Blocking Below Waist - Defense coming east/west

[br0ckt0n]

BJ Seeking clarification/rule reference/video/help:

B restricted receiver (with adjacent sideline to left) moves downfield and blocks A linebacker below waist as he pursues sweep toward the left sideline (the linebacker is moving east/west - to his right - sees the receiver's block - as contact is initiated with the blocker).  The B receiver stays on a north/south line and his helmet is toward the left sideline (his adjacent sideline) as the A linebacker is contacted on the right side of B's body - causing him to go to the ground.

The new rule states north south line is legal (is this solely for the angle taken by the blocker or designating the position of the player being blocked?  Does this include contact on a defender who is moving east/west and in reality initiating the contact with the blocker by his pursuit angle??  Does it matter the angle (helmet towards adjacent sideline) when a block is on a player from the middle of the field who is going after the ball carrier.

Thanks for any input.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If the play described looks basically like the diagram with A1 following a true North-South path, and the low block occurs as B1 is "crossing his path" in route to reach the ball carrier then I would have a legal block.  The rule only addresses the direction of the team A blocker, not the direction of the team B defender.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[James]

brOcktOn - in future could you please stick to A for the team putting the ball in play and B for the team defending at the snap?
Your message is very confusing to read with B receiver and 'A' linebacker (as opposed to 'a lineback')

[TXMike]

These are the 2 plays he is looking for comments on

1 -   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvA3mp0iJSQ

2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oit8Bpa5Cnw

[NVFOA_Ump]

Play 1 is legal as it's a North/South block.  Play 2 is a bit closer in terms of angle of the actual attempted block, but again IMO it's a North/South block and also legal since the blocker never comes back in toward the defender but waits for the defender to cross his North/South path before he whiffs on the block.

[br0ckt0n]

Sorry for confusing post - the mind does crazy things after a 10 hour trip from Fargo.
Thanks TXMIKE for posting clips.

The erring on the side of safety has been thrown in on these,  but IMO the A blocker still has to put himself in suspect position or be allowed to get out of it by planting and going N/S or back toward adjacent sideline.

Would any league support bbw if flag thrown here?

[Welpe]

These are the 2 plays he is looking for comments on

1 -   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvA3mp0iJSQ

2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oit8Bpa5Cnw

Both of those look legal to me.

[TxSkyBolt]

I've got nothing on either one of those plays.  I think we need to temper this new rule (as we do with most rules) with common sense.  Need to look at the intent of the new rule; to protect players who don't see this low block coming (classic low "crack back"). In both these clips, the defender saw the block coming.

Best regards,

Brad

[clearwall]

Would any league support bbw if flag thrown here?

Doesn't NFHS make ALL BBW illegal? I dont know, I've never done it but i thought I saw it mentioned on these boards before.


I agree with Brad and Welpe. Clean low blocks IMO

[Morningrise]

So is the "direction of the block" defined by the blocker's direction of motion, or is it the opposite of the opponent's motion? In these clips, it looks like the blocker is going north but his opponent is going outward. So is the block northward or inward? Seems like the philosophy isn't altogether settled.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So is the "direction of the block" defined by the blocker's direction of motion, or is it the opposite of the opponent's motion? In these clips, it looks like the blocker is going north but his opponent is going outward. So is the block northward or inward? Seems like the philosophy isn't altogether settled.

Good observation, but my recollection is that in earlier posts this season the concensus is that the legality of the block should be determined by the direction of the blocker only, and in these plays where the blocker waits for the defender to "cross his path", we would have legal blocks.  I don't believe that we've had any higher level guidance to the contrary, but maybe someone on the Refstripes crew has something more definitive to address "the philosophy" question?