The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 01:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA...tDUWZsakk/edit

What would you call here? at :06 of this clip?
Since the ball was yet to be thrown, and a number of possibilities existed ;
1. Could be a delayed screen pass to a back following a
path created by the offensive player who had advanced.
2. Could be a delayed hand-off, to a back, running off
left tackle seeking down-field support.
3. Could be a scramble.

considering the offensive player was between the defender and his teammate in possession of a live ball (by definition "a runner", until he might SUBSEQUENTLY become a "passer"), and very easily could have turned up-field to lead interference had one of the alternate possibilities developed and the contact didn't seem overly, or unnecessarily aggressive, I've got nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 01:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
not even a block in the back?
Wow!
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 02:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
not even a block in the back?
Wow!
Did the offensive player turn into the contact? By any chance, you wouldn't be an "offensive" asst coach, would you?
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 02:55pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigjohn View Post
not even a block in the back?
Wow!
Nope. I might have something else, but not a block in the back.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
I coached Linebackers and was a DC for 5 years coached OL too.

so if he is moing away it is IUH according to 9-2-3d
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight

Last edited by bigjohn; Wed May 20, 2015 at 05:31pm.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old Wed May 20, 2015, 08:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,717
There's a few things that might be called for here. The better view is the end zone shot at the end of the clip.

The hit is made with the ball in the air, so DPI is a possibility. In codes where the possibility of the contacted player's catching the ball is an issue, it's not DPI because it's obvious that receiver could not have caught that ball. In Fed, however, it could be said that the contact prevented the receiver from moving toward the flight of the ball. However, since the receiver had settled & turned around, I don't think the hit prevented that either. So no DPI.

Is it an illegal block for contacting the opponent in the back (with hands in this case)? The opponent presented the back, true, but the defender had plenty of time to react to that. The white receiver did seem to be backing up toward the position of red #32, but that movement was slight, and #32 definitely produced the contact. So I would have an illegal contact there. And that has nothing to do w whether he was eligible to receive a pass or even whether a pass was still possible on the play.

But what I'm really seeing is something more serious: a gratuitous blind shot by #32 when he sees it will be away from the play. He waits for the ball to be released, then hits the opponent; both of them can see the pass, neither of them expect to be part of the play. So the white receiver can be expected to have relaxed & provided an easy target. And maybe #32 even thinks no official will be looking that way, even though the black hat momentarily turns toward him after the hit. But the worst part about it is, he's cheap-shotting a teammate in a lousy intrasquad scrimmage! But then, that's where some of the nastiest stuff goes on, in my experience with children. They're practicing & competing around & with each other all the time, & animosities develop to a greater degree than they'd get a chance to vs. opponents in games. #32 helps him up afterward, and I don't think there was any intention to injure or even intimidate, but I'm guessing he was sending a message. So I've got a personal foul, contact that's unnecessary & may tend to provoke roughness, however Fed calls it, superseding the 10-yarder.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal Use of Hands ballgame99 Basketball 28 Fri Feb 15, 2013 08:51am
Illegal Use of the Hands Suudy Football 16 Fri Sep 01, 2006 01:02pm
DPI or Illegal use of the hands? Suudy Football 4 Fri Nov 04, 2005 07:08am
Illegal Use of the Hands Suudy Football 16 Sat Oct 01, 2005 01:00pm
Illegal use of hands or nothing? Newbie Scott Football 3 Thu Sep 04, 2003 05:25pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1