RR on BBW

[El Macman]

In the past, yes.  But the new Rule 9-1-6 replaces current 9-1-2-e and that restriction is not in there.

Since RR made the statement regarding BBW on a player in position to receive a backward pass that the initial rule wording would have permitted something that was previously illegal, speculation would be that, likewise, BBW on eligible receivers beyond the NZ would fit that same mold, and will still be illegal (even within the BZE). Could be wrong. But I don't think so, since that rule was put in decades ago to prevent B players from cutting A's receivers coming off the line and preventing them from getting into their pass routes. To allow that would be a HUGE - I mean MONSTROUS - step backward for offensive production, and that ain't what the NCAA wants.

Players in position to receive a backward pass were overlooked. Methinks BBW on eligibles beyond the NZ was, likewise, overlooked.

Place your bets...

[NVFOA_Ump]

But maybe the extended blocking zone with the NZ extended is intended to cover the old wording that "protected" an eligible receiver against a BBW beyond the NZ, and BBW will be allowed against an eligible receiver in the newly defined blocking zone.  Since the eligible receiver can BBW against the defender it maybe just "evens out" the rule a bit?

[El Macman]

But maybe the extended blocking zone with the NZ extended is intended to cover the old wording that "protected" an eligible receiver against a BBW beyond the NZ, and BBW will be allowed against an eligible receiver in the newly defined blocking zone.  Since the eligible receiver can BBW against the defender it maybe just "evens out" the rule a bit?

Understand what you are saying, and it could be. But, personally, I doubt it. We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully, someone will raise these issues with RR, sooner than later.

[fencewire]

Here is my take on the whole situation.  If you are going to get all aboard the safety train and this is in the name of safety and to protect the players, then do away with low blocks altogether.  period.  don't make up exceptions of exceptions where one player in a location on the field can make a block but another member of the same team in the same location cannot, that will not only confuse officials but the coaches and players as well.

 

[JKS]

I think we are back to discussing the word "area" in the rule.  It is unclear to me which "area" is being discussed.  I understand the need for coaches to extend the zone to include their ends and linebackers because that is their scheme, but it just creates problems in the rule.  I am for all or nothing which is I think what fencewire is advocating.  It reminds me of the old chop block rule.  Much, much simpler now.  High/low, no go, period.  Now that is simple.

[JKS]

Also, notice this statement by RR:

Defensive players are more restricted than before. The only Team B players who may block below the waist are those who at the snap are in the blocking zone extended---that is, the 6 x 10 yard strip that runs sideline to sideline—and they can do so only until the blocking zone itself disintegrates. This effectively means D-linemen and linebackers. They still aren’t allowed to block low on an offensive player in position to receive a backward pass.

This seems to indicate that players in the extended zone except for those just outside the original zone are restricted somehow from BBW.  If it is not because they can't block eligible receivers then why would they not be able to BBW?

[El Macman]

Also, notice this statement by RR:

Defensive players are more restricted than before. The only Team B players who may block below the waist are those who at the snap are in the blocking zone extended---that is, the 6 x 10 yard strip that runs sideline to sideline—and they can do so only until the blocking zone itself disintegrates. This effectively means D-linemen and linebackers. They still aren’t allowed to block low on an offensive player in position to receive a backward pass.

This seems to indicate that players in the extended zone except for those just outside the original zone are restricted somehow from BBW.  If it is not because they can't block eligible receivers then why would they not be able to BBW?

IMHO, you're reading too much into his statement. "...effectively means D-linemen and linebackers..." doesn't mean exclusively. He is just using typical formations for his descriptive purposes. A DB up on the line "pressing" an opponent would also fall into the category of being allowed to BBW - although the timing factor of executing a legal BBW will make it very unlikely that a DB covering a wide split opponent would be able to get it done before the ball left the BZ (even if allowed against an eligible receiver beyond the NZ (etc.), which I believe will be unlikely).

A B player in the BZE (also referred to as the "area") is allowed to BBW in the BZE, until the ball leaves the BZ, except against a player in position to receive a backward pass, and MAYBE against an eligible receiver beyond the NZ until a legal forward pass is no longer possible.