Block Below the Waist

[JasonTX]

As we know there is an exception for a player blocking in the back when a player "turns his back to a potential blocker who has committed himself in intent and direction or movement". 

Consider this situation.  The runner has crossed the line of scrimmage and lead blocker A20 lines up and is committed to block B40 from the front and below the waist 10-2, but just before contact B40 had rotated and A20 ends up hitting him below the waist in the side outside of 10-2.  Your thoughts?

[TxSkyBolt]

Same thing. No foul. Defenders action caused the side block.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jugster]

I would think the defender saw the block coming and decided to turn. That is on the defender.

This is different than a blocker trying to get to a defender and the defender turns to chase the ball carrier. If the blocker then commits to block from outside 10-2 it is on the blocker.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I would think the defender saw the block coming and decided to turn. That is on the defender.

Same thing. No foul. Defenders action caused the side block.

I would suggest that we try to stay with the intent of the rule here.  If the blocker has not committed to a low block here and based on your judgment still has the opportunity to keep the block above the waist, then he should not be allowed to block low from the side.  My read of the exception says that the test needs to be did the blocker commit to a low block before the defender turned away - not simply did the defender turn away before the block.

I would tend to look at it as .... Did the blocker see the defender turn before he committed to go low?  If yes then the block must be above the waist.