RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on November 07, 2011, 04:28:41 AM
-
http://youtu.be/TDeMyGOo0sE (http://youtu.be/TDeMyGOo0sE)
-
From here (in slow-motion), it looks like when A73 (the low blocker) makes contact with B85, there's no contact between B85 and A78. That being said, when viewed at game speed, it does look like a chop.
-
The second blocker does contact late as the rusher is already on his way to the ground, but by the book this is a chop block. Additionally, from the U's perspective, it looks worse than it actually was.
-
Up here, we call that a "delayed knee block," and the parameters are simple: if a player who is already engaged (doesn't need to be physically engaged) with one player is blocked below the waist by another, it's a foul. Same general outcome: 15 yarder.
I'd call this - but based on Canadian interps, note.
-
That is a Chop Block based on the "lure" philisophy. When one OL backs up and draws the DL to him and another OL cuts him. That is a very good example of this type of chop.
-
That is a Chop Block based on the "lure" philisophy. When one OL backs up and draws the DL to him and another OL cuts him. That is a very good example of this type of chop.
I've heard of this Lure philosophy, but why don't the rules support that?
-
I need to start goong to the umpire breakouts..."lure philosophy" ?
-
First heard this at the Texas HS state meeting. NCAA Div 1 clinician talked about it. Just as was described by the previous poster.
Best regards,
Brad
-
I shoulda known:
http://nflhealthandsafety.com/commitment/evolution/ (http://nflhealthandsafety.com/commitment/evolution/)
1996
-
Mike I am not an umpire but I did play one this past Friday for the first time in 17 years. Just glad I am here to tell about it. Hope it was the last time.
-
The "how do we chop without chopping" technique has become standard training stuff according to what some local HS coaches have been telling me in the last couple of years. One technique is similar to what's shown here in the clip, where one lineman feints like he's going to block the defender, but doesn't actually engage, while the second lineman then cuts him low. Another that I've seen several teams use is when the original O-lineman, realizing that he's losing his block, will suddenly back-off and remove his hands from the defender, followed almost immediately by a hard cut block at the knees by a back who is in pass blocking mode.
Both of these seem to meet the chop block rule requirement of the O-lineman still "being engaged" when he's blocked low, but coaches argue that they should not be called "chop blocks" since there is no 2nd player actually in contact with the rusher when the low block occurs.
Any opinions on these?
-
One technique is similar to what's shown here in the clip, where one lineman feints like he's going to block the defender, but doesn't actually engage, while the second lineman then cuts him low. Another that I've seen several teams use is when the original O-lineman, realizing that he's losing his block, will suddenly back-off and remove his hands from the defender, followed almost immediately by a hard cut block at the knees by a back who is in pass blocking mode.
Any opinions on these?
# 2 - Is already a foul by rule. 1st blocker has just disengaged so it fits the rule
# 1 - I admit I do not go to U only sessions and may have missed this but I have never heard it discussed by any clinician in R or deep official breakouts
-
# 2 - Is already a foul by rule. 1st blocker has just disengaged so it fits the rule
WOW! So under NCAA rules if a player has been blocked below the waist, then the blocker "disengages", then he (the defensive player) is blocked independently by another player, that constitutes a chop block?
Under NFHS rules, any high/low COMBINATION block (delayed or not) is considered a chop. Although not defined anywhere, I believe that "combo" means "at the same time" (at least that's how we interpret it?). First time I've thought about this, so I'll post this question in the NFHS blog.
-
Stop the presses. I read his # 2 to be a high block that was just disengaged and then a 2d player coming in low. That is a foul
-
Stop the presses. I read his # 2 to be a high block that was just disengaged and then a 2d player coming in low. That is a foul
Thanks for the clarification Mike.
Still, from a Federation perspective (mine), there still is a question as to whether they (the rules makers) feel this scenario (high/disengage/low is a foul without being COMBO block (i.e., "simultaneous").
-
I was thinking "no" when I saw the video, but the "lure philosophy" makes me wonder.
-
AR 9-1-10- II mentions a player disengaging from a high block while another player blocks low. To me disengaging ends when a player has disengaged. If that is not true, how long after contact is broken do we prohibit a low block?
-
I was thinking "no" when I saw the video, but the "lure philosophy" makes me wonder.
Agreed - I was unaware of the "lure concept" so thought the play looked OK but I guess that's what happens when a deep guy goes fishing in the U's pond!