Block in the back

[waltjp]

Block in the back was called on this play.

Good call?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-fJtxj_DcE

[NoVaBJ]

Yes.  A13's initial block on B44 was legal, but ineffective.  B44 managed to disengage, after which A13 blocked B44 in the back at the point of attack.  I can't see passing on this one.

[Curious]

Watched several times.  Hard to tell whether the blocker truly "disengaged" or remained in contact after his initial (legal) block.

Since he flagged this, I assume the LJ had a better look than we got from the fixed camera angle and saw some daylight after the initial block.

Based ONLY on the single camera look, I might have to pass (when in doubt...no BIB)

[mbyron]

Yes.  A13's initial block on B44 was legal, but ineffective.  B44 managed to disengage, after which A13 blocked B44 in the back at the point of attack.  I can't see passing on this one.

Agree. Even if A13 maintained slight contact throughout, B44 clearly beat the initial block, and A13 renewed his charge from behind. IBB.

Good film for discussion, Walt.

[Curious]

Agree. Even if A13 maintained slight contact throughout, B44 clearly beat the initial block, and A13 renewed his charge from behind. IBB.

Good film for discussion, Walt.

Agreed: let's discuss...

It has been our "mantra" that once contact is made and a "blockee" rolls/turns, etc., there is no foul if the block subsequently ends up at/on his back.  Seems that CB 9.2.1G and COMMENT support a "legal block"...

[Atlanta Blue]

How old is this film?  Look at the funny uniforms those officials are wearing!

[WCFB]

How old is this film?  Look at the funny uniforms those officials are wearing!

My first thought when i watched this... those white things are so ugly, i feel constricted just looking at them.

Agree. Even if A13 maintained slight contact throughout, B44 clearly beat the initial block, and A13 renewed his charge from behind. IBB.

Good film for discussion, Walt.

Agreed, but my main concern is why do we have three flags down on this play? I can understand the R or the U throwing in on this play but the BJ? Someone is watching the ball too much and not picking up action out in front... I cant see how he would have a clear view of this block when he is almost certainly straight lined when the IBB occurs.

Someone next to the camera says "CLIP" when the contact is made  classic.

[waltjp]

How old is this film?  Look at the funny uniforms those officials are wearing!

Video is from the 2010 season.

[mpmorris]

I would have to agree with the call. The LJ made the call at a moments notice so I will not second guess him. The runner is coming his direction so he has responsibility for the runner. If anything, the field judge on that play should have all action around and in front of the runner so he should have been the one to make the call unless he was pre-occupied with another matter. Let the call stand.

[110]

Took me about five plays to even figure out where the heck the foul was. I kinda see what they probably called, but at least one, if not two officials didn't have enough of a whole-view view of the play.

[Curious]

Agree. Even if A13 maintained slight contact throughout, B44 clearly beat the initial block, and A13 renewed his charge from behind. IBB.

Good film for discussion, Walt.

I would have to agree with the call. The LJ made the call at a moments notice so I will not second guess him. The runner is coming his direction so he has responsibility for the runner. If anything, the field judge on that play should have all action around and in front of the runner so he should have been the one to make the call unless he was pre-occupied with another matter. Let the call stand.

The LJ saw what he saw and made the call.  What I'm interested in discussing here is, whether this (assuming contact was not lost) should be a BIB given the Case Book play referenced earlier and the "when in doubt" philosophy.  MB and others seem to feel that, even IF contact is maintained throughout the block, we still have a foul. 

[jjseikel]

Based on what I can see on the video... no foul.

The initial contact was on the shoulder and contact was maintained throughout the block.

[NoVaBJ]

Based on what I can see on the video... no foul.

The initial contact was on the shoulder and contact was maintained throughout the block.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the fingertip that A13 might barely have on B44's back is sufficient to make his second volitional charge into the back of B44 a part of his first, legal block.

The "rolling/turning" mantra is not applicable here, in my view.  That saves a blocker whose opponent moves after the commitment to block is made.  B44 does not roll or turn after A13 commits to his second block--he's already been beaten.

 

[Curious]

Sorry, but I'm not buying that the fingertip that A13 might barely have on B44's back is sufficient to make his second volitional charge into the back of B44 a part of his first, legal block.

The "rolling/turning" mantra is not applicable here, in my view.  That saves a blocker whose opponent moves after the commitment to block is made.  B44 does not roll or turn after A13 commits to his second block--he's already been beaten.

 

I guess we'll agree to disagree about a "second block".  I just see a continuous block from our camera view (hence my "when in doubt" comment).  I just wonder if the call would have been made if the offensive team would have been on the near sideline.....

[GoodScout]

I of course love that the fan or coach filming the game erroneously calls it a "clip."

[TampaSteve]

I would pass on a BiB here.
however, maybe a 'clipping' call as the spectators were begging for...