Another crackback BBW, by the lead blocker?

[Morningrise]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpfnUc0v70A

This one is on Rom Gilbert's site from last year (when it would have been a legal BBW).

This year, any man in motion is considered restricted, so the question is: Is this a crackback toward the previous spot by a restricted player, satisfying the letter and spirit of the rule? Or is it a block the defender could reasonably anticipate because he has a good view of the blocker coming in, thus not a foul by the spirit of the rule? Or perhaps has the play has developed to the point where this "northwest" block is no longer properly viewed as "toward the original position of the ball," thus not a foul?

[InsideTheStripes]

I'd probably leave that alone...

primarily for the reasons stated in your second and third questions. The defender clearly had sight of the blocker and was able to defend himself and the play, though not far down field, was extremely developed.

By the "letter of the law", it's likely a foul.  By application, not so much.

[Magician]

This play has also already developed so crackback blocks by philosophy are no longer applicable.  The crackback referenced in the late rule modification is for blocks by a wideout (end or back) that comes back toward the ball at the snap and block someone low.  It's not tied to a specific time or location.  It's key to understand the type of play the rule is trying to eliminate and applying that.

[TXMike]

One of the things I am using (even though I don't think it is "officially" stated anywhere) is whether or not the LBZ still exists.  In  this play it was already gone so I am disregarding the "crackback" provision. No flag.