Block below the waist?

[With_Two_Flakes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkDkDAMTe0I

From a recent British game (NCAA rules). The block by the personal protector, he goes somewhat low, then stands up and flips the guy clean over - BBW or not?

[TXMike]

Looks below the waist to me.   

[NoVaBJ]

I'm exclusively NFHS, but used to work a few NEPSAC leagues in Connecticut that use NCAA rules.  The block is initiated before the ball is kicked.  How does this fit into one of the six exceptions to the general NCAA rule that a block below the waist is legal?  (The one I remember says that blocks must be above the waist after a scrimmage kick, but I could be wrong.)

[TXMike]

If there is a kick from a  scrimmage kick formation anytime during the down, the restrictions start at the snap. 

[110]

Geeez. This looks to be right *at* the waist. I think this looks worse than it is.

[NoVaBJ]

If there is a kick from a  scrimmage kick formation anytime during the down, the restrictions start at the snap. 

Thanks, Mike, for the correction.  It's been two years since I've cracked an NCAA rulebook.

[KB]

According to "Make It Be There", I am inclined to let it go. Contact is initiated right at the waist, for it to be a foul it should be clearly and visibly below.

[Osric Pureheart]

Looks borderline to me.  I wouldn't object to someone who called this (based on the "he has to go to work/school tomorrow" principle), but I'm not going to say it was wrong to pass on it either.

[JugglingReferee]

The entire body of A is below B's waist.  A then turns his right shoulder into B's quad.   

[chymechowder]

What about blocks with no contact?

A88 is lined up as a back out by the numbers. he's in motion towards the center.  after the snap he goes to cut (illegally) a linebacker.  the linebacker sees it coming and jumps up and back. A88 dives through the space that had just been occupied by the LB's knees.   

No contact. but the LB, given the way he jumped to avoid the cut block, falls face first on the ground/A88.

So the Team A player went low when he wasn't permitted to do so, and the Team B player was taken out of the play.

But do we have a foul?

[Etref]

To me it is kinda like DPI, no contact no foul.

I have had (especially at the lower levels) players throw themselves at another player in what would be a clip,BBW or BIB. When the miss, we just chuckle and go on. No harm no foul.


If he tries to block low (or other illegal attempt) but misses, he really did nothing more than fall down.

[Getting Fat]

"What about blocks with no contact?"

I've used that exact same hypothetical before, and everyone tells me "no contact no foul."  I do not like that answer as the offending Team is benefited by what would be a PF if the offended Team player weren't alert and athletic enough to get out of the way.  e.g. Chyme's linebacker cannot now make the tackle whereas before the attempted illegal block he could have.

Someone smarter me than me tell me that it is still a foul. 

[TXMike]

The whole point of outlawing the "crackback" was that it was dangerous when thrown on a player who was not aware.  If he IS aware  and is able to react, then there really is not that much danger.  Yes, it is still a foul IF THERE IS CONTACT, but it is a whole different level of danger.

[Etref]

"What about blocks with no contact?"

I've used that exact same hypothetical before, and everyone tells me "no contact no foul."  I do not like that answer as the offending Team is benefited by what would be a PF if the offended Team player weren't alert and athletic enough to get out of the way.  e.g. Chyme's linebacker cannot now make the tackle whereas before the attempted illegal block he could have.

Someone smarter me than me tell me that it is still a foul.  

Had he blocked high would the linebacker have made the tackle?

I do not think we can get into debate over coulda, woulda, shoulda ( with exceptionof catchable/non-catchable).  I just think there has to be contact for it to be a Personal Foul or a blocking foul.

Rule 9

Section 1 CONTACT and interference fouls

[Getting Fat]

not arguing about what the rules state, just that I don't like the result:  Team benefited (either by no foul, or the slowing of the linebacker) by what would've been a BBW  but for the defender's awareness and ability. 

I don't want to tell the linebacker, "You jumped over him to save your legs therefore no BBW foul, although the jump slowed you down and caused you to let the RB get outside and run for 80 yards.  Apparently, your team would've been better off if you allowed your knees to get chopped in half."

[cmathews]

I can not believe there is even a debate on whether there needs to be contact to have a blocking foul....Throw a flag for an illegal block that film shows no contact on, and see how long you keep working your way up the ladder....

Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with
any part of the blocker’s body

so in order for a block to be an illegal block there must be "contact" that is illegal.........

[Irish Ref]

For me it is a block below the waist