Another BBW question

[dammitbobby]

From TASO email 'SUBJECT: 2022 Blocking Below the Waist Clarifications  8-29-2022'

1 – There is NO requirement for a back to “get a piece” of an offensive lineman to be considered within the tackle box. Some teams use very tight splits which results in backs having nobody in front of them, yet they are still within 5 yards of the ball, which puts them in the tackle box. They are then allowed to legally block below the waist since they are within the tackle box. If Team A has normal splits by their lineman and you rule the tackle box ends just outside the tackles for a balanced line, the back will need to “get a piece” of the offensive tackle to be considered within the tackle box.

From '2022 UIL Exceptions to NCAA Football Rules  2022-23 School Year'

(UIL NOTE:  For a lineman’s initial position to be considered “completely inside the tackle box”, he must be positioned within five yards of the snapper, and be no more than the second lineman from the snapper).”

Where I'm struggling here, is a team that uses skinny splits (as noted in the TASO example) and lines up with 3 linemen on one side within the 5 yard tackle box definition, and wants the end lineman to be able to legally cut block.  As I read the UIL definition/rule, the 3rd linemen is not considered to be in the tackle box.  But, TASO says (or at least implies) that the third linemen, would be eligible, and so would the back catching a piece of that third lineman as they are still by definition within the 5 yard belt.  UIL implies that the tackle box edge can be less than 5 yards (by limiting it to no more than 2 linemen) but the TASO interpretation implies that it's 5 yards no matter what.

For example:

Team lines up with three lineman on the right side of the snapper, and A32 is a back, just inside the TE's right foot ('catching a piece of him.') At the snap, TE A82 cut blocks the defensive end B54 from the front.  As LB B66 comes around the end, A32 cuts B66 from the front.

How can the lineman not be considered in the tackle box, but the back directly behind him (and barely catching a piece of him) be considered within it? Am I missing something?

[ElvisLives]

Bobby,
It is all about limiting the number of people that are allowed the BBW. The UIL’s rule is intended to limit the number of linemen that can BBW, irrespective of the actual distance they may be from the snapper. The UIL only allows a maximum of 5 linemen to be able to BBW: the snapper and the first two linemen on each side of the snapper who are totally within 5 yards of the snapper. Even if they squeeze more than two linemen within 5 yards of the snapper, only the nearest two on that side are allowed to BBW.
We don’t carry a tape measure with us, so we can only estimate the 5-yard distance, and we don’t want to get too technical. If the splits are reasonable - based upon the training that has been offered, and upon our experience - then the second player from the snapper establishes the limit of the Tackle Box on each side of the snapper. If they have very wide splits, then the second lineman from the snapper may not be within the TB, and you’ll simply have to estimate 5-yards from the snapper.
That has little to do with backs. Backs are to have a foot within the Tackle Box to be eligible to BBW. Wherever you estimate the TB, he has to have a foot within it. The second player from the snapper is usually positioned conveniently to set the limit of the TB, and, if a back has a foot aligned behind this second lineman, then he is “catching a piece of the tackle,” - which is just a convenient expression used to indicate that the back has a foot within the tackle box - and is allowed to BBW (10-2). However, in abnormal alignments by the linemen, the second lineman from the snapper may not give a reasonable landmark for the limit of the TB, and you’ll just have to estimate it, yourself.
So, yes, there may be instances when the second lineman from the snapper is well within 5 yards of the snapper, but that doesn’t establish the limit of the TB, as it relates to backs. Inconvenient? Yes. But, exceptionally tight splits won’t happen often. Wide splits will happen often in 6-player football, but not often in 11-player football.
You can’t always go by the location of the second lineman from the snapper. Sometimes, you’ll just have to estimate the 5-yard limit. We get paid a lot money to do this!

[dammitbobby]

I believed you right up until the last sentence... now everything you say is suspect!

[ElvisLives]

I believed you right up until the last sentence... now everything you say is suspect!

Just trying to be transparent so my house doesn’t get raided by the IRS/FBI/DOJ/MSNBC…

[JasonTX]

Yeah, that memo is a surprise because the way I've heard it at taught at non-TASO clinics.  The second lineman would be the tackle box unless they went into exaggerated splits and then we'd use the 5 yard limit to the tackle box instead of a player setting the box.  So, if they decide to go into exaggerated splits, the tackle himself could be outside of the tackle box.  Then if they bunched up as tight as they could, that third play is outside of the tackle box even though he may be within the 5 yard limit.  KISS is my opinion. 

[ElvisLives]

Yeah, that memo is a surprise because the way I've heard it at taught at non-TASO clinics.  The second lineman would be the tackle box unless they went into exaggerated splits and then we'd use the 5 yard limit to the tackle box instead of a player setting the box.  So, if they decide to go into exaggerated splits, the tackle himself could be outside of the tackle box.  Then if they bunched up as tight as they could, that third play is outside of the tackle box even though he may be within the 5 yard limit.  KISS is my opinion.

Jason,
For UIL, your description is 100% accurate.
As a group, the TASO Training Committee didn’t really address the relationship between the backs and the linemen, other than a ‘normal tackle’ being the landmark for the tackle box, and a back only needing to “catch a piece” of the (normally positioned) tackle. If the linemen take abnormal splits (wide or tight), then we simply must make an estimate about the 5-yard distance from the snapper, to determine backs that may be within or outside the TB.
Use the tackle when possible; otherwise, make an estimate, and don’t be too technical.

[dammitbobby]

Jason,
For UIL, your description is 100% accurate.
As a group, the TASO Training Committee didn’t really address the relationship between the backs and the linemen, other than a ‘normal tackle’ being the landmark for the tackle box, and a back only needing to “catch a piece” of the (normally positioned) tackle. If the linemen take abnormal splits (wide or tight), then we simply must make an estimate about the 5-yard distance from the snapper, to determine backs that may be within or outside the TB.
Use the tackle when possible; otherwise, make an estimate, and don’t be too technical.

 

[blindtxzebra]

In my opinion TASO is wrong here. I will follow what Steve Shaw has said and that is the back must be catching a piece of the tackle (or second lineman from the snapper).

[ElvisLives]

In my opinion TASO is wrong here. I will follow what Steve Shaw has said and that is the back must be catching a piece of the tackle (or second lineman from the snapper).

As good of a person as Steve Shaw may be (never met him, so I have no personal knowledge), he doesn't speak FOR TASO or the UIL. TASO listens to Shaw, and assimilates his interpretations into the UIL environment as appropriate for UIL football. In this instance, there is a HUGE difference between UIL football rule exceptions and the NCAA rules. The NCAA does not have a "second lineman from the snapper" rule, therefore, when Shaw is talking about catching a piece of the tackle, he is referencing a tackle - as we know it by conventional nomenclature, not by NCAA rule - in a 'normal' tackle position (which would be the second position from the snapper). If you watched/listened to BOTH of Shaw's presentations to TASO in the past several months, he was clear that the tackle must be in a reasonably normal position, with a reasonably normal split from the first position from the snapper. He acknowledged that wide splits might put the tackle far enough from the snapper to CLEARLY be more than 5 yards from the snapper, thus, putting himself outside the tackle box. Because it is virtually NEVER going to happen in NCAA football, he did not address exceptionally narrow splits, where a third lineman from the snapper might actually be completely within 5 yards of the snapper, thus, placing the 'tackle' much too far inside the tackle box to be useful as a landmark for the limit of the tackle box. Please note that "catching a piece of the tackle" is not to be found anywhere in the actual rule language. That is nothing but a concept of convenience, based on typical, usual, normal, conventional actions of the teams - simply an aid for us to determine the legality of a back with respect to his blocking below the waist.
What I do know about Shaw is that he is a very "anti-what if" kind of guy. So, when he is addressing rules, he is thinking about typical, usual, normal, conventional things that happen, and NOT those things that COULD happen. Sadly, it is those things that COULD happen that cause controversy, because, every once in a while they DO happen. As loathe as Shaw may be to write rules to cover everything that could happen, eventually, that is what happens, because those "what ifs" raise their heads, then a team loses a game over an ambiguous rule and raises a ruckus about it, and we get a rule change to cover that twice-in-a career "what if" event.
My point is that Shaw - being in, of, and for the NCAA environment - doesn't think of the possibilities surrounding High School or Junior High football. Not that he should. But, the UIL, with TASO assistance, recognizes those possibilities, and adjusts the rules to better suit the sub-college game (at least as they see it). Thus, we have the "maximum second lineman from the snapper" rule, with regard to which lineman are allowed to BBW. That does not affect backs. The Tackle Box is still 5-yards from the snapper, and backs must catch a piece of the tackle box to be allowed to BBW (at all, and even then, only 10-2, in the box, and while the ball is within the box). Don't be technical on the 5-yards. Use a normally positioned tackle to set the limit of the TB. But, abnormally positioned tackles are then ignored, and we just have to estimate the limits of the TB.
The bulletin that was issued by TASO is our official guidance. As a member of TASO, if you are working UIL football, you must use the official guidance offered. You do NOT get to ignore that guidance, or a rule, just because you may not like it, or think it conflicts with NCAA rules. If you want something changed, follow the chain of command, and suggest a change. If you don't know the chain of command, talk to your chapter president, or your District Director.
Good luck, but do it right. 

[blindtxzebra]

As good of a person as Steve Shaw may be (never met him, so I have no personal knowledge), he doesn't speak FOR TASO or the UIL. TASO listens to Shaw, and assimilates his interpretations into the UIL environment as appropriate for UIL football. In this instance, there is a HUGE difference between UIL football rule exceptions and the NCAA rules. The NCAA does not have a "second lineman from the snapper" rule, therefore, when Shaw is talking about catching a piece of the tackle, he is referencing a tackle - as we know it by conventional nomenclature, not by NCAA rule - in a 'normal' tackle position (which would be the second position from the snapper). If you watched/listened to BOTH of Shaw's presentations to TASO in the past several months, he was clear that the tackle must be in a reasonably normal position, with a reasonably normal split from the first position from the snapper. He acknowledged that wide splits might put the tackle far enough from the snapper to CLEARLY be more than 5 yards from the snapper, thus, putting himself outside the tackle box. Because it is virtually NEVER going to happen in NCAA football, he did not address exceptionally narrow splits, where a third lineman from the snapper might actually be completely within 5 yards of the snapper, thus, placing the 'tackle' much too far inside the tackle box to be useful as a landmark for the limit of the tackle box. Please note that "catching a piece of the tackle" is not to be found anywhere in the actual rule language. That is nothing but a concept of convenience, based on typical, usual, normal, conventional actions of the teams - simply an aid for us to determine the legality of a back with respect to his blocking below the waist.
What I do know about Shaw is that he is a very "anti-what if" kind of guy. So, when he is addressing rules, he is thinking about typical, usual, normal, conventional things that happen, and NOT those things that COULD happen. Sadly, it is those things that COULD happen that cause controversy, because, every once in a while they DO happen. As loathe as Shaw may be to write rules to cover everything that could happen, eventually, that is what happens, because those "what ifs" raise their heads, then a team loses a game over an ambiguous rule and raises a ruckus about it, and we get a rule change to cover that twice-in-a career "what if" event.
My point is that Shaw - being in, of, and for the NCAA environment - doesn't think of the possibilities surrounding High School or Junior High football. Not that he should. But, the UIL, with TASO assistance, recognizes those possibilities, and adjusts the rules to better suit the sub-college game (at least as they see it). Thus, we have the "maximum second lineman from the snapper" rule, with regard to which lineman are allowed to BBW. That does not affect backs. The Tackle Box is still 5-yards from the snapper, and backs must catch a piece of the tackle box to be allowed to BBW (at all, and even then, only 10-2, in the box, and while the ball is within the box). Don't be technical on the 5-yards. Use a normally positioned tackle to set the limit of the TB. But, abnormally positioned tackles are then ignored, and we just have to estimate the limits of the TB.
The bulletin that was issued by TASO is our official guidance. As a member of TASO, if you are working UIL football, you must use the official guidance offered. You do NOT get to ignore that guidance, or a rule, just because you may not like it, or think it conflicts with NCAA rules. If you want something changed, follow the chain of command, and suggest a change. If you don't know the chain of command, talk to your chapter president, or your District Director.
Good luck, but do it right.

Well for 1 this is not a listed exception. 2. What about a defensive player that is in the tackle box with these "narrow" splits but is not catching a piece of the tackle. No mention there from TASO on this. Is this an exception too that he can cut the tackle on his initial charge? Why were only backs mentioned? This memo was to appease a group of coaches who can't teach their team to not cut. 

[JasonTX]

As good of a person as Steve Shaw may be (never met him, so I have no personal knowledge), he doesn't speak FOR TASO or the UIL. TASO listens to Shaw, and assimilates his interpretations into the UIL environment as appropriate for UIL football. In this instance, there is a HUGE difference between UIL football rule exceptions and the NCAA rules. The NCAA does not have a "second lineman from the snapper" rule, therefore, when Shaw is talking about catching a piece of the tackle, he is referencing a tackle - as we know it by conventional nomenclature, not by NCAA rule - in a 'normal' tackle position (which would be the second position from the snapper). If you watched/listened to BOTH of Shaw's presentations to TASO in the past several months, he was clear that the tackle must be in a reasonably normal position, with a reasonably normal split from the first position from the snapper. He acknowledged that wide splits might put the tackle far enough from the snapper to CLEARLY be more than 5 yards from the snapper, thus, putting himself outside the tackle box. Because it is virtually NEVER going to happen in NCAA football, he did not address exceptionally narrow splits, where a third lineman from the snapper might actually be completely within 5 yards of the snapper, thus, placing the 'tackle' much too far inside the tackle box to be useful as a landmark for the limit of the tackle box. Please note that "catching a piece of the tackle" is not to be found anywhere in the actual rule language. That is nothing but a concept of convenience, based on typical, usual, normal, conventional actions of the teams - simply an aid for us to determine the legality of a back with respect to his blocking below the waist.
What I do know about Shaw is that he is a very "anti-what if" kind of guy. So, when he is addressing rules, he is thinking about typical, usual, normal, conventional things that happen, and NOT those things that COULD happen. Sadly, it is those things that COULD happen that cause controversy, because, every once in a while they DO happen. As loathe as Shaw may be to write rules to cover everything that could happen, eventually, that is what happens, because those "what ifs" raise their heads, then a team loses a game over an ambiguous rule and raises a ruckus about it, and we get a rule change to cover that twice-in-a career "what if" event.
My point is that Shaw - being in, of, and for the NCAA environment - doesn't think of the possibilities surrounding High School or Junior High football. Not that he should. But, the UIL, with TASO assistance, recognizes those possibilities, and adjusts the rules to better suit the sub-college game (at least as they see it). Thus, we have the "maximum second lineman from the snapper" rule, with regard to which lineman are allowed to BBW. That does not affect backs. The Tackle Box is still 5-yards from the snapper, and backs must catch a piece of the tackle box to be allowed to BBW (at all, and even then, only 10-2, in the box, and while the ball is within the box). Don't be technical on the 5-yards. Use a normally positioned tackle to set the limit of the TB. But, abnormally positioned tackles are then ignored, and we just have to estimate the limits of the TB.
The bulletin that was issued by TASO is our official guidance. As a member of TASO, if you are working UIL football, you must use the official guidance offered. You do NOT get to ignore that guidance, or a rule, just because you may not like it, or think it conflicts with NCAA rules. If you want something changed, follow the chain of command, and suggest a change. If you don't know the chain of command, talk to your chapter president, or your District Director.
Good luck, but do it right.

At the Referee clinic, Shaw told us that the 3rd player from the snapper would always be outside of the tackle box no matter how tight they made their splits.  The intent of the rule as Shaw told us, is for that 3rd player to be outside of the tackle box even if they are able to squeeze to inside of 5 yards.  As such, we'd use the 2nd player as the one that the back would have to "get a piece of" in order to be considered within the tackle box, even if he may be clearly inside of 5 yards if he lines up outside.  The only time we have to guess where the box is are for the cases where they go to extremely wide splits.  At that point, the tackle himself may be outside.

[ElvisLives]

At the Referee clinic, Shaw told us that the 3rd player from the snapper would always be outside of the tackle box no matter how tight they made their splits.  The intent of the rule as Shaw told us, is for that 3rd player to be outside of the tackle box even if they are able to squeeze to inside of 5 yards.  As such, we'd use the 2nd player as the one that the back would have to "get a piece of" in order to be considered within the tackle box, even if he may be clearly inside of 5 yards if he lines up outside.  The only time we have to guess where the box is are for the cases where they go to extremely wide splits.  At that point, the tackle himself may be outside.

I don't believe Shaw told us that in either of the two presentations he made to us (TASO). If that is his interpretation, he needs to publish that, in some manner (video or bulletin). And, if that is the case, the UIL, with TASO input, needs to decide for themselves what is right for UIL football. As I suggested before, in NCAA games, the "tight splits" configuration probably won't be very distinguishable from 'normal' splits, because the players are just so much larger. Even in a tight split formation, the tackle is quite likely to be very near the 5-yard limit of the TB. So, backs won't notice much difference in where they position themselves. In 'normal' splits, the back may catch a lot of the tackle. In tight splits, he may only catch a piece. But that may not affect him much. He just needs to be where he needs to be to run a good pass route, run an inside handoff play, etc.
For UIL football, very few teams will have players large enough for two of them to span 5-yards with 'normal' splits. As long as they are using 'normal' splits, though, they will be spaced far enough apart for backs to take positions that will allow them to catch a piece of the tackle, without being squeezed too close to the snapper/QB to be effective in doing their jobs. But, if they squeeze down into tight splits, the backs may have to be so close to the snapper/QB that they lose their ability to perform their jobs effectively, if they are required to "catch a piece of the tackle," no matter how tightly squeezed he may be.
So, the UIL needs to make a statement about backs, i.e., are they bound to the tackles? Or, are they permitted to take advantage of the full 5-yards for the width of the tackle box that is prescribed by rule?
Like I said before, there is no rule language associating the backs to the tackles, in any way. All we have is what is in writing, and what we can piece together from what, collectively, we have heard Shaw say.
Even if we get a comprehensive video presentation from Shaw that answers all of these issue for NCAA, since the UIL has a published exception to the tackle box rule, the UIL needs to issue some sort of statement that either accepts the NCAA interpretation (if we get one), with full understanding that it may create 'play' issues with teams, or they direct us to estimate the size of the TB, in those instances when the tackles do not provide a reasonably sized tackle box.

[TXMike]

I don't understand the confusion.  "Catching a piece" is only there to help judge on whether back is in the box.  In a normal situation ,the outside part of the tackle. (2d player from snapper)  is the edge of the box.  So make the back get a piece. Once the line goes into abnormally tight splits , the box still exists on the field but is the 5 yard parameter.  At that point you have to judge/guess if back is in the box.  The example of a formation with NO lineman near the snapper is perfect example.  We can't say there are now no backs eligible to block low just because they have no tackle to catch a piece of.

[JasonTX]

I don't understand the confusion.  "Catching a piece" is only there to help judge on whether back is in the box.  In a normal situation ,the outside part of the tackle. (2d player from snapper)  is the edge of the box.  So make the back get a piece. Once the line goes into abnormally tight splits , the box still exists on the field but is the 5 yard parameter.  At that point you have to judge/guess if back is in the box.  The example of a formation with NO lineman near the snapper is perfect example.  We can't say there are now no backs eligible to block low just because they have no tackle to catch a piece of.

At the NCAA referee clinic Shaw told us that we would still use the 2nd lineman as the tackle box even if they squeeze down in tight splits and the back would have to catch a piece of him.  The 5 yard parameter would only come into play if they went into abnormally wide splits.

[TXMike]

That is illogical for the reason i described above.   Was that in answering a specific question or just part of his initial "script"?  That has not been said in any of the private or public sessions we have had with him.  That would not not be how we (TASO) would rule philosophically.  The tackle box is not defined by players, it is defined by measurement .  Players come into the equation only with regards to limiting how many linemen will be considered "in the box".

[TXMike]

I don't believe Shaw told us that in either of the two presentations he made to us (TASO). If that is his interpretation, he needs to publish that, in some manner (video or bulletin). And, if that is the case, the UIL, with TASO input, needs to decide for themselves what is right for UIL football. As I suggested before, in NCAA games, the "tight splits" configuration probably won't be very distinguishable from 'normal' splits, because the players are just so much larger. Even in a tight split formation, the tackle is quite likely to be very near the 5-yard limit of the TB. So, backs won't notice much difference in where they position themselves. In 'normal' splits, the back may catch a lot of the tackle. In tight splits, he may only catch a piece. But that may not affect him much. He just needs to be where he needs to be to run a good pass route, run an inside handoff play, etc.
For UIL football, very few teams will have players large enough for two of them to span 5-yards with 'normal' splits. As long as they are using 'normal' splits, though, they will be spaced far enough apart for backs to take positions that will allow them to catch a piece of the tackle, without being squeezed too close to the snapper/QB to be effective in doing their jobs. But, if they squeeze down into tight splits, the backs may have to be so close to the snapper/QB that they lose their ability to perform their jobs effectively, if they are required to "catch a piece of the tackle," no matter how tightly squeezed he may be.
So, the UIL needs to make a statement about backs, i.e., are they bound to the tackles? Or, are they permitted to take advantage of the full 5-yards for the width of the tackle box that is prescribed by rule?
Like I said before, there is no rule language associating the backs to the tackles, in any way. All we have is what is in writing, and what we can piece together from what, collectively, we have heard Shaw say.
Even if we get a comprehensive video presentation from Shaw that answers all of these issue for NCAA, since the UIL has a published exception to the tackle box rule, the UIL needs to issue some sort of statement that either accepts the NCAA interpretation (if we get one), with full understanding that it may create 'play' issues with teams, or they direct us to estimate the size of the TB, in those instances when the tackles do not provide a reasonably sized tackle box.

The UIL "Exception " really is not a normal exception.   It is just a clarification that some coaches requested be written in so it was.   They wanted it perfectly clear only 2 lineman max on each side of the snapper could ever be "in the box".