Pass Blocking

[JasonTX]

A55 and A66 from their respective tackle positions.  Both players drop back to pass block after the ball is snapped.  The QB receives the snap and is quickly outside of the tackle box with the "pocket" moving with him.  A55 and A66 sees defenders coming through and drop their bodies straight to the ground.  The defenders take two steps and trip over A55 and A66.  Ruling?

[Kalle]

I'd really have to see this, but based on your description, two steps in my mind means "not an active action by A55 and A66" so not blocking so not a foul for an illegal block below the waist.

[JasonTX]

I'd really have to see this, but based on your description, two steps in my mind means "not an active action by A55 and A66" so not blocking so not a foul for an illegal block below the waist.

  I agree.  We have some teams that are implementing this.  We'll have to apply some judgment.

[dammitbobby]

That's interesting, I haven't seen that yet.  Just need to make sure A55 and A66 resist the temptation to grab an ankle on their way through.

[JDM]

A55 and A66 from their respective tackle positions.  Both players drop back to pass block after the ball is snapped.  The QB receives the snap and is quickly outside of the tackle box with the "pocket" moving with him.  A55 and A66 sees defenders coming through and drop their bodies straight to the ground.  The defenders take two steps and trip over A55 and A66.  Ruling?

Defenders trip?

ARTICLE 1. a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting the opponent with any part of the blocker’s body.

[JasonTX]

Defenders trip?

ARTICLE 1. a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting the opponent with any part of the blocker’s body.

Exactly.   Take away the two steps and just say the team A player drops and then the opponent falls over him.  If you don't see the whole thing it looks like a block below the waist.  These teams are wanting to go low to bring their opponent down without making it be a block.

[dammitbobby]

How is it tripping, if the A player is laying on the ground, causing B to have to take multiple steps (2+) to get around/over him?  The way I'm envisioning this at least, B is the one initiating contact?

[ElvisLives]

How is it tripping, if the A player is laying on the ground, causing B to have to take multiple steps (2+) to get around/over him?  The way I'm envisioning this at least, B is the one initiating contact?

I don't think anyone used "trip" or "tripping" in the sense of a foul for tripping. Just a descriptive term of what happens to the defenders that 'stumble' over the Team A players that are laying on the ground.

[JDM]

I don't think anyone used "trip" or "tripping" in the sense of a foul for tripping. Just a descriptive term of what happens to the defenders that 'stumble' over the Team A players that are laying on the ground.

 

[bctgp]

Actually, "Tripping" is a defined term.

     Tripping is intentionally using the lower leg or foot to obstruct an opponent below the knees (Rule 9-1-2-c).

I don't think anyone is talking about actual tripping in this scenario.

[JasonTX]

Actually, "Tripping" is a defined term.

     Tripping is intentionally using the lower leg or foot to obstruct an opponent below the knees (Rule 9-1-2-c).

I don't think anyone is talking about actual tripping in this scenario.

Correct.  I meant as Elvis stated, "Stumbled" over.  Gotta be careful about using rule book terms to describe something that wasn't intended.

[lonnieritch1981]

Once the ball is outside the tackle box no one can block below the waist.  In my opinion, which is based on nothing visual, but only the description given here, is that these are blocks below the waist and should be penalized as such.  I base this on the thought that these players are attempting to circumvent the BBW rule and make it look as though they simply fell down and their opponents tripped over them.

[dammitbobby]

That's an interesting perspective, I can certainly see why you think that would be a foul.  At the same time, BBW rules are safety rules, and I don't think there's anything inherently dangerous about the action as described.  Seeing it live or on film would likely make a difference as to how I see and assess it.

Also - the definition of a block:  (2-3-1a): Blocking is obstructing an opponent by intentionally contacting the opponent with any part of the blocker’s body.

One could make the argument that (very) technically, laying down on the ground isn't a block, unless A somehow initiates contact with B.  B crashing into, or falling over A, to me doesn't meet that requirement.

[ElvisLives]

One could make the argument that (very) technically, laying down on the ground isn't a block, unless A somehow initiates contact with B.  B crashing into, or falling over A, to me doesn't meet that requirement.

And I do believe that is what every coordinator on the planet would tell you. Not a foul.

[Legacy Zebra]

I think I’d have to see this to make a decision. Because to me, this is all about timing. If you’re trying get around the rule by making it look like you just dropped down to the ground without the defenders having a chance to avoid it, that’s a block to me. You are intentionally creating contact by putting yourself in their path. Now if you drop down early and the defender doesn’t see you because he’s chasing the quarterback that’s different. But even then, you better be perfectly still when it happens. This is a safety foul and I’m not going to let a team bend the rules to get around a safety foul.

[Kalle]

You could also make an argument that a player suddenly and without any reason going to the ground is injured and must leave the game for one down