Blocking Below the Waist

[TXMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A7_TNL4loE

Rule has to be cleaned up.  Still too confusing

[younggun]

Ball still looks like it is in the zone, but it is really close to tell. I think they just need to make it like the NFHS rule.

[dvasques]

Never in my life I'd call that peelback... or even crackback

[blindref757]

Ball is in the zone and the blocker is unrestricted.  I'd love to find out how this gets graded.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Ball is in the zone and the blocker is unrestricted.  I'd love to find out how this gets graded.

IMO the ball and the blocker are out of the zone and that means the blocker is restricted since the ball snapped on the right hash and is beyond the middle of the field when the block is thrown.  But even with that being said, the block is virtually straight downfield, and directly in front of the defender inside the 10-2 window.  Tough to support a flag on this one.

[TXMike]

You guys are proving my point.  One guys says it is in the zone. One guy says it s out.  One guy says it is 10-2 (sure does not look like it to me)  Too much variable

[Welpe]

Mike has a good point here, trying to figure out if the ball and block are both in the zone and if not that the block conforms to 10-2 is tough to officiate, especially in this play when the action is flowing across the field.

Say what you will about the Federation rule, it is not difficult to officiate. I'm not sure what to think of what we have now.

[Wingmanbp]

To me, the ball is in the zone however its not from 10-2. If his head wasn't in front it would be close to a clip. Its a legal block due to the fact that he is not restricted. Even though it looks bad!

[dvasques]

I don't know about the ball but the blocker is way inside the zone for me. I think the ball is in too.

And no way I call that back to the original position of the ball.

Neither it's back towards A's end zone.

I agree the rule is not easy to officiate (thankfully here low blocks are not that common) but this one seems as legal as it can be to me.

[NVFOA_Ump]

My apologies for not watching the video to the end and the announcement.  I'm watching the wrong block (#77 not #72).

A-72's block is without question both from the side (not 10-2) and from the backside of the play back toward the original position of the ball.  The problem is that the ball is still in the zone when the block is made also in the zone, and the back-towards-the ball and the 10-2 restrictions do not apply to a 9-1-6-a-1 unrestricted player in this case.  By the book this block, as nasty as it looks, IMO is legal.

[dvasques]

sorry... my view is that the block is made past the original position of the block, towards the non-adjacent sideline. But that shouldn't be taken into account

[TxSkyBolt]

My apologies for not watching the video to the end and the announcement.  I'm watching the wrong block (#77 not #72).

A-72's block is without question both from the side (not 10-2) and from the backside of the play back toward the original position of the ball.  The problem is that the ball is still in the zone when the block is made also in the zone, and the back-towards-the ball and the 10-2 restrictions do not apply to a 9-1-6-a-1 unrestricted player in this case.  By the book this block, as nasty as it looks, IMO is legal.

Towards the original position of the ball? not that that matters as it would only be relevant to illegal crack back blocks, but the original ball position is the the blockers rear. This looks like an entirely legal block to me.

[blindref757]

I've never seen myself, my crew, our coaches, or as this video and thread illustrates, NCAA officials in general, more confused by a rule than this junk we have now.  You can read the book, you can memorize the rules to the letter...and miss the calls on the field because there is nothing instinctual about it.  It is virtually impossible to decide on the fly and go through the checklist;  was the ball in the zone or not, was the blocker restricted or unrestricted, was the block toward the original position of the ball, and was it between 10 & 2 and does that even matter? 

It has to be simplified.