FSU/Clemson low block

[WingOfficial]

Lot's of complaining from FSU about this block.  Curious to see what everyone thinks...

https://youtu.be/HA7qQYeYlZo

(Play in question starts at 25:23 on the film)

[wvoref]

Don't know college rules but as a retired HS official it sure looked like BBW in our rules.

[WingOfficial]

My assumption here is that the official ruled that the contact occurred below the waist, and outside of the "clock face region between '10 o'clock and 2 o'clock' forward of the player being blocked." (9-1-6-a-2)  If so, then that would be an illegal block below the waist.

The question is, does contact that occurs right at the waist constitute a block below the waist?  The blocker's head and shoulder appear to contact the defender right at the belt line, so the question really is whether or not "the force of the initial contact is below the waist of an opponent who has one or both feet on the ground."  (2-3-2)  Of course, there's always the important caveat "When in question, the contact is below the waist."

What's the philosophy on contact like this in determining whether or not it is below the waist?

[TXMike]

This is an example of one of the issues with this rule and the emphasis  be d placed on low blocking.  Where is the waist ? Some will say this was at the waist.   But the hip is blow the waist right?  Or can the hip be at the waist?

[TxSkyBolt]

I'll bet that will be a 7


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NVFOA_Ump]

If we follow the oft repeated guidance that we must "see the whole play" starting before the initial contact then I think we have our answer.  The initial contact is above the elbow on the upper arm, then slides down the arm to the body right about the waist, then continues to slide down low.  If you miss that initial contact or are looking at it from downfield (back side of the defender) you can't see the initial contact.  This one needed help from an official on the blockers side but it didn't come.

[zebrastripes]

Jimbo blasted Heaser's crew for this call and the subsequent unsportsmanlike on the sideline. Rightfully reprimanded and fined.

Whether the call was correct or not, it didn't warrant anything near the tantrum he threw.

[copedaddy]

It is about time the "sacred cows" be subject to the same rules as everyone else.

[TexLJ]

My take is that he might have gotten away with the block if he had not reached out and grabbed the defender by his foot.  The defender seems to actually avoid the block but was was tripped up when the offensive player caught him by the foot.  Either way, that has to be a foul IMO.

The reaction from Fisher is inexcusable.

[bossman72]

Initial contact was at the waist/arm, then the blocker slid down.  I don't have a foul here.

[Joe Stack]

if he had not reached out and grabbed the defender by his foot.

I have this as being illegal REGARDLESS of where the initial contact was on the block. Agree or disagree?

I don't think the intent of the rules is to allow a blocker to "hide" (my word) an illegal act by starting with an action that purports to make it legal. That's sort of like shoplifting an expensive item after you've paid for a smaller item. The latter doesn't make the former legal.

[yarnnelg]

Our benefit of slow motion replay exposes all the variants during the progression of a play.
Now, Jack that up to game speed, snap shot instant decision time.
In your honest opinion, based on the snap shot, can you say without a doubt that you would have seen the blockers left arm, then hand after the waist high block?
Improbable is the best observation. And if you had seen it all, are you sure that an ankle grab takes place? Zoomed in at slow motion, that left arm sweeps ending with an open hand that rakes along the inside edge of the sole of the defenders cleats, knocking the foot off the plant plane ultimately leading to the player going down. There might be enough to claim a grasp of the inside sole of the foot, but ankle?

The decision had been made, the flag was being grabbed and not one thought went into what that hand was doing. And if you flag for that one act...what is the flag for? Hand blocking below the waist?

[justaLJ]

Foul all the way, a fact that would have been nice to include in the press release about the coaches' fines.

[centexsports]

Anybody that calls that a BBW after looking closely at it is totally wrong.   The player did everything right in his attempt to block within the rules.   With the defensive player running laterally, the offensive player just slid down as the play continued.   To penalize a legal attempt at a block because of continuing action seems silly to me.

However, at game speed and with the possibility of an official seeing this a split second after the initial contact, I could see a flag being thrown.   

[Joe Stack]

The decision had been made, the flag was being grabbed and not one thought went into what that hand was doing. And if you flag for that one act...what is the flag for? Hand blocking below the waist?

You're making an assumption. I see a lot of "little" things as they happen and then film backs me up. I'm sure you do as well.

Are you suggesting that "hand blocking below the waist" is legal? Can you support that with rules references and/or interps?

[NVFOA_Ump]

We get to see this as many times as we want at whatever speed we want including stop action.  We don't get that on the field, and we don't get the benefit of multiple viewing angles either.  Given that, the issue here is simple and that's the block clearly did start with initial contact above the waist.  Did the last second "hand swipe" raise to the level of a holding penalty?  Maybe, maybe not - but that was not the call.

On virtually all contact blocking fouls we must have a view that starts before initial contact otherwise were guessing with a flag.  Does that make our jobs difficult? Absolutely, but that comes with the territory.

[yarnnelg]

We get to see this as many times as we want at whatever speed we want including stop action.  We don't get that on the field, and we don't get the benefit of multiple viewing angles either.  Given that, the issue here is simple and that's the block clearly did start with initial contact above the waist.  Did the last second "hand swipe" raise to the level of a holding penalty?  Maybe, maybe not - but that was not the call.

On virtually all contact blocking fouls we must have a view that starts before initial contact otherwise were guessing with a flag.  Does that make our jobs difficult? Absolutely, but that comes with the territory.

If you look at that hand on a zoom, it never "grabs" the ankle. It hits the inside sole of the right plant foot of the defender. That act wasn't separate from the initial block, it's " follow through" I'll point out again, the call was a block below the waist nothing else. At game speed the official throwing that flag has lost any stability to watch the rest of the action. Had he waited before throwing the flag, maybe. Had anyone else seen a grab there would have been covering flags.

It's a mute point IMO, grasping at straws to support the call. It wasn't a holding call, it wasn't a (what part of tripping covers a hand?) what rule makes a hand below the waist as a continuation of original contact illegal?

[brettdj]

Confirmed By Rogers on this weeks film