Illegal Block Last Year - Legal This Year

[TXMike]

As was just pointed out to me, this is a good example of one of the "issues" with the new rule

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxF2gm_w24

[MJT]

Mike, I would bet my game check that this would be a case where we have a flag down for an IBW, but with good communication with the H, it would be picked up, as it should be. When the ball is snapped, the motion man is not yet to the ball, so his adjacent sideline is the one to his back, which is the direction of is low block at the end of the play. This is why we are going to have to know the numbers of our current, and initial keys better than ever this year.

For us deep 3, we are going to have to stay with our keys much longer as the BBW we saw last year 15-20 yards downfield towards the center, on a run to the other side that were legal last year, will be illegal this year. I saw many examples of this on video at our clinic this year.

[rickref]

Illegal last year and not this year. From coaching standpoint how does a defender protect himself from this block in some situations and not always. I hate this. This was illegal last year.

[Diablo]

It looks like Team A has 4 BBW-restricted players on the left side of their formation.  At the snap, the man in motion appears to be either the third or fourth outside player from the sideline. 

There is a new mechanic in my neck of the woods that states, when Team A has more than 2 receivers of one side, the wing (H) keys the second receiver and the B monitors the inside receiver/s.  That would be fortuitous in this play, given the B is in better position - compared to the H - to stay with the motion man all the way through the his BBW. 

[TxSkyBolt]

In this particular video, other than the motion, the guy simply becomes a leading blocker like any pulling guard.  I don't see this as an issue.

Best regards,

Brad

[NVFOA_Ump]

But isn't an integral part of this post also the fact that if the defender was outside coming in and the same lead blocker cut that defender with a block below the waist it would be illegal this year?  Even though the blocker is directly in front of the ball carrier, headed away from the ball, and he would be in direct view in front of the defender?

Or make it a bit more confusing - double tight ends (85 & 86) where team A shifts putting both wideouts onto the line and the double TE's into the backfield, and then 85 goes in motion across the formation.  Just before he reaches the snapper, the snap goes and we've got 85 & 86 leading the sweep similar to the video clip here.  85 can block low to the inside, 86 can block low to the outside.  Are we sure we can get that?

[TxSkyBolt]

But isn't an integral part of this post also the fact that if the defender was outside coming in and the same lead blocker cut that defender with a block below the waist it would be illegal this year?  Even though the blocker is directly in front of the ball carrier, headed away from the ball, and he would be in direct view in front of the defender?

Or make it a bit more confusing - double tight ends (85 & 86) where team A shifts putting both wideouts onto the line and the double TE's into the backfield, and then 85 goes in motion across the formation.  Just before he reaches the snapper, the snap goes and we've got 85 & 86 leading the sweep similar to the video clip here.  85 can block low to the inside, 86 can block low to the outside.  Are we sure we can get that?

I think this points out an unintended consequence of this rule.  Just go ahead and outlaw all BBW and make it easier and safer.

Best regards,

Brad

[El Macman]

This will be tough to officiate, and equally, or more difficult, to coach. That being the case, it should accelerate the move to eliminate BBW completely. How much easier will life be then? Much, I think.

 

I think this points out an unintended consequence of this rule.  Just go ahead and outlaw all BBW and make it easier and safer.

Best regards,

Brad

[Atlanta Blue]

I deal with three different rule sets, NFHS, NCAA and NFL.  In general, I prefer NCAA over all of them, and we have seen many NFHS changes that bring those rules closer to the NCAA.  But this is one case where NFHS has the better rule.  BBW is allowed under limited conditions (basically, by linemen, against linemen, on the initial charge), but outside of that, it's illegal.  None of these open field BBWs.

I think the NCAA needs to follow suit.

[MJT]

I agree AB, it is the best of the 3 and if they continue to cut it back, I think that will be the next step for the NCAA.

[clearwall]

Hang on...if this play is LEGAL, are you telling me a player can a) go in motion or b)not go in motion and run the entire length of the field and still BBW back toward his adjacent sideline? Methinks that doesn't fit in with the spirit of the rule change. Yeah, that's a nasty situation

[TXMike]

I doubt this was an intended consequence.  Count me in the camp who sees this year's change as just a prelude to the total banning of low blocks with the exception of close line play.   Once "they" see just what "they" have created, I suspect they might listen to the Rules Editor and let him write a rule that makes sense and can be officiated.

[Diablo]

Curious.
Has anyone explained 9-1-6 to coaches and players and came away knowing they understood?  If so, how did you explain it.

[TxSkyBolt]

The emphasis with the coaches needs to be that there has been a rule change.....ie last year BBW was legal this year BBW is illegal.  Both had their exceptions and just need to explain them. Coaches at our scrimmages this weekend seemed to understand.  It's really a simple concept, just darned hard to officiate, play and coach

Best regards,

Brad

[ref6983]

The emphasis with the coaches needs to be that there has been a rule change.....ie last year BBW was legal this year BBW is illegal.  Both had their exceptions and just need to explain them. Coaches at our scrimmages this weekend seemed to understand.  It's really a simple concept, just darned hard to officiate, play and coach

Best regards,

Brad

Easier to coach than officiate. For any given play, every player's exact position is a given at the snap (at least it is for teams that are well-coached and disciplined, which I realize can vary widely). The coach simply tells his player which way he can then block based on that position.

Officiating is more difficult and the play becomes particularly problematic when a player crosses the original location of the ball at the snap.

[redder]

Or make it a bit more confusing - double tight ends (85 & 86) where team A shifts putting both wideouts onto the line and the double TE's into the backfield, and then 85 goes in motion across the formation.  Just before he reaches the snapper, the snap goes and we've got 85 & 86 leading the sweep similar to the video clip here.  85 can block low to the inside, 86 can block low to the outside.  Are we sure we can get that



So 85 is  not allowed to block outside in this senerio???

[TXMike]

The way I picture what he described 85 is in motion but is on left side of the snapper at the snap.  Therefore, he can only block low towards the left sideline, even though he goes clear across to the other side of the formation (the right side) before blocking.  Assuming 86 is in the tackle box, but on the right side of the snapper, he will be able to block low towards the right sidleine. 

[RS]

What about the snapper? What are his limitations for BBW downfield?

[TXMike]

Yep that is another question that has been posed to RR but no answer yet. Sometimes he will be restricted and sometimes not .  When he is restricted, what is his "adjacent sideline"?  you would think the intent would be to make him unrestricted since he is in the tackle box but since he is a lineman we do not use he tackle box to decide his restriction

[NVFOA_Ump]

Is this statement, direct from the post rule change CFO clarification memo on blocking below the waist no longer accurate?  And if not now "the rule", was there as subsequent memo clarifying what it says?

"1. Backs inside the tackle box and Team A linemen within the seven-yard limit may block low anywhere and anytime. This will be a disappointment to many who want more restrictions on blocking below the waist. Most of the players on Team A will still be able legally to block below the waist in any direction anywhere on the field."

[El Macman]

Is this statement, direct from the post rule change CFO clarification memo on blocking below the waist no longer accurate?  And if not now "the rule", was there as subsequent memo clarifying what it says?

"1. Backs inside the tackle box and Team A linemen within the seven-yard limit may block low anywhere and anytime. This will be a disappointment to many who want more restrictions on blocking below the waist. Most of the players on Team A will still be able legally to block below the waist in any direction anywhere on the field."

That applies to stationary players (and is still correct) - they are "unrestricted.". Players outside the tackle box, linemen more than 7 yards from the middle lineman, and players in motion are "restricted" in blocking below the waist, i.e., they can block low N-S or toward their adjacent sideline.
The issue is with restricted players that cross to the opposite side of the field and block low away from their adjacent sideline - it just doesn't 'feel' right that such a block is a foul. Also, "restricted" players can cross to the opposite side of the field, then block low back toward the middle of the field - precisely the type of block that BBW rules are supposed to eliminate.
Although these are unusual blocks, there are video examples of such blocks happening - they DO happen.

[Diablo]

"1. Backs inside the tackle box and Team A linemen within the seven-yard limit may block low anywhere and anytime.

"Anywhere" is still valid.  But "anytime" has 2 exceptions.
No player, regardless of position or extent of motion at the snap, can BBW
1) during a kick down (before or after the kick) and
2) after a change of team possession.