Did We Discuss - BBW Change re Restrictions on RB's ?

[TXMike]

I apologize if we discussed but I just noticed this....

Last year if a RB had any part of his body outside the tackle box, he was restricted.  The new language says he is restricted if he is COMPLETLY OUTSIDE the tackle box.    Has this been discussed?

[beaye1]

At the CFO West clinic that this will be difficult because coaches will skirt the rule by having RBs break the plane of the box to stay unrestricted and get an advantage.  This could be the foot of the RB just on the inside of the tackle's outside foot.

[TxSkyBolt]

Mike,

Did we have the "modified" tackle box like this year?


Brad

[TXMike]

No  The "modified box" is a new invention

[El Macman]

No  The "modified box" is a new invention

But wait! There's more. Operators are standing by to take your rules interpretation calls (in this 'off' year in the rules changes cycle).

Not.

Ah, lighten up (I say to myself). There are bigger crises in the world.

[TxSkyBolt]

So it's really the same....last year outside the official tackle box, this year outside the modified (smaller, narrower) tackle box.

[justaLJ]

TxMike is correct.  This year, if any part of the back is inside the tackle box, modified or otherwise, he is unrestricted.  He is restricted when completely outside the tackle box.

We impressed the point to the guys at our clinic that this is a change from last year.  In our conference, the wing guys will have to make that determination, and the guidance is "when in doubt, he's out" relative to the tackle box, and therefore restricted. 

[El Macman]

So it's really the same....last year outside the official tackle box, this year outside the modified (smaller, narrower) tackle box.

Yeah, effectively, the tackle box is now 5 yards either side of the snapper, or the outer frame of the second lineman from the snapper - whichever is least. Typically, not that big of a difference, as RR pointed out when he changed the 'new rule' language on 4/18/12, regarding the area in which the block actually takes place. Unless they are in really wide splits - not rare, but unusual (PAC 12 - beware the 'pirate') - this shouldn't present much of a problem. It is actually a better visual landmark for determining the status of a back. Since the area is typically smaller than the tackle box (as defined), they changed the requirement from being totally within to be legal, to totally outside to be illegal.

[Andrew McCarthy]

TxMike is correct.  This year, if any part of the back is inside the tackle box, modified or otherwise, he is unrestricted.  He is unrestriced when completely outside the tackle box.

We impressed the point to the guys at our clinic that this is a change from last year.  In our conference, the wing guys will have to make that determination, and the guidance is "when in doubt, he's out" relative to the tackle box, and therefore restricted.

Really?  The wings probably have the worst angle to determine their position.

[Rulesman]

Really?  The wings probably have the worst angle to determine their position.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Diablo]

Really?  The wings probably have the worst angle to determine their position.

Why can't the B make the determination -  restricted vs unrestricted - on the back?  The B does not have to key the back, just note his number and the extent of restrictedness (?) before the snap.  At the end of the down, if the wing has a foul with the preliminary signal of BBW, the B can mosey up to the R & wing and tell them what he saw.

[TxSkyBolt]

Years ago when this started, we had the R point to those backs that were unrestricted thus alerting all officials of the status of the backs. 

[El Macman]

I know two FBS conferences that had the R make the determination, and point to "restricted" backs, then "wave" him 'out,' for the benefit of wings and Bs. One crew decided to have the B acknowledge the R's signal (reportedly worked well). The R on that crew kept track of the unrestricted backs by number(s), in case a flag for BBW went down and there was uncertainty of his origin.
That system should work equally well for the new rules.

[TXMike]

So it's really the same....last year outside the official tackle box, this year outside the modified (smaller, narrower) tackle box.

No not the same.  Last year if you were partially outside the tackle box, you were restricted.  This year you have to be completly outside to be restricted.  I see what you are saying regarding the size of the tackle box changing and thus possibly meaning that a player positioned physically in the same spot may have been restricted last year and this year.  But since we are using the actual body of the tackle when making this determination I don't see it as the same.

[TxSkyBolt]

Yes, I was referring to the backs position with reference to the tackle box, old and new.

[BoBo]

In addition...Backs that are stationary/set? backs in motion? backs leaving the tackle back while in motion before the snap? backs enter the zone by way of being in motion? backs running in place in the box?

[Official_21]

I just need some clarification on this new BBW rule, as follows:

Does a RB need to have his entire framework of his body inside the tackle box for him to be unrestricted?

I have been told by some, that a RB can have a foot in the tackle box and he would be unrestricted.

Which is correct? I think the first one sounds right, but wanted to be sure 

[NVFOA_Ump]

........  In our conference, the wing guys will have to make that determination, and the guidance is "when in doubt, he's out" relative to the tackle box, and therefore restricted.

That is simply not realistic.  How does someone positioned 10-20 yards outside a running back make a determination that that the RB is breaking the line or outside the line of the newly defined tackle box?  Certainly the only officials on the field with the correct line of sight to make that initial determination are the R, U, and B.

[TXMike]

I just need some clarification on this new BBW rule, as follows:

Does a RB need to have his entire framework of his body inside the tackle box for him to be unrestricted?

I have been told by some, that a RB can have a foot in the tackle box and he would be unrestricted.

Which is correct? I think the first one sounds right, but wanted to be sure 

If the frame of his body is completly outside the tackle box (or modified tackle box), he is restricted.  Otherwise he is unrestricted.  So if his foot is in line with his shoulder then his frame is NOT completly outside the tackle  box and he is unrestricted.

[Official_21]

If the frame of his body is completly outside the tackle box (or modified tackle box), he is restricted.  Otherwise he is unrestricted.  So if his foot is in line with his shoulder then his frame is NOT completly outside the tackle  box and he is unrestricted.

Thanks TXMike, that made it clear 

[BoBo]

And the ball leaving the tackle box?? what effect does that now have on players??


just getting you guys to think

[TxSkyBolt]

Tackle box disappears when ball leaves that area.

[TXMike]

Yep  Verified with Rogers Redding   It be gone

[Morningrise]

On plays where restricted players have time to enter the tackle box, turn around, and BBW, will the ball really remain inside it that long?

I can't easily picture such a play. Most likely, the only guy to violate this rule will be a motion man whose block comes soon after the snap.