RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on January 06, 2019, 09:53:43 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmz05ih48jc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmz05ih48jc&feature=youtu.be)
-
Almost had to announce three numbers on that foul.
-
There wasn’t really a low block. The blocker fell down and the high blocker pushed the defender over the player laying on the ground. I was watching when it happened and wondered what other opinions might be.
-
I agree, I don't like it either. Low blocker just fell down and then high blocker just pushed him over top. U might have transitioned late and not saw the whole thing.
-
I'm OK with the call. Looks like U was watching the entire way. It's a judgment call and A player may have lost his footing, or intentionally went low as the B defender beat him to the outside. IMHO there's no debate that the 2nd and 3rd A blockers hit B high while the 1st A blocker was into his feet & legs.
Also, a big thanks to TXMike for another season of great video work. Keep up the great work! pHiNzuP
-
in looking at the video I will not speak to the 'chop block' but I will say I would have thrown a flag for 'blindside block' on A at around the B43 yard line.... if this had been a high school game. It would be helpful to know if my judgement of this is what others see as well?
-
not a chop block... “Low blocker” was just laying on the ground when the “High blocker” blocked the defender over him... Slow down and process what you see before you throw
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmz05ih48jc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmz05ih48jc&feature=youtu.be)
Low component was just a blocker on the ground and defender pushed over him. No low block so no CHB.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
in looking at the video I will not speak to the 'chop block' but I will say I would have thrown a flag for 'blindside block' on A at around the B43 yard line.... if this had been a high school game. It would be helpful to know if my judgement of this is what others see as well?
. Blindside block is not a foul in NCAA unless targeting involved
-
TX MIke...ok. but if this had been in high school do you have blind side block? ^flag
-
TX MIke...ok. but if this had been in high school do you have blind side block? ^flag
Not where we call high school. ;D
-
in looking at the video I will not speak to the 'chop block' but I will say I would have thrown a flag for 'blindside block' on A at around the B43 yard line.... if this had been a high school game. It would be helpful to know if my judgement of this is what others see as well?
Using NFHS rules, since the blocker was not seen coming and did not initiate contact with his hands, yes this would be a blindside block, except in Texas where they do not use NFHS.
-
Thanks JSinSC. I agree. It jumped out at me I would have flagged it without hesitation.
-
Although we don't have an A.R. or bulletin play for this specific circumstance, I have spoken to my FBS buddies, and all agree that this is not a foul, but maybe not for the specific reasons some of you expressed.
If you look a bit more carefully, A63 initiates a high block, then slides down B53's body and legs - maintaining continuous contact - and is still trying to block B53 by using his shoulder and arm on B53's left leg. At this time, A64 initiates a high block on B53. So, teammates are simultaneously blocking an opponent, one high and one low. These are active blocks, and not a case of the defender (B53) stumbling over an uninvolved opponent's body. Without seeing the entire action, it may appear to be a chop block.
However, A63's block started high and was/is continuous. The consensus is that we are to apply the same principle to A63's block as we would if it was a solo block. Since it started high, and is continuous, it is a legal block, and NOT treated as a low block, for the purposes of the chop block rule. So, this is not a foul for a chop block.
Another example of the fact that we must see the entire action to be able to properly rule on that action. This is not a criticism of the covering officials or crew, because, with player safety being a major element of the rules and our officiating, I am afraid a majority of us would have thrown on this, too - unless we saw the whole thing. And seeing this entire sequence of action would have consumed a lot of time, meaning we wouldn't be looking at anything else. And we try not to have tunnel vision. So, just unfortunate this was ruled as a chop block. But, being a player safety issue (thus, when in question, it is a foul), I hope this crew did not get a major 'ding' for this.
Robert