Author Topic: Blocking Below the Waist & Blocking Out Bounds  (Read 1927 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Blocking Below the Waist & Blocking Out Bounds
« on: November 30, 2017, 02:39:06 PM »
Yeah, this is a bit of a "what if / dream play," but I see a distinct possibility that it could happen.

1/10, A-40.  Both A80 and B90 go well OB at the 50.  In the out-of bounds area at the A-45 (extended), A80 and B90 are separated when A80 blocks B90 below the waist back toward A's end line.  A11 advances across B's goal line.

By rule, the penalty for the Blocking Out Of Bounds foul by A80 would be enforced from the 50 (where he crossed the sideline while going OB).  But, I'm wondering if this might also be penalized as a Blocking Below the Waist foul, from the spot (yard line) of the foul.  There would be a yardage difference.  I would think so, but can't find anything to either support or negate it.

Any help?

Robert
 

Offline wlemonnier

  • *
  • Posts: 142
  • FAN REACTION: +46/-2
Re: Blocking Below the Waist & Blocking Out Bounds
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2017, 10:15:11 PM »
If the Referee announces it as an Illegal Low Block then use that enforcement spot.  If the Referee announces it as an illegal block OOB then the spot is where he went OOB.

I wouldn't announce two fouls with one declined... just go with the one that hurts them the most
Bill LeMonnier

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Blocking Below the Waist & Blocking Out Bounds
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2017, 11:06:50 PM »
Yeah, agree that announcement of just a single foul/penalty would be best.  I was just wanting to see if others concur that the spot of the BBW foul would be the yard line extended into the OB area, rather than using the spot where the blocker crossed the sideline (as we would if we called it a Block Out of Bounds).  Sounds like you concur, so that's enough for me.
Thanks.

Robert