Legal or Illegal Low Block (Part 2)

[TXMike]

This will be interesting....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTxOS8oWTPI

[clearwall]

Foul. 10-2 doesn't apply per RR low block back towards ball missive.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Foul - block by a restricted player from the outside back toward the original position of the ball.

[mishatx]

If we go by the philosophy espoused in the previous video, this is not a foul - the ball has left the LBZ and this doesn't meet the "at the snap" restriction.

[copedaddy]

It seems the current mainstream thinking is that this not a foul since not back inside at the snap. I think it needs to be a foul just like it used to be.

[TXMike]

 Would be very interested in the takes from Magician, psv, and SA_zebra

[Welpe]

I don't think this meets the intent of the rule "at the snap" and the block is within 10-2. I think it is legal. Should it be? Maybe another story.

At first blush, I wasn't even sure if he had hit him. It looks like the defender leaped over him before he got hit.

[bkdow]

ILB back toward the position of the snap.  Even if the defender jumps over him, we've been told to call it.

[psv]

In my opinion, no call.

Ball is clearly outside the low blocking zone when this occurred.   Contact is 10-2 with the defender (even though it is the side of the Team A players body).  Defender saw him clearly enough to leap over him by and large.

That is my .02 worth.

[Morningrise]

Illegal for being a crackback AND being from the side.

This is a running play to the outside, during which a blocker far to the outside comes inward to cut-block a defender who is moving outward while focused on the runner. In other words, the quintessential scenario that the crackback rule was designed to cover.

Sure, this particular defender may have had a modicum of awareness, as opposed to getting absolutely blown up out of nowhere, but it's still textbook: Runner and defender moving east, blocker coming west.

Also, I have this block at the side. The defender is facing due south whereas the blocker turns ninety degrees to straddle the 50 yard line.

[BlindZebra]

Clean block.  While the block might be towards the original position of the ball...it is not at the snap.  Nor is it towards Team A's endline.  The play has developed and the block is within the 10-2 of B.  I would hope my deep wing comes to me and talks me off since that was his key.

[chymechowder]

Seems to be two different interpretations of what "at the snap" refers to.

Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward
the original position of the ball at the snap.

1. Is it the timing of the block in relation to the timing of the snap? Meaning you can't cut toward the ball just as/immediately after the ball is being snapped?

2. Or is it the location of the ball?  Meaning you can't cut toward the where the ball originally was when it was snapped?

It's #2, right? 

[Magician]

Seems to be two different interpretations of what "at the snap" refers to.

Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward
the original position of the ball at the snap.

1. Is it the timing of the block in relation to the timing of the snap? Meaning you can't cut toward the ball just as/immediately after the ball is being snapped?

2. Or is it the location of the ball?  Meaning you can't cut toward the where the ball originally was when it was snapped?

It's #2, right? 

No. It's #1. When they first came out with this version of the rule this block wasn't included. After presenting at a couple clinics it became clear to Rogers this was an oversight. You don't want the wideouts coming back toward the ball immediately after the snap and cutting a defender even if it's 10-to-2. He talked about updating the rule at one of the clinics I attended.

This one is tricky though because he doesn't initiate this block shortly after the snap. I'm thinking the play is developed enough this restriction doesn't apply. As long as the block is 10-2 this is legal. I specifically asked him about 10-2 in relation to the body or the head, and he said body. Based on my understanding this would be a legal block. But I could also understand if someone like Rogers or Carollo said they want this flagged because they feel it's dangerous. This exemplifies the challenge of codifying certain fouls.

[BlindZebra]

Seems to be two different interpretations of what "at the snap" refers to.

Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward
the original position of the ball at the snap.

1. Is it the timing of the block in relation to the timing of the snap? Meaning you can't cut toward the ball just as/immediately after the ball is being snapped?

2. Or is it the location of the ball?  Meaning you can't cut toward the where the ball originally was when it was snapped?

It's #2, right?

One of those moments when punctuation is critical.  Read it with a comma after ball.

Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward
the original position of the ball, at the snap.

[SA_Zebra]

Not a foul... the block occurs 5 yards down field, the ball is well outside the zone, block is between 10-2, blocker doesn't "crack back" at the snap... don't see any way this can be a foul.

[Morningrise]

To my recollection of clinics and rules videos when the rule was last rewritten, the words "at the snap" refer to the ball's original position. If you're a restricted player, you cannot block below the waist in the general direction of this point.

After all, that's what it has meant in all previous incarnations of the crackback rule. All that prior language about "non-adjacent sidelines" in years past was another way of saying (almost) the same thing: If you're lined up out on the right, you can't turn and low-block toward the left.

One of the reasons they switched the terminology from "non-adjacent sideline" back to "original position of the ball at the snap" was to indicate that not all blocks are illegal just because they're one degree inward. For instance, if you go fifteen yards down the sideline and then cut-block toward the goalpost, that is legal. An illegal crackback has to be strongly inward, back toward where the defenders were starting from. Hence the reference to a point - the "original position of the ball at the snap" - instead of an infinite vertical line.

So it is true that the kind of crackbacks they want penalized are the kind that happen early during the down (as opposed to peelbacks which are dangerous when they happen later in the down). But I have never understood the crackback rule to apply only at the very first instant of play.

[chymechowder]

One of those moments when punctuation is critical.  Read it with a comma after ball.

Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward
the original position of the ball, at the snap.

Yeah but there's no comma in the rule!    Also the inclusion of the word ORIGINAL is a tip-off. If it only referred to the time immediately after the snap, there'd be no need for the word "original."

Say the ball is snapped on the left hash. You're a (restricted) back on the right hash. The play is a sweep to the right. You can't turn to the left and cut a guy, even if it's a 12oclock block and he sees you. Because you're restricted and blocking toward the ORIGINAL position of the ball at the snap.

[Welpe]

To my recollection of clinics and rules videos when the rule was last rewritten, the words "at the snap" refer to the ball's original position. If you're a restricted player, you cannot block below the waist in the general direction of this point.

My recollection is just the opposite as "at the snap" pertains to the timing of the block, not the position of the ball.

[mishatx]

The previous previous version of the rule was

Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely
outside the tackle box, or in motion at the snap, are prohibited from
blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in
or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral
zone. The frame of the body does not include arms or legs extended
sideways (A.R. 9-1-2-XXI).

"at the snap" is new language that replaces the 10 yards language.

I remember lots of discussion about how this was meant to be a timing thing (and we didn't want to flag these blocks after the play had time to develop), but this is the only bulletin I can find on it:
https://cfo.arbitersports.com/Groups/104777/Library/files/Clarification%20BBW%20Crackback.pdf

The second play in this bulletin seems to indicate restricted players blocking low back toward the original position of the ball is a foul even after the play has developed some. 

[chymechowder]

If "AT THE SNAP" does in fact refer to the timing of the block, then how long after the snap is it OK for restricted backs to come down the NZ and cut towards the original position of the ball?  1 second?  3 seconds?

[copedaddy]

What RR wrote in the memo above, seems to be different from what he explained? Seems there is a lot of people who see this two different ways. So, wouldn't it be nice if RR cleared this up? Anyone that can bend his ear should talk him into an explanation. Or at least a clarification for next year.

[BlindZebra]

Yeah but there's no comma in the rule!    Also the inclusion of the word ORIGINAL is a tip-off. If it only referred to the time immediately after the snap, there'd be no need for the word "original."

Say the ball is snapped on the left hash. You're a (restricted) back on the right hash. The play is a sweep to the right. You can't turn to the left and cut a guy, even if it's a 12oclock block and he sees you. Because you're restricted and blocking toward the ORIGINAL position of the ball at the snap.

And I agree with you.  That would be illegal if the back seeks him out and cuts because it is towards the original position of the ball and at the snap.  But extend it a little bit...say the sweep is developing and the ball is in-between the numbers and right hashes.  The same back goes and cuts the defender at 12oclock towards where the snap was.  Do you have a foul?  I say no.  Even though it is in the direction of the original position of the ball, it is not immediately after the snap.  www.footballofficiating.com has a great video on IBW.  "2013 Blocking Below the Waist Rule" is the title on page 2.  Play #2 (2:50) of that video is the example you are looking for.  By the way, it is free to join this website if you are not a member.  They have some good training tapes.

[Wingmanbp]

The original position of the ball is what confuses me. Is there a definition for that. Is it a line drawn through the ball from end line to endline or is it just where the ball was at the snap. In other words if a reciever blocks a safety in the 10-2 region but towards the middle of the field is it a foul or legal?
Can anyone show me the rule/ AR?

[NVFOA_Ump]

The original position of the ball is what confuses me. Is there a definition for that. Is it a line drawn through the ball from end line to endline or is it just where the ball was at the snap. In other words if a receiver blocks a safety in the 10-2 region but towards the middle of the field is it a foul or legal?
Can anyone show me the rule/ AR?

Let's try.  The diagrams came from a fellow official along with the "clarification" memo which seemed to clean up ( ) the crackback problem and make it a very simple geographic / location based call.  Obviously I must be reading some of the memos a bit too simplified since there seems to still be a lot of questions as to what paragraph 4 really means.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[NVFOA_Ump]

And here's the original BBW memo (dated 16-April-2013) that was replaced and or modified by the "clarification" memo (dated 25-June-2013) posted above.

[attachment deleted by admin]