocked if it would have gotten called.

First hit clearly a foul in all codes.

Second hit slowed down looks to be shoulder to chest, but it's awfully close and an angle that an official had that this camera doesn't might show something warranting a flag.

Third seems clean all the way around.

I don't think the average person realizes how freaking hard these are to get in real time. Hell, they cause disagreement and discussion during slow motion replay or even stop-action.

Nobody is giving numbers, so I don't know which blocks y'all are referring to.

I've got two blocks in the back on #30 of the kicking team that I think everybody has missed. The first at the R35 and the second at the R33.

#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.

The only 30 I see is on the receiving team. I don't consider his two blocks to be blocks in the back. Not even close -- those are side blocks.

No one is talking about them - because they are not even close to being in the back. R30 can't even see the back of the player he blocked on either one. Neither player flew forward (both flew sideways). There is no element of blocking in the back at all on either block.

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.

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.

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

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

+1000

Peace

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.

Why would this have anything to do with it?

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.

Another thing:

Lately, even on blocks that are slowed down and deemed close-but-legal, officials are being supported for calling targeting on those plays.

Watching this play, I look at those three blow-up blocks and think, "Was it really necessary to blow up those players in order to take them out of the play?"

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.

I did say ejection and not suspension.;)