A rule change I'd like to see

[ElvisLives]

If anybody has the ear of a Rules Committee member, here is a rule change I'd like to see:

Add:

9-3-3-c

c. Blocking Opponents On the Ground. During a down:
1. A player that does not have his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on his feet" for the purposes of this blocking rule. A player that has his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on the ground," for the purposes of this blocking rule.
2. A player that is "on his feet" may be blocked, subject to other blocking rules and provisions.
3. No player shall drop or throw himself onto an opponent who is clearly "on the ground."
4. A player that is blocking or lying on an opponent who is "on the ground" may not continue to block or lie on that opponent, and must immediately attempt to move himself off of the opponent, and allow the opponent to rise and return to a posture of being "on his feet."

AR 9-3-3-c
I. During a down, A78 blocks B55, overpowering B55 and causing B55 to fall to the ground on his abdomen. A78 lays on top of B55 (not grasping or clamping B55 with his hands or arms), preventing A55 from rising off the ground.
Ruling: Illegal holding.

II. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground. A78 then continues to push or otherwise block B55 while he is "on the ground." Due to the continued blocking, B55 is unable to rise to a posture of being "on his feet."
Ruling: Illegal holding

III. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground and A78's momentum causes him to fall on top of B55 who is "on the ground." A78 immediately rolls off of B55 and allows B55 to rise to and support himself with his hands and knees. A78 then pushes B55 at the shoulder/side, causing B55 to fall to the ground, again.
Ruling: Legal action.


I'm sick and tired of the "ill will" that these "pancake blocks" cause. The defensive coach is hollerin' about holding, and the offensive coach is yellin' that this is just a pancake block. Let's put an end to this crap.

[CalhounLJ]

Just flag it for a Pf. We have all we need to stop it now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dammitbobby]

I am hugely in favor of this change.  Particularly in lower levels and six man, when they get pancake and then smothered, they're almost, if not always - away from the play, and as I understand our philosophies, since it's not a safety foul, we wouldn't ever call this a PF either.  Like Elvis mentioned, there's no substantive football value to the technique and all it does it HACK them off, especially when it's an obvious mismatch.

(In six man at least, you would hold the flag to see if the play came back that direction, and at that point, it should be holding... but under current rules, it's not.)

The only modification I might make, is maybe include knees in 9-3-3-c-1, because being on hands and knees to me doesn't equate to being on your feet.  I can see why you left it out, but I don't think there's any advantage gained by saying that on hands and knees is the same as on your feet, they're still extremely unlikely to be involved in the play at that point.  And your 3rd case play, is going to have the same effect as the smothering block, it's just going to cause ill will and frustrations that will be vented elsewhere.

I'm curious as to your rationale for not including it.

[CalhounLJ]

I am hugely in favor of this change.  Particularly in lower levels and six man, when they get pancake and then smothered, they're almost, if not always - away from the play, and as I understand our philosophies, since it's not a safety foul, we wouldn't ever call this a PF either.  Like Elvis mentioned, there's no substantive football value to the technique and all it does it HACK them off, especially when it's an obvious mismatch.

(In six man at least, you would hold the flag to see if the play came back that direction, and at that point, it should be holding... but under current rules, it's not.)

The only modification I might make, is maybe include knees in 9-3-3-c-1, because being on hands and knees to me doesn't equate to being on your feet.  I can see why you left it out, but I don't think there's any advantage gained by saying that on hands and knees is the same as on your feet, they're still extremely unlikely to be involved in the play at that point.  And your 3rd case play, is going to have the same effect as the smothering block, it's just going to cause ill will and frustrations that will be vented elsewhere.

I'm curious as to your rationale for not including it.

Oops, I’m on the wrong page. Sorry, guys I’ll see my way out. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bossman72]

If anybody has the ear of a Rules Committee member, here is a rule change I'd like to see:

Add:

9-3-3-c

c. Blocking Opponents On the Ground. During a down:
1. A player that does not have his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on his feet" for the purposes of this blocking rule. A player that has his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on the ground," for the purposes of this blocking rule.
2. A player that is "on his feet" may be blocked, subject to other blocking rules and provisions.
3. No player shall drop or throw himself onto an opponent who is clearly "on the ground."
4. A player that is blocking or lying on an opponent who is "on the ground" may not continue to block or lie on that opponent, and must immediately attempt to move himself off of the opponent, and allow the opponent to rise and return to a posture of being "on his feet."

AR 9-3-3-c
I. During a down, A78 blocks B55, overpowering B55 and causing B55 to fall to the ground on his abdomen. A78 lays on top of B55 (not grasping or clamping B55 with his hands or arms), preventing A55 from rising off the ground.
Ruling: Illegal holding.

II. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground. A78 then continues to push or otherwise block B55 wile he is "on the ground." Due to the continued blocking, B55 is unable to rise to a posture of being "on his feet."
Ruling: Illegal holding

III. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground and A78's momentum causes him to fall on top of B55 who is "on the ground." A78 immediately rolls off of B55 and allows B55 to rise to and support himself with his hands and knees. A78 then pushes B55 at the shoulder/side, causing B55 to fall to the ground, again.
Ruling: Legal action.


I'm sick and tired of the "ill will" that these "pancake blocks" cause. The defensive coach is hollerin' about holding, and the offensive coach is yellin' that this is just a pancake block. Let's put an end to this crap.

We can still call a general UNR on this play without a rule change.  This play has been in Roger's training tapes several times and he wants a UNR called.

It's important to make sure it's 2 separate acts.  Guy down, then dive on him.  If it's still part of driving guys to the ground or there is a slight delay, I'd let this go.

[ElvisLives]

And therein lies the problem. RR may say to call it a UNR in some training videos, but not everybody got those - dang sure not the players and coaches (even though they are supposed to at the NCAA level). And he is no longer around. And there is nothing in the rules or ARs that addresses this action specifically. We either need an/some ARs that address this specific action and associate it with a specific foul/penalty, or the rules need to be improved to include this action under 9-1, 9-2, or 9-3. I don't care if it is a 10 or 15 yard penalty. I just want this specific action to be clearly and unambiguously made illegal, so we don't have to put up with this crap anymore.

[ilyazhito]

If anybody has the ear of a Rules Committee member, here is a rule change I'd like to see:

Add:

9-3-3-c

c. Blocking Opponents On the Ground. During a down:
1. A player that does not have his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on his feet" for the purposes of this blocking rule. A player that has his buttocks, back, abdomen, or chest in contact with the ground is considered to be "on the ground," for the purposes of this blocking rule.
2. A player that is "on his feet" may be blocked, subject to other blocking rules and provisions.
3. No player shall drop or throw himself onto an opponent who is clearly "on the ground."
4. A player that is blocking or lying on an opponent who is "on the ground" may not continue to block or lie on that opponent, and must immediately attempt to move himself off of the opponent, and allow the opponent to rise and return to a posture of being "on his feet."

AR 9-3-3-c
I. During a down, A78 blocks B55, overpowering B55 and causing B55 to fall to the ground on his abdomen. A78 lays on top of B55 (not grasping or clamping B55 with his hands or arms), preventing A55 from rising off the ground.
Ruling: Illegal holding.

II. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground. A78 then continues to push or otherwise block B55 wile he is "on the ground." Due to the continued blocking, B55 is unable to rise to a posture of being "on his feet."
Ruling: Illegal holding

III. During a down, A78 blocks B55 to the ground and A78's momentum causes him to fall on top of B55 who is "on the ground." A78 immediately rolls off of B55 and allows B55 to rise to and support himself with his hands and knees. A78 then pushes B55 at the shoulder/side, causing B55 to fall to the ground, again.
Ruling: Legal action.


I'm sick and tired of the "ill will" that these "pancake blocks" cause. The defensive coach is hollerin' about holding, and the offensive coach is yellin' that this is just a pancake block. Let's put an end to this crap.

Amen. I would support this rule change as well.

[ElvisLives]

The only modification I might make, is maybe include knees in 9-3-3-c-1, because being on hands and knees to me doesn't equate to being on your feet.  I can see why you left it out, but I don't think there's any advantage gained by saying that on hands and knees is the same as on your feet, they're still extremely unlikely to be involved in the play at that point.  And your 3rd case play, is going to have the same effect as the smothering block, it's just going to cause ill will and frustrations that will be vented elsewhere.

I'm curious as to your rationale for not including it.

This is football, and blocking is one of the two most important aspects of this game (the other is advancing the ball). We have to allow players to BLOCK. Throwing oneself on an opponent that is nearly 100% helpless (i.e., lying on the ground) is not a block. It takes no skill or greater ability than the opponent, whatsoever. We have to draw a line somewhere between an act that requires skill or ability and one that requires neither. A player that is allowed to get to his knees has a good chance of making some move to get away from a blocker, or fight off the block. To me, that is where we draw the line. Now, if the rules committee chooses to address this issue, and they believe a player "on the ground" should be allowed to rise to his feet (i.e., no part of his body other than feet are touching the ground), so be it. But, when a blocker that has done his job in neutralizing his opponent by blocking him to the ground, I have no problem with allowing the blocker to maintain his advantage on that opponent by continuing to block him after he has given the opponent the opportunity to get into a position where can attempt to rise, roll, push, grasp and pull (as, and when, a defensive player is allowed), etc. I think this is a fair balance between blocking and allowing an opponent to resist a blocker.
I just want to officially and clearly get rid of the "pancake block."

[dammitbobby]

Makes perfect sense. I agree with you 100%. 

[HoustonHL]

I believe we already have rules in place to address this even if we have to connect the dots.
Team A player laying on Team B player could be holding if it impacts the play as in any other " holding situation". ( We were given this directive in the CFO west and I seem to recall Mr. Shaw addressing this as well)
A player on the ground is by definition defenseless (2-27-14e), so if A forcibly blocks B who is on the ground, it is a UNR.  If the block is to the head or neck it is a UNR w/ TGT.