NCAA Fun with 9-1-6

[NVFOA_Ump]

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".

[Morningrise]

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.

[JasonTX]

I have sent the the play that started this thread to Redding.  Will let everyone know if I get a reply.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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?

.

 

[BlindZebra]

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.

[JasonTX]

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.

[JasonTX]

It is official.  See attachment.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[copedaddy]

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.

[Morningrise]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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).

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would agree the paragraph could be worded a bit better but I think the point is made.

[dvasques]

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...

[NVFOA_Ump]

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."

[Rulesman]

Using that language completely changes the intent of the rule as written.

[TxBJ]

The is a huge difference between "has not left" and "is in."

[Andrew McCarthy]

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."

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[Rulesman]

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.

[dvasques]

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...

[NVFOA_Ump]

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).