RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: sj_31 on June 17, 2016, 07:22:10 PM
-
A 1/10 @ A-40. Team A is in normal splits with right tackle A77 clearly within the tackle box. At the snap, A77 takes 2-3 steps to the A-42 and blocks middle linebacker B55 below the waist back toward the original position of the ball clearly from the 10-2/front. QB A1 runs to the 50 where he is tackled. A77's block occurred while A1 was behind the LOS.
-
Gonna be one the players and coaches have most trouble with. Foul for illegal block below the waist. Tackle became restricted when he went that far down field
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I understand he's restricted from blocking 9-3 once he leaves the TB, but paragraph 3 states "Players not covered in Paragraph 1 above may not block below the waist toward the original position of the ball at the snap...". Well at the snap, A77 is covered by Paragraph 1 (for the purposes of Paragraph 3).
For the record I think this is (or should be) an illegal block. Posting here because in various preseason study sessions, this has often been a 50-50 split among the group. I have heard that RR is going to come out with an AR or interpretation making this illegal; I just hope that he in fact does to put it to rest.
-
I hope he clears this up too.
This has been a problem with this rule since they went to the Low Blocking Zone definition and it is a really big problem now that they changed to Tackle box which includes no space beyond the NZ. Nowhere in 9-1-6 does it state what players who are covered by paragraph 1 are allowed to do outside the tackle box (was low blocking zone) when the ball is still in the tackle box. It doesn't actually state that those originally unrestricted (i.e. paragraph 1) players are only allowed to block 10-2 once they leave the zone with the ball still in the zone. The way paragraph 2 is worded, paragraph 1 players are not addressed other than the "all players after the ball has left the tackle box" phrase.
Now, we're supposed to interpret that the originally unrestricted player outside the tackle box with the ball still in the tackle box is not addresses in paragraph 1, so he is now subject to paragraph 3? Unintended consequences? Too technical of a reading?
-
RR BBW video released today on CFO site and still no clarification on this. Any updated word from any of the conference supers?
-
Personally I think the rule is crystal clear. If you're a lineman and within the tackle box you're unrestricted. No other way to read the rule. RR said the same thing on the video.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What skybolt said, it is very clear, when an unrestricted player leaves the TB he becomes restricted, when the ball leaves the tackle box all become restricted.
-
Restricted 9-3 for sure. But restricted from blocking back toward original position of ball per paragraph 3? I don't think that's as clear. I know some conferences are ruling the play in the OP as legal and others as illegal. I don't care one way or the other as long as it's clarified. Coaches are going to coach the play in the OP as legal until they are specifically told it's not. Every mention in "official" ARs and videos allude to the fact that becoming restricted by leaving the TB is in reference to not blocking 9 to 3. Is there any official CFO document or AR that specifically states that the OP is illegal?
-
Restricted 9-3 for sure. But restricted from blocking back toward original position of ball per paragraph 3? I don't think that's as clear. I know some conferences are ruling the play in the OP as legal and others as illegal. I don't care one way or the other as long as it's clarified. Coaches are going to coach the play in the OP as legal until they are specifically told it's not. Every mention in "official" ARs and videos allude to the fact that becoming restricted by leaving the TB is in reference to not blocking 9 to 3. Is there any official CFO document or AR that specifically states that the OP is illegal?
What in paragraph 3 do you find confusing? Para 3 says:
"Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward the original position of the ball at the snap until the ball carrier is clearly beyond the neutral zone."
It reads players restricted at the snap may not crack back.
Regarding the OP, the player is unrestricted at the snap so he's allowed to crack back. Since he's left the tackle box, he can only block 10-2, but still may block towards the original position of the ball.
Seems clear and unambiguous to me.
-
Regarding the OP, the player is unrestricted at the snap so he's allowed to crack back. Since he's left the tackle box, he can only block 10-2, but still may block towards the original position of the ball.
Seems clear and unambiguous to me.
.
I agree 100% .. legal play for A77's block ...
The intention of the "crack back" part of IBW rule is to prevent blocks that the team B player cannot see coming at them ... an offensive tackle looping around and blocking a LB in the front is not the intent of the crack back provision.
-
.
I agree 100% .. legal play for A77's block ...
The intention of the "crack back" part of IBW rule is to prevent blocks that the team B player cannot see coming at them ... an offensive tackle looping around and blocking a LB in the front is not the intent of the crack back provision.
I agree that it is not part of the crack back provision.....but it should be. They can still be nasty blocks.
-
Settled today with release of BBW video. TE is always restricted.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
any link to video? or is it classified?
-
Settled today with release of BBW video. TE is always restricted.
Don't we really mean that the 3rd lineman from the snapper is always restricted (think unbalanced line)? That would leave a maximum of 5 linemen (snapper and 2 either side of the snapper unrestricted). Also, that would in effect define the width of the "tackle box" as the area covered by those 5 linemen? Or is that too much clarity? :)
-
Video is on ArbiterSports
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
sent you a PM
-
A 1/10 @ A-40. Team A is in normal splits with right tackle A77 clearly within the tackle box. At the snap, A77 takes 2-3 steps to the A-42 and blocks middle linebacker B55 below the waist back toward the original position of the ball clearly from the 10-2/front. QB A1 runs to the 50 where he is tackled. A77's block occurred while A1 was behind the LOS.
I say foul. When he leave the tackle box he becomes restricted and once restricted, he must follow the same guidelines as restricted players. A 1/23 @ A27.
If you go to 9:47 on the BBW video on CFO, it talks about a stationary back that leaves the tackle box and blocks low. The narrator says that when he leaves the box, he is restricted to blocking from the front and not toward the original position of the ball and this player is covered in paragraph 1. Since that back is covered in paragraph 1, then the lineman in the OP is no different.
-
Have heard that Redding stated that while the language may not appear clear to cover all situations, the intent is to prevent a player from leaving the tackle box and then cracking back, even if from the front until he is allowed to do so, which would now be when the ball clearly crosses the LOS.
So, moving forward I will be treating the block by the Tackle in the OP question as a foul
-
.
-
VII: Back A22 is stationary inside the tackle box at the snap. After the
snap he shoots between the tackle and the guard on his side, crosses
into Team B’s secondary and blocks low on linebacker B55 before
the ball has left the tackle box. The contact is at B55’s thigh from
the side and is directed straight ahead of A22. RULING: Illegal
block below the waist. Since A22 leaves the tackle box before
making the block, he is restricted from blocking other than with a
“10-2” block. 15-yard penalty.
This one, the back is unrestricted but this time he leaves the tackle box. Once he or the ball leave the tackle box his block can be back toward the original position of the ball but the block must now be a 10-2 block. No more side blocks and no more blocking back toward his own goalline.
I have attached a good breakdown that a co-official created that summarizes the rule in English. Let me know your thoughts. On the diagram I just noticed he has a side block on some of the restricted players away from the ball and we know that is illegal. His written explanation he does state that those blocks would have to be in the front.
So, you are saying that an unrestricted player who leaves the tackle box may block towards the original position of the ball as long as it is 10-2?
A 1/10 @ A40. Back A2 is stationary inside the tackle box when the ball is snapped. A2 shoots through the gap of the right guard and right tackle and blocks B55 from the front toward the original position of the ball at the A43. When the block occurs, runner A12 was sweeping around the right side and was at the A38. A12 is tackled at the 50.
That is a legal block?
-
So, you are saying that an unrestricted player who leaves the tackle box may block towards the original position of the ball as long as it is 10-2?
A 1/10 @ A40. Back A2 is stationary inside the tackle box when the ball is snapped. A2 shoots through the gap of the right guard and right tackle and blocks B55 from the front toward the original position of the ball at the A43. When the block occurs, runner A12 was sweeping around the right side and was at the A38. A12 is tackled at the 50.
That is a legal block?
Once A2 leaves the 'Tackle Box' he comes "restricted" and cannot block low back toward the original position of the ball (front, side nor backside) until the ball crosses the LOS after that it can only be from the front ... therefore, A2's block is illegal since the ball was 2 yards behind the LOS at the time of the block.
-
Once A2 leaves the 'Tackle Box' he comes "restricted" and cannot block low back toward the original position of the ball (front, side nor backside) until the ball crosses the LOS after that it can only be from the front ... therefore, A2's block is illegal since the ball was 2 yards behind the LOS at the time of the block.
Agree. Just making sure we were on the same page. What I don't agree with is making the tight end unrestricted in tight splits. I don't think we will be consistent enough to make that call. The simplest and most consistent way for us to call this rule is that the 3rd lineman away from the center in both directions is restricted no matter the splits. Now, I know Rogers has said that if the TE is inside the 5 yards he is unrestricted, but my supervisors have said we are officiating it where the 3rd lineman is restricted. Keeps consistency in the game and conference. It also eliminates the judgement of 5 yards.
Thoughts?
-
Like I said earlier, way to easy that way, (3rd man restricted). It will never happen.
-
Agree. Just making sure we were on the same page. What I don't agree with is making the tight end unrestricted in tight splits. I don't think we will be consistent enough to make that call. The simplest and most consistent way for us to call this rule is that the 3rd lineman away from the center in both directions is restricted no matter the splits. Now, I know Rogers has said that if the TE is inside the 5 yards he is unrestricted, but my supervisors have said we are officiating it where the 3rd lineman is restricted. Keeps consistency in the game and conference. It also eliminates the judgement of 5 yards.
Thoughts?
Read AR 9-1-6 VII. An unrestricted player who leaves the tackle box loses his ability to block in the side and back toward his goalline. He can still block 10-2 per the AR. The "crackback" block is for those players that fall under 9-1-6-a-3.
-
Read AR 9-1-6 VII. An unrestricted player who leaves the tackle box loses his ability to block in the side and back toward his goalline. He can still block 10-2 per the AR. The "crackback" block is for those players that fall under 9-1-6-a-3.
was told that Redding stated that while the language may not appear clear to cover all situations, the intent is to prevent a player from leaving the tackle box and then cracking back, even if from the front until he is allowed to do so, which would now be when the ball clearly crosses the LOS.
-
Read AR 9-1-6 VII. An unrestricted player who leaves the tackle box loses his ability to block in the side and back toward his goalline. He can still block 10-2 per the AR. The "crackback" block is for those players that fall under 9-1-6-a-3.
But a player who started unrestricted under 9-1-6-a-1 becomes restricted under 9-1-6-a-3 once he leaves the tackle box and is prohibited from blocking back toward the ball until the "ball carrier is clearly beyond the neutral zone".
-
FWIW, the CFO's "Summary Report" of the D-I Coordinators' Summer Meeting contains this item:
"By interpretation it is legal for an offensive lineman to block
below the waist on a defensive player within one yard of the neutral zone, but such a
block at the second level is a foul."
...which is not actually true as written. I assume the missing words are "in the side." But this could also be referring to crackbacks as well.
-
I have sent the the play that started this thread to Redding. Will let everyone know if I get a reply.
-
Can't we simply read this rule as it's written?
1. Players inside the box are unrestricted WHILE BOTH THE PLAYER AND THE BALL are inside the box. Therefore the "unrestricted blocks" MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE TACKLE BOX.
2. Players outside the box are restricted and cannot block back toward the ball until the ball is beyond the NZ. All players are restricted outside the tackle box, or after the ball has left the tackle box.
3. Restricted players may not block back toward the ball until the ball is clearly beyond the NZ.
A player is not "covered in paragraph 1" if he's not in the tackle box any longer.
Is there anything wrong or confusing with that reading? And does it cover all possible cases?
.
-
Can't we simply read this rule as it's written?
1. Players inside the box are unrestricted WHILE BOTH THE PLAYER AND THE BALL are inside the box. Therefore the "unrestricted blocks" MUST OCCUR WITHIN THE TACKLE BOX.
2. Players outside the box are restricted and cannot block back toward the ball until the ball is beyond the NZ. All players are restricted outside the tackle box, or after the ball has left the tackle box.
3. Restricted players may not block back toward the ball until the ball is clearly beyond the NZ.
A player is not "covered in paragraph 1" if he's not in the tackle box any longer.
Is there anything wrong or confusing with that reading? And does it cover all possible cases?
.
I second that! Common sense. Wouldn't that just look odd on the field for an unrestricted back to go 5 yards down field which now makes him restricted and block low toward the original position when a player who was restricted at the snap cannot? It doesn't matter where one started, if they are both restricted it only makes sense that the same rules apply to both.
Already did the same thing Jason, and RR came back and said that the player is covered in Par 1 when he meets the requirements of Par 1. Once he or the ball leaves the tackle box, the player becomes covered under Par 3. So, with his answer, when if a player starts unrestricted and remains unrestricted, he can block any direction on the field. But if the player starts unrestricted and the ball or the player leaves the tackle box, he becomes restricted. Any restricted player cannot block back toward the original position of the ball until the ball has obviously crossed the line of scrimmage.
-
I second that! Common sense. Wouldn't that just look odd on the field for an unrestricted back to go 5 yards down field which now makes him restricted and block low toward the original position when a player who was restricted at the snap cannot? It doesn't matter where one started, if they are both restricted it only makes sense that the same rules apply to both.
Already did the same thing Jason, and RR came back and said that the player is covered in Par 1 when he meets the requirements of Par 1. Once he or the ball leaves the tackle box, the player becomes covered under Par 3. So, with his answer, when if a player starts unrestricted and remains unrestricted, he can block any direction on the field. But if the player starts unrestricted and the ball or the player leaves the tackle box, he becomes restricted. Any restricted player cannot block back toward the original position of the ball until the ball has obviously crossed the line of scrimmage.
This makes sense and actually I think will make it easier than the way I was interpreting it.
-
It is official. See attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Do we apply this to "tackle over" formations? Are we saying the thrid man from snapper is restricted? Makes sense to me, but hate to assume.
-
It is official. See attachment.
This document says no one can crack back. But 9-1-6-a-3 says some players cannot crack back.
-
We need to read the BBW rule and the two paragraphs in the FAQ document that all go together.
What is a “crackback block”?
The crackback block is a block below the waist directed toward the line that runs lengthwise through the original position of the ball at the snap. This block is illegal unless the ball carrier is clearly beyond the neutral zone.
Is 10-2 block below the waist always legal?
No. Any block below the waist, including a 10-2 block, is illegal if it is:
- During a kick down—free kick or scrimmage kick.
- After a change of team possession.
- A crackback block.
- A peelback block.
Given the wording of the entire BBW rule, in addition to this FAQ document, and that a crackback block has to be by definition from "outside > in", in my opinion it's pretty clear that it doesn't apply to unrestricted players (player, ball, and block ALL within the tackle box).
-
I would agree the paragraph could be worded a bit better but I think the point is made.
-
From the FAQ on BBW
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) as long as he has not left the tackle box or as long as the ball has not left the tackle box."
That should be and, right?
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) as long as he has not left the tackle box and as long as the ball has not left the tackle box."
Written like that might seem like an unrestricted player may BBW sideways as long as the ball is still in the tackle box even if he's not anymore
I know it's nitpicking but...
-
From my many years in the engineering world writing technical documents and instructions we were always told to use the positive wording for instructions and guides which for this paragraph would end up:
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) as long as he is in has not left the tackle box and as long as the ball is in has not left the tackle box."
Or simplified further based on guidelines we always used to minimize words and get to the point:
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) if he is in the tackle box and the ball is in the tackle box."
-
Using that language completely changes the intent of the rule as written.
-
The is a huge difference between "has not left" and "is in."
-
From the FAQ on BBW
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) as long as he has not left the tackle box or as long as the ball has not left the tackle box."
That should be and, right?
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) as long as he has not left the tackle box and as long as the ball has not left the tackle box."
Written like that might seem like an unrestricted player may BBW sideways as long as the ball is still in the tackle box even if he's not anymore
I know it's nitpicking but...
How about this...
"An unrestricted player may legally block below the waist from the side as well as from the front (10-2) until (1) he leaves the tackle box, or (2) the ball leaves the tackle box."
-
Using that language completely changes the intent of the rule as written.
Not if a definition of unrestricted player and restricted is correctly done and added to the definitions. IMHO the definition of unrestricted player and restricted should stand alone in the definitions, and the scope of what he can do is then very simple and unambiguous to define in rule 9. Any time we mix and match the OK's with the not OK's along with the definition of terms (or lack of same) IMO we're asking for confusion in interpretations.
We're repeatedly using the terms (restricted and unrestricted) in discussions, training videos, memos, etc. but they don't actually appear in the rules? There is a term in the definitions "restricted lineman" but that term is not related to the BBW rule 9 text. For newer officials this is tough to sort out.
-
Not if a definition of unrestricted player and restricted is correctly done and added to the definitions.
That magic word "if." At the moment, those definitions do not exist. As you suggest, and while I agree with your philosophy, until that happens, "has not left" and "is in" are not the same thing.
-
The is a huge difference between "has not left" and "is in."
has not left means what it means
is in might mean that a player left the tackle box and then came back in it. And he's no longer unrestricted if he has left the tackle box, even if he goes back in...
-
So here's a novel suggestion - Let's get the words that are universally used to describe what's going on here with actual definitions into the book so we don't have multiple opinions as to what they "really" mean.
Add a new BBW definitions section then add in it definitions of the the terms restricted, unrestricted, crackback, peelback, and a definition of the tackle box that actually reconciles with the "intent" (outside shoulder of the 2nd lineman either side of the snapper etc).