Linfield/Hampden-Sydney punt return (D3)

[Rich]

Just a clip for comments/discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOUes2PmFs#t=22

[RunRickyRun]

Wow!, I don't know that I've seen 3 clear blindsides on one punt return.  The block by 24, even though a launch, looks clean from every angle.  I'm surprised the other two didn't draw flags.  The block by 16 is clearly to the head.  The block by 34 is also suspect.  "When in doubt, it's a foul."  Were there no flags thrown on the play?

[TXMike]

All 3 look clean to me. 24's is to the side of the shoulder and 16's and 34's are with their shoulder to the breastplate area.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I agree with Mike.  All three hits are solid chest high hits (1 side / 2 front), and right at point of attack.  I've got 3 legal blocks.

[dvasques]

If I were to call something, the only one I have a question about is the block by 16. The rest all seem legal chest hits

[StudyingFutureZebra]

From the sideline view, it looks like targeting on #16. He hit the facemask of the defender with the crown of his helmet. From the end zone cam though, it looks like he led with the shoulder and the helmet contact came afterwards. First hit and third hit were clean though.

[TXMike]

Just because there is helmet contact after the initial hit does not make it targeting.

[StudyingFutureZebra]

Just because there is helmet contact after the initial hit does not make it targeting.

I'm just pointing out that's the difference between vantage points. Another note made in my book. From the sideline view, it looks like a textbook targeting, and from a 90-degree shift, maybe not so much.

[Fatman325]

Men,
I would offer that all three blocks are illegal. I was trying to make block #1 legal but after discussing with some officials at various college levels the consensus is that they are all illegal. Try not to get caught up in the precise point of contact but the action and it is easier to make these fouls. Watch the blockee's head snap on blocks 2 and 3. These are the fouls that the NFL, NCAA, and NFHS want out of the game. Spread the word.

[TXMike]

I am not spreading it.  I would hazard a guess that I see more college football TV video than most anyone and from watching that and watching IR review each and every call, in addition to the videos from the CFO, anyone who says that the legality or illegality is based on the reaction of the player's head is way off base. 

[Kalle]

If the powers that be want all these three blocks to be illegal, then they have to change the rules. Blocks by #24 and #34 are solid side/front blocks to the chest and only the block by #16 has any contact to the head or neck. That block does look like targeting to me, especially considering #16 makes no effort not to have contact with his helmet.

Granted, these are hard blindside blocks, but they aren't illegal in NCAA as of now.

[Fatman325]

Mike, I appreciate all of the video work that you do here and I value your opinions. I did not want to say that the head of the blockee is the determining factor on these hits, it is merely an indicator. In all of the blocks the defender does not see them coming which makes them defenseless by RR definition of a Blindside Block. All three blockers leave their feet in an upward motion, that makes them suspect. The contact is high enough to draw a flag. Trust me when I say that these are blocks that need to be removed from the game. When we were working on new rules a couple of years back I questioned something similar and got the message. "Just call this a foul, in five years everyone will be calling it."
I understand that there are a lot of people who think this is Old School Football. There are a lot of people who thought that the NFL was out of their minds when they changed the high hit rule a couple of years back. For the most part it is not a problem anymore. The players have adjusted.

[TXMike]

Agee 110 percent these are blindside blocks.   If they want blindsides out of the game write  that rule.  On this play if the blockers went below waist it would be a foul.  If they went to head or neck area it would be a foul. They have a smal target zone to hit.  If you want to make it even smaller then just eliminate blindside blocks totally .   Not sure how you could play the game with that rule but we can try .

[Fatman325]

It's much like the MLB strike zone. Shrinking all the time.

[Magician]

Fatman...I agree these SHOULD be fouls.  Based on current rules they are not fouls.  You could only go with a general unnecessary roughness but I would only do that if you have support/guidance from supervisors or assigners singing the same song to officials and coaches.

I would expect the rules will be adjusted to eliminate blindside, blow-up hits.  We don't have rule support today.

[TXMike]

If it is done it will not be with RR's encouragement.  He showed a video at a clinic of a huge blindside blow up that was not targeting and made it clear it was NOT a foul

[NVFOA_Ump]

Agee 110 percent these are blindside blocks.   If they want blindsides out of the game write  that rule.  On this play if the blockers went below waist it would be a foul.  If they went to head or neck area it would be a foul. They have a smal target zone to hit.  If you want to make it even smaller then just eliminate blindside blocks totally .   Not sure how you could play the game with that rule but we can try .

So who wants to take a shot a writing a rule that basically says that you can't block a player with too much force if he's not looking at you?

[mishatx]

9-1-6
Blocking
6. There shall be no blocking. Exception: Blocking shall be legal if delivered in an area circumscribed by the lines intersecting the navel, both nipples on a line parallel to the ground and each nipple on a line perpendicular to the ground, as long as the blocker has previously immediately been in an area within the clockface region of "10 o'clock to 2 o'clock" not less than 1 yard to the front of the player being blocked, has asked nicely, and the block is delivered with force not to exceed the force required to knock the player off his axis or alter his stride.

[copedaddy]

Mishatx that is just aw-some. Sounds just like the rule book.

[Magician]

So who wants to take a shot a writing a rule that basically says that you can't block a player with too much force if he's not looking at you?

I think you use the existing definition of a blindside hit (defenseless player) and incorporate the "launching" elements of targeting.  That still allows you to execute a blindside block by knocking the guy offstride or compressing and letting him hit you.  I've seen both done very effectively this year.

[TXMike]

9-1-6
Blocking
6. There shall be no blocking. Exception: Blocking shall be legal if delivered in an area circumscribed by the lines intersecting the navel, both nipples on a line parallel to the ground and each nipple on a line perpendicular to the ground, as long as the blocker has previously immediately been in an area within the clockface region of "10 o'clock to 2 o'clock" not less than 1 yard to the front of the player being blocked, has asked nicely, and the block is delivered with force not to exceed the force required to knock the player off his axis or alter his stride.

Instant classic!!!! 

[Rulesman]

Instant classic!!!!

So who is going to send it to RR?

[TXMike]

I nominate Rom Gilbert

[Welpe]

I nominate Rom Gilbert

Come on Mike, don't you have enough clout? You can tell RR that "all the boys on the Refstripes place said it was OK."

[Fatman325]

One of the guys who I was talking with sent this to Rogers and here is his response.

These blocks all look legal to me. While it is true that they are blindside blocks, they all appear to be low enough--that is, not to the head or neck area, but rather to the side or the chest. In addition, I don't see any markers of targeting, such as a launch or attacking with the crown of the helmet.

Hope this helps.

Rogers