Chop Block???

[TexDoc]

These are not all that easy to see, but need opinions. 

These pictures were captured from Hudl on my ipad and then I put them in sequence from top left to right then bottom left to right.

Pic 1 shows right at the snap, guard is trying to block down and tackle, white 77 fires toward D tackle.  D tackle is charging toward guard.

Pic 2 shows 7 D tackle putting arms out and guard putting his arm up.  Not much engagement, but starting.

Pic 3 shows 77 clearly at D tackle knees and guard and D tackle engaged.

Pic 4 shows 77 taking D tackle out and guard clearly engaged.

Pic 5 shows D tackle about to be wiped out.

Pic 6 shows D tackle on ground, guard engaged.

Coach for white was very vocal (but very calm and just wanting an explanation, very impressive), stating that the D tackle must have engaged because guard's assignment was to block down.  The guard put up his arm toward D tackle so he could get to his assignment so it couldn't be chop block.

Opinions?  Would be great to show vid but I don't know how to do that from Hudl.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[BankerRef]

Hard to interpret who engaged who with video and even harder with still photos.  This could be either way from what I see but I would probably have it as a chop.  It is certainly possible to see this as a hold by the D tackle that prevented the guard from getting to his assignment.

[TxSkyBolt]

Saw the video, tackle was trying to get to second level and was not engaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexDoc]

Which tackle?   What do you mean by second level.  Think of it from the perspective of the U.  Also think of it from the perspective of a low high.  The guard, not tackle, certainly engages after the tackle blocks low. 

[TxSkyBolt]

Whoever was credited with the high component was trying to get to the second level (defensive secondary). A grader might support but would call it marginal call if not incorrect call.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TexDoc]

Huh?   I don't think we are even talking about the same play.  The guard certainly wasn't trying to get to the secondary.   Maybe he was reach blocking.  The high component, if not the initial contact, most definitely happened after the low component.  There's no way to dispute that.  Order doesn't matter.  I think the definition even says that. Two other points.  When in doubt....   And, this is a safety issue.

Why does the tackle down block low anyway?   It simply isn't necessary. 

[TXMike]

Last year's rule change was in response to the Committee's belief that many chop blocks were being called when it was the defender's fault there was such a block.  As a result, if you judge the defender initiated the contact, it is no foul.  I am not sure an o-lineman putting an arm or hand up in a defensive movement as he moves to block a different defender than the one who is attempting to confront him is enough to say the o-lineman initiated the contact. I think AR  9-1-10-V makes clear the intent of the rule committee.

PS  There is no longer a "when in question" re chop blocks

[TxSkyBolt]

Play number Doc?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TXMike]

14 or 59 I think

[TexDoc]

Play 59.  Although the guard's initial step is backward, the d tackle is trying to play through him.  We could discuss at length who initiates a block is a linemen steps back.  That opens a huge can of worms.  The guard does throw his arm up when he sees the d lineman, so really, who initiates?  That's really a judgement call and not very clear here.

Look at the play again and disregard the initial contact between the guard and the d tackle.  After the offensive tackle hits the guys at the ankle, the guard then steps forward and does, without a doubt, initialize and put his hands on the d tackle, twice.  A chop block can be a high low or a LOW/HIGH. 

ARTICLE 3. A chop block is a high-low or low-high combination block by
any two players against an opponent (not the ball carrier) anywhere on the
field, with or without a delay between blocks; the “low” component is at the
opponent’s thigh or below. (A.R. 9-1-10-I-IV). It is not a foul if the defensive
player initiates the contact. (A.R. 9-1-10-V)



[attachment deleted by admin]

[TXMike]

When a defender is down like this I don't think the high component is there even if the other blocker puta hands on shoulder.   That is not the intent of this rule IMHO

[TexDoc]

This is a few frames before.  How can anyone possibly argue that this is not a chop block?  77 is engaged at the knees and the guard is engaged high, with  his hands on the d tackle's shoulders.  The D tackle has both of his arms down at his side, so he cannot possibly be engaged.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[TxSkyBolt]

http://youtu.be/l9uq6tfoc_E

After looking at the video (#59), it's clear to me that at the snap, offensive guard #69 moves back slightly and down the line towards the center (away from the defender) as the OT blocks the defender low. The “high” component was initiated by the defender.

[Hondo]

To me this is a chop. The guard makes no attempt to pull or go the second level. The fact the defender makes high contact first is because he is just faster off the ball. The rule change on CHB was for OL trying to get to LB's. This is a poorly designed blocking scheme. If the tackle is going to cut the B gap, the guard needs to pull or release towards the LB. He does neither. We shouldn't penalize the  DL by allowing a CHB just because he's fast off the ball.

[fencewire]

FST before the party gets started.

[psv]

Chop Block.

Even though the guard was backing up, he was still engaged with the DLINE when he got cut.

Since this is a safety foul, we should err on the side of caution with it.

Also, I thought the intent of the rule was if the DLINE tried to engage with the OLINE and gets cut, with slight contact (brush by, if you will) by the offense.  The DLINE, while charging, is charging into a fully engaged guard (fully engaged with him), therefore, chop block.

that is my .02 worth.

[TexDoc]

Glad you guys are seeing it my way.  Mike, this is good clinic material for next year.  This is extremely hard for the U to catch at full speed and from looking at the d lineman's rear.  I think he got it right.