Blocks in the back?

[MD Longhorn]

Not sure how you can say that. The angle he's going when he's hit is no more than 5 degrees right of straight upfield. Watch where his 2 step prior to the hit land - nearly straight upfield. The impetus if the hit drives him straight forward in the direction he was already moving (again - look at where he lands.). There's almost a perfect line between the two steps before the hit, and where he lands.

But the key for me is where the contact was. First hit in the back of his right shoulder and followthrough near the middle of his back.

[JasonTX]

I have always been told by some D1 officials that if the contact is not directly in the numbers in the back then they got no foul. Neither of the two block were in the numbers. Shoulders and side is not the back. As TXMike stated neither block was from directly from behind. These D1 officials must be calling it right because all these years they haven't lost their job using that way of judging. "No numbers, No foul."

[Uncle Ernie]

Well, the second block is definately legal IMHO..

The first one is very close. I voted for it being illegal after only watching it one time. However, the more that I look at it, it may be legal.

One thing that I noticed is the blocker is already committed to making the block when the blockee changes his angle at the last minute. I don't know for sure, but if I don't know, I ain't throwing.

Also, for what it is worth, the blockee in the first block is not going to make a tackle (oh, don't blast me too much) but I don't think there is a clear advantage gained here.