Author Topic: BSB on an engaged defender  (Read 2887 times)

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
BSB on an engaged defender
« on: August 07, 2017, 09:07:16 AM »
Here's a unique scenario related to the new BSB rule that I haven't seen discussed anywhere.

If the defender is engaged, can there be a BSB foul? Look for the sideline contact at the B15.
https://youtu.be/rHdOF_hMa8I

My belief is there is no foul on the play. Surely the rule wasn't written with the intention of restricting blockers from otherwise legally blocking a defender off of a runner. This falls into no other foul category (e.g. BBW, IBB, CLP, OH), so it's legal contact. Further, I'd argue a block like this is one the defender should see. It's not the traditional "swimming up stream"-BSB that caused the rule to be written.

Agree?


Offline edtude

  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
  • Just a target for Running Backs and Tight Ends....
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2017, 11:29:01 AM »
I would have to disagree with you in this case. Right or wrong this is the type of block downfield that thy are trying to eliminate from the game. When you said the defender was engaged I initially assumed engaged with another offensive blocker which is not the case in this clip. All players should have their head on a swivel and be aware of their surroundings but we all know that is not always the case. This players focus was clearly on the runner and calling him engaged is a very loose term in this example as well. I would say that the intent of this rule would require you to throw a flag on this play.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2017, 12:30:27 PM »
I would say that the intent of this rule would require you to throw a flag on this play.
Be ready to throw two. Just saying...
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline edtude

  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
  • Just a target for Running Backs and Tight Ends....
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2017, 12:44:10 PM »
Be ready to throw two. Just saying...

I'll bite, why two?

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 694
  • FAN REACTION: +42/-9
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2017, 01:59:50 PM »
I'll bite, why two?

Second one will be USC on the head coach who is screaming at you for throwing the first one.

 ;D

Offline edtude

  • *
  • Posts: 50
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-0
  • Just a target for Running Backs and Tight Ends....
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2017, 02:21:32 PM »
And you don't think you will get screamed at for not throwing a flag?

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • FAN REACTION: +74/-39
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2017, 02:46:07 PM »
The  "Block" in the video, (sometimes referred to as a peel off block), is a clear cut textbook example of an Illegal Blindside Block in NFHS play as per Rules 2-3-10 and 9-4-3n
However, had the blocker initiated contact with his open hands,
1) - he would have been just as successful of taking the opponent out of the play, and;
2) - he would not have received a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul as this would have been a legal block.

For support please review: 2017 NFHS Casebook  9.4.3 SITUATION X on page 81

It has always been legal to take an opponent out of the play,
It has never been legal to take an opponent out of the game!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2017, 02:55:28 PM by KWH »

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2017, 04:01:24 PM »
Second one will be USC on the head coach who is screaming at you for throwing the first one.

 ;D
Bingo!
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 526
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2017, 07:02:52 PM »
Second one will be USC on the head coach who is screaming at you for throwing the first one.

 ;D

Maybe it's just me, but anytime a flag is thrown, my ears start to malfunction a bit and I can never hear loud screeching noises coming from the sideline.

Funny that.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2017, 07:57:26 PM »
Maybe it's just me, but anytime a flag is thrown, my ears start to malfunction a bit and I can never hear loud screeching noises coming from the sideline.

Funny that.
You're missing the levity.  LOL
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2244
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2017, 06:14:03 AM »
The  "Block" in the video, (sometimes referred to as a peel off block), is a clear cut textbook example of an Illegal Blindside Block in NFHS play as per Rules 2-3-10 and 9-4-3n
However, had the blocker initiated contact with his open hands,
1) - he would have been just as successful of taking the opponent out of the play, and;
2) - he would not have received a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul as this would have been a legal block

I agree.  If you don't call that one a BSB, you shouldn't ever call one.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-489
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2017, 08:00:30 AM »
Had a meeting last night covering the new rules, to which Coaches were invited.  As you might expect there was a lively exchange about BSB.  Old habits, both learned as well as teaching, are hard to break.  As the discussion wore on it became more evident that the dynamic has changed, and is unlikely to EVER change back, but there is an antidote.

To avoid being on the wrong side of a BSB flag, the remedy seems simple and direct; teach, and learn, to lead with open hands. which should eliminate doubt and misunderstanding while accomplishing what this rule adjustment is SPECIFICALLY intended to do.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2017, 11:07:13 AM »
Casebook 9.4.3.W, part d, almost exactly parallels this play. 

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-5
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2017, 11:20:27 AM »
Had a meeting last night covering the new rules, to which Coaches were invited.  As you might expect there was a lively exchange about BSB.  Old habits, both learned as well as teaching, are hard to break.  As the discussion wore on it became more evident that the dynamic has changed, and is unlikely to EVER change back, but there is an antidote.

To avoid being on the wrong side of a BSB flag, the remedy seems simple and direct; teach, and learn, to lead with open hands. which should eliminate doubt and misunderstanding while accomplishing what this rule adjustment is SPECIFICALLY intended to do.

Interesting.  I've had a couple coaches meetings discussions thus far and I would say this simplified the thought process with most coaches.  My experience was this gave them a clear technique to teach and they understood it.

I always try to be simple with explanations, here's what I used to describe the thought process. 

"Gentlemen, I know we've been talking for a number of years about getting the head out of football.  Now, we have a very specific situation where we need to get the shoulder out as well.  As it relates to blindside blocking the delivery of force with the body, shoulder, or head should be called a foul.  The best way to teach this type of block is using open hands."

We had very little debate.
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1219
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2017, 02:47:50 PM »
Back to the original question/play (not that I don't enjoy the "levity")...

I agree this is a BSB delivered with the shoulder against a tackler engaged with the runner.  Reddings (pg 108; EX 8-15) speaks directly to this situation. "There is no exception if the player who is blocked is in the process of making a tackle".  I haven't found anywhere yet, however, where Reddings addresses a BSB delivered against a player being blocked by another player; but I'd have to assume the same logic would apply.

But, in either scenario, delivered with open hands and not a low block or in the back, I'd assume the blocks would be legal....

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • FAN REACTION: +74/-39
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2017, 02:50:02 PM »
Jackhammer -

This will be our third year with the rule in Oregon.
In a coaches clinic three years ago one of the coaches said, "Well that's easy, when in doubt lead with your hands!"
That pretty much sums it up. Thats all there is too it.

If you don't lead with "Open Hands", you may be making yourself suspect for committing a foul!

That being said, Officials need to see the whole play, and not just the aftermath, before ruling the contact to be a foul. If you didn't see it, then you didn't see it.
A simple answer to a HACKED off coach is; "Coach if that's the way it happened, then I missed it!!!"  That age old line usually shuts them up as they try to determine what the heck you just said!
And, three plays later when they do they realize it, they think you admitted they were right and you were wrong, (even though that not at all what you said) Try it - It works!
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 03:10:32 PM by KWH »

Offline riffraft

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-13
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2017, 03:12:32 PM »
Jackhammer -

This will be our third year with the rule in Oregon.
In a coaches clinic three years ago one of the coaches said, "Well that's easy, when in doubt lead with your hands!"
That pretty much sums it up. Thats all there is too it.

If you don't lead with "Open Hands", you may be making yourself suspect for committing a foul!

That being said, Officials need to see the whole play, and not just the aftermath, before ruling the contact to be a foul. If you didn't see it, then you didn't see it.
A simple answer to a HACKED off coach is; "Coach if that's the way it happened, then I missed it!!!"  That age old line usually shuts them up as they try to determine what the heck you just said!
And, three plays later when they do they realize it, they think you admitted they were right and you were wrong, (even though that not at all what you said) Try it - It works!

We had this rule in Arizona last season, by the end of the season BSB were practically gone. Teach the kids to lead with their hands and it disappears.

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2017, 10:50:59 AM »
9.4.3.W & 9.4.3.X certainly cover the illegality of a block where a defender is being knocked off a runner similar to this play. Thanks for that.

At what point, however, do we consider the "blind" portion of BSB? The blocker ended up at roughly a 45 degree angle, and nearly brushed the runner as he went by. How narrowly focused should we allow the person receiving the block to be in order for it to be "blind?" If the blocker were standing directly in front of the runner, side stepped at the last second, and then blocked the potential tackler, it's entirely probable the tackler would not see him. Would everyone still consider it a blindside block? I know the rule says "who does not see the blocker approaching," but there has to be a limit to lack of situational awareness.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2017, 01:13:30 PM »
Jason, that's a great question.  Since I'm in a state that didn't use this experimental rule the last couple of years, I know that there are going to be some growing pains here in VA until (a) the officials get used to it, and (b) the coaches get used to it, and (c) the players get used to it. 

Any guidance from our friends who've been working with this rule for a couple of years?

Offline IA Linesman

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-1
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2017, 01:33:29 PM »
I wouldn't fixate on the word "blind" and concentrate on the form.   You see these "blow-up" blocks, you have to be thinking  ^flag.  Not necessarily but you have to think about it.  This goes for tackling and blocking by either side.  ESPN has had a negative influence on this game since the mid 90's glorifying bad form and excessive hits and many my age (36) and younger don't know any better and think football has always been this way.  It's still a tough and physical game with the proper form blocking and tackling and enforcing these player safety fouls is not wussifying the game or our young people playing it.  /rant.

Offline jason

  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-1
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2017, 07:55:07 AM »
I wouldn't fixate on the word "blind" and concentrate on the form.   You see these "blow-up" blocks, you have to be thinking  ^flag.  Not necessarily but you have to think about it.  This goes for tackling and blocking by either side.  ESPN has had a negative influence on this game since the mid 90's glorifying bad form and excessive hits and many my age (36) and younger don't know any better and think football has always been this way.  It's still a tough and physical game with the proper form blocking and tackling and enforcing these player safety fouls is not wussifying the game or our young people playing it.  /rant.

My argument against that is someone can see a block and still get blown up.  When they don't see it, however, the impact is much more dangerous because they don't have time to prepare or defend. 

For instance:
https://youtu.be/CPSO4_kI_Xs

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 157
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2017, 08:42:15 AM »
My argument against that is someone can see a block and still get blown up.  When they don't see it, however, the impact is much more dangerous because they don't have time to prepare or defend. 

For instance:
https://youtu.be/CPSO4_kI_Xs

In this play, even ignoring the BSB aspect, I have targeting and a DQ. But yes, these are the dangerous hits that the BSB rule is trying to avoid.

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • FAN REACTION: +74/-39
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2017, 03:18:44 PM »
Jason, that's a great question.  Since I'm in a state that didn't use this experimental rule the last couple of years, I know that there are going to be some growing pains here in VA until (a) the officials get used to it, and (b) the coaches get used to it, and (c) the players get used to it. 

Any guidance from our friends who've been working with this rule for a couple of years?

The guidance is fairly simple and straightforward: When in doubt, it is a foul!

Offline The Roamin' Umpire

  • *
  • Posts: 347
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-16
Re: BSB on an engaged defender
« Reply #23 on: August 17, 2017, 07:59:21 PM »
I would have to disagree with you in this case. Right or wrong this is the type of block downfield that thy are trying to eliminate from the game. When you said the defender was engaged I initially assumed engaged with another offensive blocker which is not the case in this clip. All players should have their head on a swivel and be aware of their surroundings but we all know that is not always the case. This players focus was clearly on the runner and calling him engaged is a very loose term in this example as well. I would say that the intent of this rule would require you to throw a flag on this play.

+1. This is the type of hit they are trying to take out of the game.