« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: 10 and 2 Intent  (Read 9336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2989
  • FAN REACTION: +113/-59
10 and 2 Intent
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:48:31 PM »
A team B player is pursuing the runner but has his eyes on a team A player who is running towards him.  In other words he is not going to be blindsided.  The A player blocks him below the waist clearly from the side.  The runner was outside the low blocking zone.  Should this be a black and white foul?  It wasn't as if he didn't see it coming.  It was just the way he was running that prevented the blocker from getting to the front.  This 10 and 2 stuff I see the point that it's to protect those that don't see it coming.  But when you are looking right at the guy getting ready to block you low you have a chance to protect yourself.  Your thoughts. 
Logged

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2015, 04:20:40 AM »
Attacking the side of the knee is surely still dangerous even when seen coming?  It's a hinge joint, it doesn't bend side to side.
Logged

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 4191
  • FAN REACTION: +107/-351
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2015, 07:43:59 AM »
Quote from: Osric Pureheart on September 28, 2015, 04:20:40 AM
Attacking the side of the knee is surely still dangerous even when seen coming?  It's a hinge joint, it doesn't bend side to side.

Agreed, IMHO the rule change was not just to eliminate blind side blocks but also to further cut down on low blocks in general.  Certainly the defender would not expect a low block in the play described so I'm not sure why he would try to avoid it.
Logged
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline jg-me

  • *
  • Posts: 416
  • FAN REACTION: +22/-4
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2015, 08:06:08 AM »
Agree that as described it should be a foul. The exception I would make is if the blocker has begun a commitment to the block and it would have been 10-2, the blockee sees it coming and turns so that the block is from the side, then I would let it go. If any doubt, call the foul.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 09:54:20 PM by jg-me »
Logged

Offline NCAA-SJ

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-2
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2015, 09:45:45 PM »
Over my 15 years, thru all the rule changes to low blocks, that is exactly how I 'always' officiated these plays.  If the blockee had a chance to defend himself against the low block, then I had no foul (barring any extreme launch at the knees, etc....).  Obviously, not always supported by rule, but was a good measure and served me well (except for test questions).  I have never (knock on wood) had one I passed on that needed calling or vice versa.

This is how I still officiate it today....still not 100% supported by rule; so, take that for what it's worth.
Logged

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 637
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-46
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2015, 10:22:27 PM »
I think if the block is clearly from the side, as stated, and the player being blocked didn't create that situation at the last minute, you need a flag. The blocker is still gaining an advantage by stretching out the avenue by which he can block. There's nothing in the rule to indicate it is solely for the protection of players not aware the block is coming.

Look at it this way, would you flag a clear crackback if, at the last minute, the player soon to be blocked tries to jump over or miss the blocker but still gets blocked below the waist? Also, what if its not just from the side, but the player is somehow aware he will soon be blocked from behind -- high or low? Not trying to beat anyone up here; just look at it from different rules standpoints.
Logged

Offline NCAA-SJ

  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-2
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2015, 10:44:18 PM »
No....I completely get that.  And those are all relevant points.  I cannot dispute any of that, except, as I stated, it's just served me well.  The rule is black and white, and when it comes to safety fouls, which this is, we cannot drift too far from them.  However, this has just been my personal experience; so, apply as you see fit.

But, following this rule to the letter, will never fail you.
Logged

Offline centexsports

  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-9
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2015, 08:47:26 AM »
The picture of this in my mind may be off but if it is in the 2 to 10, isn't he blocking back towards his own end zone?   Is that not a foul?
Logged

Offline DallasLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 568
  • FAN REACTION: +16/-15
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2015, 11:10:39 AM »
Quote from: centexsports on October 01, 2015, 08:47:26 AM
The picture of this in my mind may be off but if it is in the 2 to 10, isn't he blocking back towards his own end zone?   Is that not a foul?
  Not at all.  If the defender is in chase mode from behind the play, yes, it would be a block back towards his own end zone.  But, think of the WR out in front of the play -- trying to clear out a LB or DB -- the block must be in the front from 10 to 2 -- so no low blocks to the side.   But, I tend to agree with SJ -- it the defender sees it coming, I am generally not going to have a problem with it
Logged

Offline centexsports

  • *
  • Posts: 233
  • FAN REACTION: +6/-9
Re: 10 and 2 Intent
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2015, 03:12:05 PM »
The original post says that the team B player is pursuing the runner which I took to mean that he was behind him.   So I saw a block back towards his own end zone.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »