Is this block "too hard"

[Cottondale]

Here is a play that has motivated some spirited discussion in out association.  Pay attention to the block by A on the B player after the runner brings the play to the right.  For the purpose of this discussion (because the video isn't crystal clear) let's assume the block is legal (it's from the front and not targeting).  This is solely about the amount of force used in the block.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYMVZQ13_mE&feature=em-share_video_user

One side of the discussion says this is a defenseless player because he is concentrating on the runner and the same effect could have been accomplished with a shove with the hands.  There was no need for this amount of force.

The other side says the B player is not defenseless merely because he's not paying attention to potential blockers.  He's not a deep snapper or a kicker who by process of concentrating on his specific job on the field is in a defenseless position.  If he is hit with a legal block, he should not have been so focused on the runner as to afford him protection. 

Any ideas?

[Atlanta Blue]

Unless you are in an "experimental" state (OR, CT, CO, HI) that has a new blindside block rule, this would be legal.

Word is, next year, it will change.

[jason]

Unless you are in an "experimental" state (OR, CT, CO, HI) that has a new blindside block rule, this would be legal.

Word is, next year, it will change.

Agreed.  I can't wait to see the monstrosity they create with the blindside block rule. 

[ChicagoZebra]

Agreed.  I can't wait to see the monstrosity they create with the blindside block rule.

Do you think the above hit really needs to belong in the game of high school football? Especially when it is under the microscope it currently is?

[NJOfficial]

Thats a pf in NJ, they have been telling us to call those for 3 years now. Blind side blocks where the player is trying to "punish" the player are going to be called.

I thought this was a federation rule everywhere for the past couple of years.

[jason]

Do you think the above hit really needs to belong in the game of high school football? Especially when it is under the microscope it currently is?

As long as it's not high - which was established in the original post - then I don't have a problem with it.  I'm all in support of taking the head-hunting out of the sport, but simply peeling back and crushing someone in the mid-section is something that is the root of football.  What's the alternative?  To set a pick and take the brunt of the force, potentially risking personal injury?  Or should the blocker just move out of the way and let the defender make the tackle?

As for the concept of someone trying to "punish," I'm just not sure how that can possibly be determined.  Is it "punishing" because the blocker is faster or stronger?  Or has a good angle?  Or perhaps the potential tackler is just uncoordinated or unaware? 

[Brian26]

Couldn't you flag this under the "defenseless player" foul with the force used? The players focus of concentration is on the runner, not ahead of the ball and the blocker was intent on taking him out. There is no way he could defend himself from this hit.

[OHref71]

Couldn't you flag this under the "defenseless player" foul with the force used? The players focus of concentration is on the runner, not ahead of the ball and the blocker was intent on taking him out. There is no way he could defend himself from this hit.

I know in Ohio they do not want it called that way because of the player that is blocked proximity to the ball.  If within 10 to 15 yards as long as the block by rule is legal they do not want the personal foul on a defenseless player.

[ChicagoZebra]

Couldn't you flag this under the "defenseless player" foul with the force used? The players focus of concentration is on the runner, not ahead of the ball and the blocker was intent on taking him out. There is no way he could defend himself from this hit.

Yes, the 2015 POE makes this very clear. Even if it is an otherwise legal hit, delivering a forceful blindside block can be flagged as UNR.

[ChicagoZebra]

As long as it's not high - which was established in the original post - then I don't have a problem with it.  I'm all in support of taking the head-hunting out of the sport, but simply peeling back and crushing someone in the mid-section is something that is the root of football.  What's the alternative?  To set a pick and take the brunt of the force, potentially risking personal injury?  Or should the blocker just move out of the way and let the defender make the tackle?

I would think the alternative is simply this - if the player is not aware of the blocker, it does not take much force for the blocker to change that player's path. It is possible to bump or push them off their pursuit of the runner without colliding with them. Imagine a side swipe car collision versus a head on collision. In some cases it will be unfair, for sure, but we must be conscious of player safety and the survival of the game.

[SCHSref]

If this is flagged, which I wouldn't have a problem with, then the flag needs to come out MORE OFTEN for cut blocks outside of the FBZ.  IMO, that is a problem that is overlooked a ton

[riffraft]

As long as it's not high - which was established in the original post - then I don't have a problem with it.  I'm all in support of taking the head-hunting out of the sport, but simply peeling back and crushing someone in the mid-section is something that is the root of football.  What's the alternative?  To set a pick and take the brunt of the force, potentially risking personal injury?  Or should the blocker just move out of the way and let the defender make the tackle?

As for the concept of someone trying to "punish," I'm just not sure how that can possibly be determined.  Is it "punishing" because the blocker is faster or stronger?  Or has a good angle?  Or perhaps the potential tackler is just uncoordinated or unaware?

The alternative (which is legal at least in AZ, an experimental state) is to hit your opponent leading with your hands. You still knock your opponent off stride without decleating him. After 3 weeks this monstrosity has worked pretty well. Coaches were informed before the season what to teach their players (using open hands). Whether we like it or not, this is where the sport is going, you might as well accept it or at least wait until you see it in practice before condemning it. 

[FLAHL]

Word is, next year, it will change.

I support that change 100%.  An open handed block is all that's needed to prevent the defender from making the tackle.  One problem that exists in HS that doesn't exist at higher levels is the extreme disparity of physical size and skills.  In FL, we have teams with 25 players on varsity with 170 pound guards.  We also have teams with 65 kids on varsity and OLs that average 300+ pounds.  And sometimes these teams play each other.  We should do everything we can to take unnecessary hits out of the game IMHO.

I also think we have justification for flagging those hits this year.  “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”

[AlUpstateNY]

As long as it's not high - which was established in the original post - then I don't have a problem with it.  I'm all in support of taking the head-hunting out of the sport, but simply peeling back and crushing someone in the mid-section is something that is the root of football.  What's the alternative?  To set a pick and take the brunt of the force, potentially risking personal injury?  Or should the blocker just move out of the way and let the defender make the tackle?

As for the concept of someone trying to "punish," I'm just not sure how that can possibly be determined.  Is it "punishing" because the blocker is faster or stronger?  Or has a good angle?  Or perhaps the potential tackler is just uncoordinated or unaware?

All good questions.  I don't have any problem with trying to eliminate "unnecessary" or "excessive" contacts as being in the interest of the game.  Viewing this clip, I have absolutely no idea what the tackler could see, or couldn't see, nor can I tell what the blocker actually saw to determine what his options were, or whether he "somewhat" held-up and refrained from "punishing" the defender.

The Umpire seemed to be in pretty good position, considering the action the play was following, but since the contact happened moving away from him, may not have been able to see those things either.  There doesn't seem (as best I can see from this grainy film) any overt attempt to excessively "punish" the defender, although there is likely some instinctive effort to protect the runner.

Have we reached a point where we should EXPECT a blocker to ignore a viable threat to avoid reasonable contact?  We can only respond to what we actually see and determine if it violates what we understand is prohibited.  Unlike various levels of spectators, observers and reviewers we are not granted the luxury of guessing or deciding other than instantly, in real time, which is unlikely to change anytime soon.   

[KDJBBBJ]

I support that change 100%.  An open handed block is all that's needed to prevent the defender from making the tackle.  One problem that exists in HS that doesn't exist at higher levels is the extreme disparity of physical size and skills.  In FL, we have teams with 25 players on varsity with 170 pound guards.  We also have teams with 65 kids on varsity and OLs that average 300+ pounds.  And sometimes these teams play each other.  We should do everything we can to take unnecessary hits out of the game IMHO.

I also think we have justification for flagging those hits this year.  “A defenseless player is a player who, because of his physical position and focus of concentration, is especially vulnerable to injury.”

It is not illegal in high school to hit a defenseless player.  We do need to look more closely an make sure that everything else is perfectly legal.  No helmet to helmet, not away from the play etc.

[SouthGARef]

A simple two hand shove or just a shield block would've been plenty sufficient to achieve the goal of blocking the defender. I hope we see the BSB rule come into play next year. It's badly needed.

[bama_stripes]

I don't have a problem with the play in question.  As long as the block is otherwise legal, the worst thing that's likely to happen to the B player is that he gets the breath knocked out of him.

(And his teammates give him a hard time in practice the next day.)

[FLAHL]

It is not illegal in high school to hit a defenseless player. 

You're right.  But it is illegal, per 9-4-3-g to “Make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”

This is a judgment call, and the comments here indicate support for calling it or not calling it.  I support the rule change that would clarify this as illegal because it would take away some of the judgment and allow for more consistency. 

[Rulesman]

I seriously doubt the rules committee would even attempt to make the rule so black and white for the purpose of taking judgement out of the equation. IMO there is not a one size fits all answer to this particular question.

[zoom]

I seriously doubt the rules committee would even attempt to make the rule so black and white for the purpose of taking judgement out of the equation. IMO there is not a one size fits all answer to this particular question.

But there needs to be some Black and White in the rule so that coaches know what to teach their players.  The experimental rule is working fine.  We have a definition in rule 2 for an Open Hands block.  Why can't blind side blocks be limited to this type of blocking technique? 

The only grey area I can see is what makes a player defenseless and potential to be blind sided.  That can be covered by a statement that any player who, in the judgement of the covering official, is unaware of the blocker's approach is defenseless. 

This is the only judgement needed. 

Something similar can be written for defenseless receivers.  If this rule isn't written so that the parties reponsible for player safety can understand exactly what is legal/illegal, then the rule carries little force and will be enforced inconsistently.

Ultimately officials should always be given responsibility to use judgement to determine what is and what is not a foul.  We just need clear language in order to categorize why a foul has occurred.

[jason]

Having suffered a broken wrist before, I know firsthand it doesn't take a lot of pressure to damage that very fragile part of the body.  That open-hand push idea is great in theory, but when a 250lb monster is running toward you and not looking, pushing him with open hands is a much more dangerous option for the blocker than simply lowering a shoulder.  I don't like that at all.

The other aforementioned version of a side-swipe is more palatable, but again causes the "what's too hard?" original question.  Not only that, but it also brings about something that everyone who has played football knows: If you play at less than 100%, you're much more likely to be injured. 

[WingOfficial]

Totally a Blindside Block here in Oregon.  Probably flagrant, too, since the blocker took a 15-20 yard run at the defender.

[VALJ]

You can make a blindside block without it being a "kill shot" block. Stand there, brace yourself, and let him run into you.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

We have been instructed that this is to be flagged. Based on those instructions and the videos that came with them, I concur with WingOfficial that a flagrant foul and DQ is supportable and probably warranted here.

[Logical]

This hit is a direct violation of rule 9-4-3-g.
If you have interest in preserving the game, call it.

... per 9-4-3-g to “Make any other contact with an opponent, including a defenseless player, which is deemed unnecessary or excessive and which incites roughness.”