Whose responsibility is this?

[foureyedzebra]

Watch the block that happens right behind the U. According to the TASO 2010 5 Man Mechanics, who should be observing this block?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSj2Tc0N3C0

[Arbitrator]

Watch the block that happens right behind the U. According to the TASO 2010 5 Man Mechanics, who should be observing this block?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSj2Tc0N3C0

 

IMO, and this obviously being officiated with a five-man crew, the primary responsibility would have to no doubt rest with the BJ and he probably could be backed up by the HL, provided that the HL got a good look at that block in a timely manner.   

[TXMike]

IMO, and this obviously being officiated with a five-man crew, the primary responsibility would have to no doubt rest with the BJ and he probably could be backed up by the HL, provided that the HL got a good look at that block in a timely manner.   

Spoken by someone who must not be a B.   The B is keyed on the TE at the snap.  The H (who apparently may have also missed or passed on  the illegal formation thanks to the alignment of the wideout near him) whould have had been keying the blocker.  A quick look at the blocker makes it clear he is moving to do something so need to keep an eye on him.  The B would have shifted from  the TE to the action in front of the runner.  He might have been able to see the block with that 3d eye on the side of his head but doubtful.

[El Macman]

IMO, and this obviously being officiated with a five-man crew, the primary responsibility would have to no doubt rest with the BJ and he probably could be backed up by the HL, provided that the HL got a good look at that block in a timely manner.   

The manual won't, and shouldn't be specific on this. However, responsibility of off-ball action when a play goes well away from him falls on the wing official. If the B isn't too involved with lead blocking, he could swivel his view to look for this kind of action. But, in this specific play, the H would be primary, with B secondary.

[Welpe]

Agree with Mac and Mike, the backside wing needs to be the primary to get this type of act.

[jjseikel]

In our area, the H should have this action.

[TxSkyBolt]

Not to answer the question, but was the block more than 10 yards from the NZ?  Looked close. Maybe someone did see it and passed.

[DallasLJ]

Not to answer the question, but was the block more than 10 yards from the NZ?  Looked close. Maybe someone did see it and passed.

  That was the first thing I thought about as well.

[TXMike]

This year don't have to worry about whether it is 10 yards or not.  Although we still have to judge on the directionality of the block which does appear to be very close to N-S.

[george7244]

please explain th illegal formation.  if it is less than 7 on the line we are counting differently.

[TxSkyBolt]

Looks like the wide out at the top of the screen is a back.  That would make 5 in the backfield.  If not, good to go.

Best regards,

Brad

[James]

I would also say H has to keep alert for such blocks.
On that though, I think it happened right on the has mark, which was where the ball was snapped, so it is in the direction away from the spot of the snap, so no foul. Popbably also 10 yards, but I didn't notice that right away.

[El Macman]

On that though, I think it happened right on the has mark, which was where the ball was snapped, so it is in the direction away from the spot of the snap, so no foul. Popbably also 10 yards, but I didn't notice that right away.

On those points, it might have been legal in 2010 - won't be in 2011.

[slo8140]

I am the H on that crew. It looks like from where I am I had the receiver at the top on the line. But, all season myself and the L had serious communication problems. He is no longer on our crew. But from the looks of it, I thought we just had 4 in the backfield. Can't remember the particular play. That was a rough game.

As far as the block it looks like I did miss it. Not sure what I was looking at the time, but that should have been mine. Maybe I was cleaning up some action on the offside lineman, but I should have seen that block coming.

[TXMike]

I am still not convinced the block was illegal.  It was definitely setting up to be an illegal one but the blocker may have managed to keep it from being west to east.

[Joe Stack]

I don't have anything on that block, so what am I missing?

[El Macman]

I don't have anything on that block, so what am I missing?

You may not be missing anything. In 2010, the block was probably legal, since it was probably about 10 1/2 yard beyond the NZ. It is arguable as to being (horizontally) past the snap location, thus away from the ball. It is also arguable as to the force of the block being toward the ball (2010 rules, if (horizontally) not past the ball), or "north-south." For 2011, the location of the block is irrelevant, but the "north-south component still applies - and it applies completely across the field as long as the force of the block is away from the blocker's sideline (the one opposite him from the middle lineman at the snap).