New BBW language vs. memo on "home page"

[ljudge]

I'm curious as to whether the language from a memo link in "Rogers Redding Notes" is intended to still "hold" given the link is still there.  If so, this would contradict the new rule. 

"...Tighter splits would mean a formation with no more than two feet between adjacent offensive linemen. This would locate the tight end position within the tackle box. Thus a back completely inside or directly behind the tight end position would be unrestricted with regard to legally blocking below the waist."

The new language states this player is restricted...."b. A back aligned at the snap with the frame of his body completely outside the tackle box or completely outside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the snapper in either direction toward a sideline."

I would say a back directly behind the TE in tight splits is now restricted.  The memo is a live link but is dated by almost a year.  With that being the case I'd say this player is restricted in 2012.  Agree?

[Hawkeye]

Yes, since 9-1-6 was rewritten for 2012, I would take comments regarding BBW for 2011 as moot if they conflict with the re-written parts of 9-1-6.

[clearwall]

I thought I heard in our clinic last weekend that the OR includes a "whichever is shorter" which says that if you're behind the TE, you're ALWAYS restricted since youre outside the 2nd lineman. Doesnt matter how wide the official tackle box is at that point.

[Welpe]

Clear that is true. The normal tackle box is going to be only as wide as the second lineman from center. It will be 5 yards in case the offense has wide splits or an unusual formation.

[TxSkyBolt]

I believe the Tackle Box (for purposes other than this new blocking rule) is always 5 yards either side of the snapper.  For the new blocking rule, they've added the "modified tackle box" to be outside the second lineman from the snapper OR 5 yards either side of the snapper.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Best regards,

Brad

[VALJ]

I'm sure it's because I'm only aspiring to NCAA ball at this point, but this whole "restricted" and "unrestricted" blocker thing is just making my brain hurt whenever I try to dig in to it.

[Rulesman]

I'm sure it's because I'm only aspiring to NCAA ball at this point, but this whole "restricted" and "unrestricted" blocker thing is just making my brain hurt whenever I try to dig in to it.

No kidding! As a white hat who retired after the 2009 season, I have come to the conclusion my decision was the correct one. My head hurts thinking about it and all I do now is observe and/or grade film.

[Atlanta Blue]

Don't worry, in a couple of years, this will all be gone.  Even Redding has said if he had his way, BBW would be eliminated altogether.  This may be one rule where the FED version of the rule is superior to the NCAA rule.  All of these restrictions are a stepping stone to eliminating BBW.

[VALJ]

Don't worry, in a couple of years, this will all be gone.  Even Redding has said if he had his way, BBW would be eliminated altogether.  This may be one rule where the FED version of the rule is superior to the NCAA rule.  All of these restrictions are a stepping stone to eliminating BBW.

Hopefully that will be the case before I earn myself the call, then.  I just can't wrap my head around this, it seems.

[Ump62]

As long a a Coach from one of the Service Academies (Army, Navy and Air Force) is on the Rules Committee it may be tough to get BBW completely out of the Rule Book. Currently Troy Calhoun from the AFA is on the Committee, his Term expires 9-1-15.