Author Topic: New rules. All right guys give me your answers and reasoning for answers  (Read 6487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bricord

  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-1
A 2nd and 8 at B33. 4th quarter, A has no TO's left. A trails 17 to 21. QB A14 completes pass to A82 at the B15. When the clock stops for the 1st down there2.9 sec remaining. Team A hurries to the ball, snaps and QB spikes the ball to stop the clock.

A1st 10at A35. A is lined up unbalanced to the right side. Back A24 is lined up behind tackle A78 who is the 3rd lineman to the right of the snapper. Back A48 runs a sweep around the right side and is tackled at the A42. Before the ball left the zone A24 blocks B98 low and from the side at the A35.  hEaDbAnG tiphat:

Offline Hawkeye

  • *
  • Posts: 446
  • FAN REACTION: +17/-2
Play 1:  I tried to get RR to rule on tenths, two years ago when the 10-sec runoff came in, to no avail, he never replied.  So here is my take: the football clock is not supposed to have tenths displaying (but we know that some do), when a clock that doesn't display tenths displays 3 seconds, there could be anywhere between 2.1 and 3.0 seconds remaining, so I think that 2.9=3 for the purpose of the spike rule.  Maybe RR will rule on tenths this time!

Play 2: A24 is restricted, the BBW rule requires that the stationary back be BOTH partially inside the tackle box AND partially inside the second lineman from the snapper.  A24 may meet requirement #1, but does not meet requirement #2, so he is restricted.  Thus, his low block from the side is a foul.  Ruling: A 1/25 A-20

Offline bricord

  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-1
Ok, here is where I struggle with this tackle box. If the lineman are tight then can't the TE and in this case the extra tackle all be in the box. 7 yards is a long way from the ball. If the splits are real tight then thats inside 7. If it a regular split then it could be borderline or outside. Let's just get rid of BBW all together.

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
I believe that's the intention for the future... to forbid BBW

While that doesn't happen, the split of the linemen will dictate if a back is restricted on BBW. If the split is so wide that the tackle (2nd lineman from snapper) is outside the tackle box, then any back will be restricted.

The split will have a say on the restriction of the backs but I think you're confusing the zones here.

7 yards to each side is the low blocking zone and that has no bearing on the restriction of the alignement of the backs.

The tackle box is 5 yards to each side, so it will always be inside the low blocking zone

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
I believe that's the intention for the future... to forbid BBW
That will never happen so long as certain coaches who want BBW remain on the rules committee.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
If the split is so wide that the tackle (2nd lineman from snapper) is outside the tackle box, then any back will be restricted.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant but it's not a true statement.

Offline dvasques

  • *
  • Posts: 508
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-2
You're right, Andrew. My mistake. I was thinking about any back partially inside the frame of the 2nd lineman