RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: El Macman on June 28, 2011, 02:18:32 PM
-
Take a look at AR 9-1-6-IV for 2011. Comapare it to 2009-10 AR 9-1-2-VI.
Something seriously wrong with the new one (never mind the reference to the snapper as the landmark).
-
Take a look at AR 9-1-6-IV for 2011. Comapare it to 2009-10 AR 9-1-2-VI.
Something seriously wrong with the new one (never mind the reference to the snapper as the landmark).
Why would that block be illegal?
-
Take a look at AR 9-1-6-IV for 2011. Comapare it to 2009-10 AR 9-1-2-VI.
Something seriously wrong with the new one (never mind the reference to the snapper as the landmark).
Gotta/Want it to be a misprint .... both "Illegal block" and "snapper".
-
Plus the reference given, 2-23-1-i doesn't even exist.
-
Plus the reference given, 2-23-1-i doesn't even exist.
It's also mentioned in those other AR's on that same page. You'll have to go to last years book to find the "i"
The position of the ball at the snap refers to an imaginary line through the ball parallel to the sidelines from end line to end line.
Since we no longer use the position of the ball as a landmark then that rule is no longer need. It just didn't get removed from the AR's.
-
Gotta believe that the "error", ignoring the snapper language for now, is that it should read: ".... A2 blocks B2, a defensive end, toward the left (not right) sideline."
If you put the players and locations into the context of the play this sounds like it's intended to describe a classic crackback block against the DE who's moving from inside to outside tracking the ball carrier when he's cut by a wide receiver coming in from outside.
-
Gotta believe that the "error", ignoring the snapper language for now, is that it should read: ".... A2 blocks B2, a defensive end, toward the left (not right) sideline."
If you put the players and locations into the context of the play this sounds like it's intended to describe a classic crackback block against the DE who's moving from inside to outside tracking the ball carrier when he's cut by a wide receiver coming in from outside.
I agree, they replaced the "ball" with "right sideline" and it should have been replaced with "left sideline"
-
Before the 2011-12 book, there were different criteria for eligible and ineligible linemen; ineligible linemen had to have their shoulders parallel to the opponent's goal line, and eligible linemen (i.e., ends with eligible numbers), had to have their shoulders "approximately" parallel to their opponent's goal line (which has been interpreted as being up to 30 degree offset). The reason for the offset allowance for eligible linemen was to allow wide receivers to turn slightly to see/listen for snap count signals, since nominal crowd noise could make it difficult to hear the snap count. But, they wanted to keep ineligible linemen 'square' to the line, to keep them from getting an angular advantage when pass blocking. So, we've been bustin' our rumps for years keeping the tackles up on the line and 'square' to the line, with almost all of them pushing the envelope as much as they could get away with.
So, what does the 2011-12 book say? Hmmm. The only criteria that now appears is that linemen (with no reference to eligible or ineligible status) have to have their shoulders "approximately" parallel to their opponent's goal line. So, that means that those tackles can now legally turn out up to 30 degrees. And you know they will push that enlarged envelope even farther.
Why? What happened to prompt this rule change (not just an editorial change)? Maybe we just keep this one to ourselves, and the teams won't find out about it.