Blocking Below the Waist Mechanics - 5&4 man crew

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'll agree that the worms need to rest and I'm fine with the current rule that clarifies and simplifies the issue.   

[CalhounLJ]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

The purpose of a two-point stance is to allow the OL to start out in a pass-blocking stance.  I see very, very few examples of OLs who BBW on their initial charge from a two-point stance.  Most of the time, they BBW because they’ve gotten beat, or after they’ve taken a step back, both of which continue to be illegal.

[CalhounLJ]

The purpose of a two-point stance is to allow the OL to start out in a pass-blocking stance.  I see very, very few examples of OLs who BBW on their initial charge from a two-point stance.  Most of the time, they BBW because they’ve gotten beat, or after they’ve taken a step back, both of which continue to be illegal.

We have at least one team whose linemen line up in a 2 every play.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

The new rule has nothing to do with the ball being in the zone, so interpretations of "immediately" should be adjusted accordingly.  The 2 point argument was solely based on the quickness the ball leaves the zone.  Now that factor is irrelevant, so you can basically define what you want to allow the lineman to do.  I think not allowing from a 2 point would be silly with the new rule.  "First move" out of his stance would be a great starting point.  1 step and cut before/as the second step hits the ground.

[HLinNC]

The new rule has nothing to do with the ball being in the zone, so interpretations of "immediately" should be adjusted accordingly.  The 2 point argument was solely based on the quickness the ball leaves the zone.  Now that factor is irrelevant, so you can basically define what you want to allow the lineman to do

I believe it is an additional requirement to the existing rule.  I don't think any of the
other requirements were removed.


Rule books came today in the mail.  The added rule states- 2-17-2c The block is an immediate, initial action following the snap.
  All other parts of the rule remain so the ball in the FBZ requirement still exists.

My recollection of discussion by our state supervisor about this is that this leads us to the more restrictive "no legal BBW from a two point stance" for all, not just we states that were interpreting it that way. Ralph or KWH may have a better grip on it, but the whole point was that dropping down from a standing position and then firing low would not/could not be immediate nor initial.
Based on our virtual state clinic, I struck through the first sentence in the paragraph here (7-26-21) as I turned out to be off base on that part.

[bama_stripes]

We have at least one team whose linemen line up in a 2 every play.

Sure, but do they BBW on run plays?  The ones around here don’t — they “bulldoze” block.

[CalhounLJ]

Sure, but do they BBW on run plays?  The ones around here don’t — they “bulldoze” block.

Yes. Guards cut every play last year. Run or pass. As I recall we got them a couple times for a chop. Guard cut and the snapper pushed him over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

Reading my 2021 Rules Book ...

2.17.2.c - A BBW is legal if "The block is an immediate, initial action following the snap."

2.17.4 - QB under center or in gun no longer applies to BBW, only BIB. 

[CalhounLJ]

Reading my 2021 Rules Book ...

2.17.2.c - A BBW is legal if "The block is an immediate, initial action following the snap."

2.17.4 - QB under center or in gun no longer applies to BBW, only BIB.

There has never been a distinction between QB under center and QB in the gun in the rule book regarding either bbw or bib.

[refjeff]

There has never been a distinction between QB under center and QB in the gun in the rule book regarding either bbw or bib.

Not those words, but there certainly has been a distinction. 

There has been discussion in this thread about the difference in timing between disintegration of the FBZ when the ball is snapped to a QB under center or in gun and the subsequent different interpretation and application of the rule. 

With the change to rule 2.17.4 the different interpretations and applications should no longer exist.

[CalhounLJ]

Not those words, but there certainly has been a distinction. 

There has been discussion in this thread about the difference in timing between disintegration of the FBZ when the ball is snapped to a QB under center or in gun and the subsequent different interpretation and application of the rule. 

With the change to rule 2.17.4 the different interpretations and applications should no longer exist.

The distinction has always been the position of the ball, not the QB. Any interpretation involving the position of the QB is just that, an interpretation. I do agree that the issue is resolved with the clarification of the BBW rule. However, the BIB rule is still based on the position of the ball and blocker/blockee at the time of the block, not the initial position of the QB when the ball was snapped. Subtle but important difference.

[HLinNC]

 Nothing changed in 2-17-4 which defines that the ball must be in the FBZ for legal blocking in the back.  2-17-2 no longer requires that the ball be in the FBZ for BBW with the addition of section (c).

Why the rules committee left the ball in the zone requirement for BIB in 2-17-4 but made sure to take it out for BBW, I don't know.

I assume that jeff's notion of QB under center vs in the gun is just a method for simplification of "the ball still in the FBZ" mandate.

[NVFOA_Ump]

2-17-2 no longer requires that the ball be in the FBZ for BBW with the addition of section (c).

Not exactly, what is new is that if the BBW is immediate upon the snap the position of the ball at the time of the BBW is irrelevant.  That's very different than "2-17-2 no longer requires that the ball be in the FBZ for BBW".  We should be more precise with our paraphrasing. 

[CalhounLJ]

I disagree with that assessment NV. I think the rules makers fully intended to keep the requirement that the ball must be in the zone at the time of the block.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

I disagree with that assessment NV. I think the rules makers fully intended to keep the requirement that the ball must be in the zone at the time of the block.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So are we effectively saying that a BBW while in shotgun formation is "still illegal"?  Isn't the intent of the 2021 rule change to "clarify" that an "immediate at the snap" BBW is legal regardless of the location of the QB?

[CalhounLJ]

So are we effectively saying that a BBW while in shotgun formation is "still illegal"?  Isn't the intent of the 2021 rule change to "clarify" that an "immediate at the snap" BBW is legal regardless of the location of the QB?

No. WE have never said that. Some states have interpreted it that way and made that rule up on their own. The clarification in the rule change is to take away any DELAYED block no matter where the QB is positioned. The BBW rule has never had any language whatsoever about the position of the QB, only the position of the ball and the players involved in the block.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

"The ball being in the free blocking zone is no longer a factor."  Mark Dreibelbis NC Supervisor of Officials  It will be in the audio at about the 6th slide in the video.

https://www.nchsaa.org/2021-2022-football-officials-state-rules-clinic

[refjeff]

I disagree with that assessment NV. I think the rules makers fully intended to keep the requirement that the ball must be in the zone at the time of the block.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except the rules makers deleted that language.

[HLinNC]

Yes they did but left it in for BIB.

[ncwingman]

This may just be my interpretation, but the gist I got from the rules clinic that HLinNC posted was that the blocker must commit to the charge immediately after the snap, and the new rule effectively states that "immediately" means that the ball is still in the zone at that point, even if it is a shotgun snap. The key timing issue is when the block is *initiated*, not when it is completed. If there is any delay in initiating the low block, then it is not legal, regardless of whether the ball is still in the zone or not.

Later in the same video, he also makes the statement that stance is now *no longer a factor*. A player, on the line in the zone, in a two (or three or four) point stance may legally block below the waist, as long as it is an immediate initial action, and the player being blocked is also on the line in the zone at the snap. It is a foul if there is any delay in the blocking action or the person being blocked is not on the line and in the zone at the snap.

This rule change (appears to me, at least) seems to be designed to eliminate judgement calls and potential confusion regarding the foul, including trying to evaluate if the ball was still in the zone based on shotgun, stance, etc..

[HLinNC]

means that the ball is still in the zone

Mark clearly says the ball being in the zone isn't a factor.  The location of the ball no longer matters for legal FBZ BBW.  It does still matter for legal BIB in the FBZ for some reason.  That isn't covered in the "virtual clinic".

The rule change primarily removes the "no BBW from a 2 point stance" position that NC and I believe Oregon imposed as an interpretation of the past rule.

[NVFOA_Ump]

  ...... Mark clearly says the ball being in the zone isn't a factor.  The location of the ball no longer matters for legal FBZ BBW. 

The rule change primarily removes the "no BBW from a 2 point stance" position that NC and I believe Oregon imposed as an interpretation of the past rule.

The "change" as explained to us is only for deep snaps where QB is out of the zone at the snap.  If QB is under center and the ball is still in the zone can't a pulling guard still BBW a linebacker if a both players are in the zone at the time of the block?  Or does the change really mean that ONLY immediate BBW's "initiated at the snap are legal" and ALL other BBW's are illegal so the "BBW zone" is now immaterial for ruling on BBW's?

[HLinNC]

Nope, a "pulling guard" isn't initial nor an immediate block

The link I provided is based on the NFHS PowerPoint as edited by the NC office.  As with any other rule change, do as your state tells you.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The link I provided is based on the NFHS PowerPoint as edited by the NC office.  As with any other rule change, do as your state tells you.

So based on this PowerPoint presentation NC's take on BBW for 2021 is that:

1.  The location of the ball is no longer a material part of the rule
2.  All BBW initiators must be inside the zone and on the LOS at the snap
3.  All BBW blocks must be initiated immediately at the snap with no delay of any kind
4.  Meaning that to be legal the BBW must be against a player directly in front of, or just to either side of the blocker