Pancake Block

[Ralph Damren]

IF the OL sat on his opponent,would that  constitute butt blocking  (5-man crew)

[bama_stripes]

There’s a way around all this legalese.

On the first occurrence, penalize for a PF.  If he does it again, you can deem it to be flagrant (“persistently abusive”, 2-16-2c) and eject.

Same yardage and effect as 2 UNS penalties.

[CalhounLJ]

Seriously, you have issues.  You are obsessed with ignoring the plain language of a rule so you can ignore the plain language of another rule to call it wrong.  Its pathetic.  GIve it up.  This is just ridiculous.  You can't just use the wrong rule and say I'm smarter than the rules.  No you are just doing it wrong.  So absurd.  What else do you call a completely different rule?  Do you call holding clipping?  Chop blocks blind side blocks?  I mean you can  just choose whichever rule there is and go with it and say how you have a much deeper understanding than the actual rule...  Its no different than what you are so ridiculously defending here.

You are seriously arrogant and abusive in your posts and I really don’t have time to deal with it. So, welcome to ignore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

Is it a legal block for an offensive lineman to lay on top of a defensive player, spread eagled and not grasping any part of the player....If not what would it be considered??.....Can it be holding if the player is not grasping any part of the defensive player??

Not a foul.

I have seen it called, but not for many years.

[fudilligas]

Not a foul.

I have seen it called, but not for many years.

thank you for getting us back on topic....as far as i am concerned i have nothing.....cannot find anywhere that says this is a foul

[refjeff]

thank you for getting us back on topic....as far as i am concerned i have nothing.....cannot find anywhere that says this is a foul

Blocking an opponent to the ground is not a foul.  That it would ever be penalized as unnecessary roughness, unsportsmanlike conduct, or a flagrant foul causing ejection is a discredit to officials.

2.3.1

There is no rule requiring A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.

[CalhounLJ]

Blocking an opponent to the ground is not a foul.  That it would ever be penalized as unnecessary roughness, unsportsmanlike conduct, or a flagrant foul causing ejection is a discredit to officials.

2.3.1

There is no rule requiring A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.

There is a difference between blocking a player to the ground, which is completely legal, and laying on top of him, refusing to let him up after he’s on the ground.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[refjeff]

a.  If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.  Being on the ground is irrelevant.

b.  No rule requires A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.

[CalhounLJ]

Laying on top of an opponent for a prolonged period is not a block.

The first premise is false. A proper block can certainly become illegal if prolonged. Think about the block that begins between the hashes and continues out of bounds into the bench area. At some point that block became a foul. Same way here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

So ya, try again

#DBAD

[NVFOA_Ump]

a.  If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.  Being on the ground is irrelevant.

b.  No rule requires A to stop blocking so that B can pursue the runner.

As Calhoun noted the first "a" statement is incorrect on it's face.  Simply because the block started as "legal" has virtually no bearing on what happens as the play progresses. While "b" is true as far as it goes there is serious limits to what it covers and the list is a long one.  One major factor here is how far away from the ongoing action is the "pancake man".  No need and IMHO not legal to simply continue an action to intimidate and impress upon the opponent that "mine's bigger than yours".

Suffice to say on occurrence #1 I've got a stern warning to bubba that his prolonged after the block action crosses the line and occurrence #2 will get him a flag for UNR with a 2nd warning that occurrence #3 gets him a flagrant UNR along with a DQ.  As is noted MANY places in the NFHS books any prolonged actions beyond what is necessary to "finish the play" simply create ill will and in many cases will escalate to much more if not addressed immediately. 

[refjeff]

Laying on top of an opponent for a prolonged period is not a block.

  Of course it is.

[refjeff]

As Calhoun noted the first "a" statement is incorrect on it's face.  Simply because the block started as "legal" has virtually no bearing on what happens as the play progresses.

  Nonsense.

[CalhounLJ]

  Nonsense.

a.  If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.

So you believe this is true? That a block which begins legally can't become illegal if continued? I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did you read my example? If so, how do you repute that? Other than a one-word "nonsense."?

[refjeff]

a.  If it was a legal block to begin with, the continuation of the block is not a foul.

So you believe this is true? That a block which begins legally can't become illegal if continued? I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion.
Did you read my example? If so, how do you repute that? Other than a one-word "nonsense."?

In your example there was an intervening factor other than the block. 

[CalhounLJ]

In your example there was an intervening factor other than the block.

Which was? Cmon Jeff, explain the difference.

I believe the two are similar because they both are actions beginning with blocks which continue beyond what is normal and or necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AlUpstateNY]

Which was? Cmon Jeff, explain the difference.
I believe the two are similar because they both are actions beginning with blocks which continue beyond what is normal and or necessary.

Enough already!  This horse is dead, and long buried.  If the block was legal, fine nice job.  If a secondary action, after the block, was improper, excessive, inappropriate whether or not it was excessive, illegal (on it's own) depends on WHAT that secondary action ACTUALLY WAS, and whether it violated some existing rule.