Blindside Targeting

[TXMike]

This is a good discussion video.  Is Black #10's block at the 48 an example of targeting on a blindside block?  If 10 had gone below the waist would there have been a foul?  If 10 had gone to the midsection would there have been a foul?

http://youtu.be/NvPFBU5u7Wc

Play is from a scrimmage.

[younggun]

This is a good discussion video.  Is Black #10's block at the 48 an example of targeting on a blindside block?  If 10 had gone below the waist would there have been a foul?  If 10 had gone to the midsection would there have been a foul?

http://youtu.be/NvPFBU5u7Wc

Play is from a scrimmage.

First, until I get a definition of what a 'blind-side' block is from our NCAA bosses. I am going with the NFL definition. This is only becasue 1) half our rules come from the NFL level at sometime and  2) half of our NCAA bosses are NFL guys. I never open the NFL rule book for the sake of confusion, but I went looking this time to see if they had a definition for this.

The definition of the blind-side block in the NFL rule book is. "A player who receives a blindside block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side."

In this play it looks like he is moving parallel, but I cannot tell if the block is in the head or neck area.
According to this case play from the new rule book it would not be if not in the head or neck area.

A44 is covering the kickoff that opens the second half. As A44 is
running at the Team B 45-yard line, B66 targets and launches into A44
from the side, a blind-side block. B66 first makes contact with his
forearm at A44’s (a) neck; (b) upper arm or shoulder. RULING: (a)
Foul by B66 for targeting a defenseless player and initiating contact
at the head or neck area. 15-yard penalty at the end of the run. B66 is
disqualified for the remainder of the game and the first half of the next
game. (b) No foul. Although A44 is a defenseless player and B66 targets
him, the contact by B66 is not to the head or neck area. (Rule 2-27-14)

[TxSkyBolt]

By the NFL definition it wouldn't be because it was from the front and not the side. I surely hope this block is not shown to be illegal. It doesn't look to me that it was above the shoulders.

[rickref]

The ARs in the new book seem to follow the NFL definition. This play originated locally but we wanted to get it out for discussion. It seems we should pass on this block for the blindisde portions.

Good play to bring attention to possible low blocks and angles as well.

[TXMike]

Absent any clear guidance from NCAA on "blindside", I would prefer to use other NCAA definitions that might logically be applied here instead of defaulting to the NFL.  But even doing that, this block is probably not a "blindside block".  If we use the 10-2 concept that we are now using for blocks below the waist, this block was in that 10-2 angle (ignoring the "peelback " component for the moment). Apparently it doe snot matter as much where the blockee is facing as much as it does where the frame of his body is facing.

[rickref]

Now that I have had my coffee and more awake..I do not think the side contact must be evident even with NFL definition it is approach from the side. Agree we need some clarifications on this. Is there any thing in Redding's updates etc?

[Rulesman]

Absent any clear guidance from NCAA on "blindside", I would prefer to use other NCAA definitions that might logically be applied here instead of defaulting to the NFL.  But even doing that, this block is probably not a "blindside block".  If we use the 10-2 concept that we are now using for blocks below the waist, this block was in that 10-2 angle (ignoring the "peelback " component for the moment). Apparently it doe snot matter as much where the blockee is facing as much as it does where the frame of his body is facing.

Agree with Mike. NCAA football is not the NFL anymore than NCAA basketball is the NBA. (And Federation sports are not the NCAA, either). To default to the rules/philosophies of a "higher" level just because it is convenient does a real disservice to the game being played. If the rules makers want us to adopt those philosophies, they'll tell us. Otherwise, like it or not, we go with what they've given us.

[dvasques]

if that was a low block, would it be considered towards A's goal line?

I can't see a way that's a foul even if it's in the head or neck area... can't consider that a blindside block being that from the front. I understand the 10-2 definition is written only for the BBW rules but like Mike said, if they defined "front" by 10-2, then you can't have bilindside from the front

[g6edxrgp]

"Doesn't appear to be high or above the shoulders" - picture shows us there is contact high.
Was he moving back toward his own EZ when the contact was made?  Side line clip shows us that the blocker came from to 50 to 48 when contact was made.  A good one to chew one.

[attachment deleted by admin]