Chop Block Interpretation

[Curious]

This topic came up on the NCAA discussion board; but it could have Federation implications too.

This all happens quickly and while the ball is still in the zone:

Play 1: A71 blocks B90 HIGH in the FBZ, THEN DISENGAGES, then A69 blocks B90 at or below the knee.  Is this a chop block?

Play 2:   A71 blocks B90 LOW in the FBZ, THEN DISENGAGES, then A69 blocks B90 HIGH.  Is this a chop block?

Rule 2-3-8, a redefinition of A chop block, talks about a "combination block"; but I don't think that term itself is defined.  My definition is that the blocks have to be "simultaneous" foe either to considered a chop block.

Any other thoughts/interpretations/ arguments out there?

[HLinNC]

9.3.2 SITUATION F: A1 contacts B1 with a legal block above the waist. The contact
causes both players to stop or to bounce backward slightly and: (a) A1
immed iately continues his charge and blocks B1 below the waist; or (b) A1
retreats or recoils and then blocks B1 below the waist. RULING: Legal block in
(a). It is permissible for A1’s block to be below the waist if it is part of a continuous
block or continuous charge after first contact was above the waist. It is an
illegal block in (b). It is illegal for A1 to recoil, retreat or reset after first contact
with B1 above the waist and then block him below the waist. It is considered a
second block in this case and therefore an illegal block below the waist.


*9.3.2 SITUATION B: A1 and A2 combine in blocking B1 as follows: (a) both
block B1 downfield with A1 making contact above the waist and A2 simultaneously
making contact below the waist but above the knees; or (b) both block B1
in the free blocking zone with A1’s block above the waist and A2’s block at the
knees or below; or (c) A1 blocks B1 above the waist and at the same time or
thereafter, A2 blocks B1 below the waist and above the knees; or (d) both A1 and
A2 block B1 below the knees while in the free blocking zone. RULING: Illegal
block below the waist by A2 in (a) since the block is not in the free blocking zone;
in (b) illegal chop block by A2; in (c) the block by A2 is legal if the block and both
blockers were in the free blocking zone at the snap; in (d) this combination or
multiple block is legal if the block and both blockers were in the free blocking
zone at the snap.

[bama_stripes]

I'd say definitely NOT a chop block in #2.

But since the purpose of outlawing chop blocks is to give the DL a chance to protect himself around his knees, I think you could make a case for #1 being illegal as well (if not strictly by the letter of the rule).  I don't think I'd downgrade an official who made that call.

[WCFB]

Situation #1 i would agree you could call a chop block but, it really depends on the timing... It may be easier to call a BBW. Since the first A blocker disengages and the second A blocker blocks at or below the knees by this time the ball could be gone from the FBZ when contact is initiated.

In my experience (6) years... not very long. The chop blocks i have called JUMPED out at me. Im not sure if i would call a chop block if the first blocker was no longer engaged. However if you are referencing the chop block from the NCAA forum that i think you are, i can easily agree with the call from the U angle.

#2 

[TampaSteve]

This topic came up on the NCAA discussion board; but it could have Federation implications too.

This all happens quickly and while the ball is still in the zone:

Play 1: A71 blocks B90 HIGH in the FBZ, THEN DISENGAGES, then A69 blocks B90 at or below the knee.  Is this a chop block?

Play 2:   A71 blocks B90 LOW in the FBZ, THEN DISENGAGES, then A69 blocks B90 HIGH.  Is this a chop block?

Rule 2-3-8, a redefinition of A chop block, talks about a "combination block"; but I don't think that term itself is defined.  My definition is that the blocks have to be "simultaneous" foe either to considered a chop block.

Any other thoughts/interpretations/ arguments out there?

play1: very hard to believe a blocker at any level from NFL on down can make a high block, disengage, then go low on another player AND that the ball is still in FBZ. 
Neverethless it's a second block so we have a foul.

play2: nothing

[Bob M.]

...My definition is that the blocks have to be "simultaneous" foe either to considered a chop block.

Any other thoughts/interpretations/ arguments out there?

REPLY: The words in the definition "with or without delay" are sufficient to say that the blocks don't need to be simultaneous.

[Curious]

REPLY: The words in the definition "with or without delay" are sufficient to say that the blocks don't need to be simultaneous.

But don't you think the first blocker must still be "engaged" when the second guy blocks?  "Simultaneous" may be the wrong term; but what I'm trying to get at is what a "combination" block mean vis a vis the chop block rule.  It seems to me that you may well have a BBW by A2 (after disengagement by A1) but not a chop block.   

[Bob M.]

But don't you think the first blocker must still be "engaged" when the second guy blocks?  "Simultaneous" may be the wrong term; but what I'm trying to get at is what a "combination" block mean vis a vis the chop block rule.  It seems to me that you may well have a BBW by A2 (after disengagement by A1) but not a chop block.

REPLY: Technically, I agree. But I wouldn't be strict about splitting that hair. If the player being blocked has just been disengaged (high) by blocker A1 and is then blocked low by A2, I would still call that a chop block. If the blocked player has fully recovered from A1's block, I'd lean toward the second block potentially being a BBW as you suggest.

[NWA_UMP]

The spirit of the rule is to protect a player from potential injury due to a chop block. I am going to lean towards a chop if the blocks are not two very separate blocks.