Blocking Below the Waist 2022

[ElvisLives]

2022 NCAA Blocking Below the Waist (BBW)

By what we have seen in writing to date the big differences appear to be:

1. No more BBW by any A player that was NOT within the tackle box at the snap. Period. Period.
2. The only Team A players that will be allowed to BBW from the side are Team A linemen on their initial charge. (We'll need to get a better and uniform understanding of what "initial charge" is.)
3. Once the ball leaves the tackle box, no Team A BBW is allowed. (This may apply to Team B, too; see 5 below.)
4. No more BBW by Team B players outside the tackle box at the snap. Period. Anywhere. Any time.
5. Some Team B players will be allowed to BBW from the side (as well as from the front). Those are B players within a yard of the NZ and within the tackle box on their initial charge. (Oh, so the tackle box is being expanded to cover defensive linemen, as well, now.) No mention of BBW from the front in the TB being OK only until the ball leaves the TB, but I'll be on it. I'll bet the final language prohibits everyone from BBW once the ball leaves the TB.

The more I look at this, the more I think it will make our job easier. No more worrying about "toward the ball" or not. No more worrying about "10/2" for blocks outside the TB - illegal.

I'll bet it doesn't impact the game as much as some may fear. Should be good for the game.
One man's opinion.

[dammitbobby]

I agree, I think this will simplify BBW substantially.

re 5 - I interpret 'Those are B players within a yard of the NZ and within the tackle box on their initial charge' as they must be IN the tackle box, meaning they have 2 conditions:  have to penetrate past the LOS but not more than one yard, and they must be inside the boundaries of the TB.  For both requirements, (obvious, but still worth saying) the TB must still exist/be relevant, before they can block low.  That's a pretty narrow belt of real estate for them to operate in. 

Just my interpretation.

[ElvisLives]

I agree, I think this will simplify BBW substantially.

re 5 - I interpret 'Those are B players within a yard of the NZ and within the tackle box on their initial charge' as they must be IN the tackle box, meaning they have 2 conditions:  have to penetrate past the LOS but not more than one yard, and they must be inside the boundaries of the TB.  For both requirements, (obvious, but still worth saying) the TB must still exist/be relevant, before they can block low.  That's a pretty narrow belt of real estate for them to operate in. 

Just my interpretation.

We'll just have to see what the final language is, but, considering a Team A BBW (any direction) initiated up to 1 yard beyond the NZ on the "initial charge" is legal for Team A (by the language we have so far), it would only be right and fair to allow a B player positioned within a yard of the NZ at the snap to make a BBW in that same area, i.e., 1 yard beyond the NZ to wherever the TB ends in 2022, while the ball is in the TB, and on the "initial charge." As to what is the "initial charge," I assume we will be given direction in the coming days, weeks, months.
What ifs:
1) Lineman within the TB A77 slips and falls as he charges forward at the snap, then, as others are making blocks around him, he regains his feet and blocks A55 (no longer in contact with any other A player) below the waist from the side. OK? Too late (not his "initial charge")?
2) Lineman within the TB A77 retreats to pass block, then, as B55 approaches at a point approx 2 yards behind the NZ, A77 lowers his body and blocks B55 from the side. OK? Too late (not part of the "initial charge")?
3) Lineman within the TB A77 'pulls' and runs several yards laterally before lowering his body and blocking B55 below the waist from the side, within the tackle box. OK? Too late (not part of the "initial charge")?

I can hear the coaches now: "THAT WAS HIS INITIAL CHARGE!!!! THAT WAS LEGAL!! THAT'S A HORRIBLE CALL!"

And, it seems that we'll need a change in the definition of the tackle box: 5 yards either side of the snapper, from 1 yard beyond the NZ to A's end line (?).

[Etref]

New rule will definitely make pass protection for a back more difficult, can’t cut block on the big boys coming in!

[bossman72]

New rule will definitely make pass protection for a back more difficult, can’t cut block on the big boys coming in!

I believe the rule says you can cut within the tackle box.  I don't think it was restricted to just linemen.

[ElvisLives]

New rule will definitely make pass protection for a back more difficult, can’t cut block on the big boys coming in!

That's not how I read item 2. Item 2 would seem to mean that backs can still BBW from the front, until the ball leaves the TB.  I don't see anything being different for backs. The difference is with linemen that block from the side. They can only do that in their "initial charge." After that, BBW must be from the front, even if the ball is still within the TB after the initial charge, by the language we have so far.

If the language we have seen becomes the sum total of 'allowed' conditions, then an A player in motion would not be permitted to BBW at all. I'm betting they'll allow him to BBW from the front and away from the ball, but only within the TB. Or maybe not at all. Not at all would make our lives easier.

We need to get some technology that allows us to project the boundary of the TB on the field for each scrimmage down. Don't laugh. Not that I really want it, but I'd bet it could be done. 

[dammitbobby]

Given the way the document is numbered, I'd say that this is actual, proposed verbiage. 

'2.  Stationary Backs lined up within the tackle box may block below the waist within the tackle box until the ball leaves the tackle box only if the force of the initial contact is directed from the front.'

This addresses backs in the TB, who may continue to legally cut block inside the TB between 10 and 2, up until the ball leaves the TB.


'3.  All other Team A players are not allowed to block below the waist.'

Since 2 addresses stationary backs, 3 applies to all others who are not stationary - including backs in motion.

Elvis if you are correct in that this is the sum of allowable conditions, then, as I read it, there's no way a cut block can be legal 3-5 yards downfield. (currently it's an exception (9-6-a-1). That'll be a big adjustment for most, if not all 6 man teams.

Mechanically, if I count 2 Mississippis, and then observe a BBW in my zone, the only question at that point (since the 2-second wait takes care of the initial charge where BBW can be from any direction by linemen), is whether or not it was from the front (10-2), and if it's not, it's a foul, would that be correct?

[ElvisLives]

Given the way the document is numbered, I'd say that this is actual, proposed verbiage. 

'2.  Stationary Backs lined up within the tackle box may block below the waist within the tackle box until the ball leaves the tackle box only if the force of the initial contact is directed from the front.'

This addresses backs in the TB, who may continue to legally cut block inside the TB between 10 and 2, up until the ball leaves the TB.


'3.  All other Team A players are not allowed to block below the waist.'

Since 2 addresses stationary backs, 3 applies to all others who are not stationary - including backs in motion.

Elvis if you are correct in that this is the sum of allowable conditions, then, as I read it, there's no way a cut block can be legal 3-5 yards downfield. (currently it's an exception (9-6-a-1). That'll be a big adjustment for most, if not all 6 man teams.
That would be outside the TB, and illegal, by this language. But, neither can B, so all is fair.

Mechanically, if I count 2 Mississippis, and then observe a BBW in my zone, the only question at that point (since the 2-second wait takes care of the initial charge where BBW can be from any direction by linemen), is whether or not it was from the front (10-2), and if it's not, it's a foul, would that be correct? Depending on exactly what they mean by "initial charge," that would seem to be a fair statement.

And, this language makes no specific mention of Team A BBW toward their own end line. So, as written, a BBW by A toward their end line, from the front, would appear to be legal, until the ball leaves the TB, which is no change to what we have currently.
Linemen in the TB at the snap can make their initial charge and BBW in any direction. After that, it would seem that all BBW must be from the front and only in the TB (which may extend to one yard beyond the NZ). (Note that Clipping is still covered by a different rule and a different zone.) Stationary backs can BBW from the front in the TB. After the ball leaves the TB, there in no BBW allowed, period.
Another thing not mentioned is a stationary player that was in the TB at the snap but then leaves the TB and returns. What are his restrictions? I would think he won't be allowed to BBW, period.

[ElvisLives]

First one to get direct answers to these questions from an Authority Having Jurisdiction wins!

For these scenarios, assume a team B player that gets contacted at or below the thigh is NOT in contact, and has NOT just disengaged from contact with an opponent.

1) At the snap, interior lineman A66, with no opponent directly in front of him, starts to move forward when his foot slips and he falls to the ground, having contacted no one. As his teammates are completing their blocks, A66 is able push himself up off the ground into a crouching position, and successfully begins to move forward. In a continuous motion in a crouching position, A66 blocks B99 at the knees, from the side, and at a point not more than one yard beyond the NZ. All action occurs within the tackle box, and while the ball is still within the tackle box.
Ruling:

Issue: Is this A66's "initial charge," since, immediately after the snap, he fell to the ground before making a charge that led, or could have led, to a block against an opponent?


2) At the snap, interior lineman A66, rises from his 3-point stance (or from a hands/elbows-on-knees stance) and then dives at B99, contacting B99 at the knees from the side, at a point not more than one yard beyond the NZ. All action occurs within the tackle box, and while the ball is still within the tackle box.
Ruling:

Issue: Does A66's actions constitute an "initial charge?" Or, is an "initial charge" a movement by a player who immediately moves forward while simultaneously diving, with the apparent intent of contacting an opponent at/below the thighs?


3) At the snap, interior lineman A66, with no opponent directly in front of him, moves forward from a three-point stance, in a crouching manner, and with his second step, clearly changes his direction and contacts B99 at the knee, from the side. All action occurs within the tackle box, and while the ball is still within the tackle box.
Ruling:

Issue: Does an "initial charge" have to be in a direct line? Or, does a distinct change of direction terminate the "initial charge?"

There are probably more, but those will get us started.

[ElvisLives]

More:

4) At the snap, B60, having been stationary and within one yard of the NZ and within the width of the tackle box, loops around A77, taking himself outside the width of the TB. B60 then moves back within the TB where he is blocked by A77 below the waist from the front.

Ruling:

Issue: If a Team B player, initially within the area where blocks below the waist are legal, moves outside the TB, then returns, may he legally be blocked below the waist? Opinion: The initial location and subsequent path of an opponent should not prohibit them from being blocked below the waist within the TB.
 


5) At the snap, B60, having been stationary and within one yard of the NZ and within the width of the tackle box, charges forward to a point 2 yards behind the NZ, where he blocks A44, blocking ahead of ball carrier A33, below the waist from the front.

Ruling:

Issue: Following the initial charge, may B players legally block below the waist within the TB, from the front? Opinion: It is unfair to allow players of Team A to BBW under these conditions, but not Team B.

[dammitbobby]

Just my opinions, obviously nothing authoritative.


1 - In the absence of a formal definition of legal charge, I'm using my own judgement (for all of these) and I don't believe that could be considered his initial charge.  He had a shot, and lost it, along with his footing. 

2 - Tough call, would likely depend on how I saw it, and what the final version of the rule looks like, and how strict we are told to enforce whatever the definition of initial charge is.

3 - I've no problem with the change of direction as long as it is fast and one continuous motion.  No foul

4 - I would say legal.  There are no restrictions (that I can see) on where B must be, and as long as the block occurs in the TB, no issue.

5 - I would say legal, as long as he covers that 2 yards in his initial charge (i.e., not after chipping off or intentionally engaging a lineman then sliding off, or being held up or obstructed, which would 'wind down' his initial charge timing clock.)

[ElvisLives]

Just my opinions, obviously nothing authoritative.


1 - In the absence of a formal definition of legal charge, I'm using my own judgement (for all of these) and I don't believe that could be considered his initial charge.  He had a shot, and lost it, along with his footing. 

2 - Tough call, would likely depend on how I saw it, and what the final version of the rule looks like, and how strict we are told to enforce whatever the definition of initial charge is.

3 - I've no problem with the change of direction as long as it is fast and one continuous motion.  No foul

4 - I would say legal.  There are no restrictions (that I can see) on where B must be, and as long as the block occurs in the TB, no issue.

5 - I would say legal, as long as he covers that 2 yards in his initial charge (i.e., not after chipping off or intentionally engaging a lineman then sliding off, or being held up or obstructed, which would 'wind down' his initial charge timing clock.)

None of those highly plausible scenarios are directly and thoroughly addressed by the preliminary rule change language that we have, to date. So, if we are speculating and simply offering opinions of how we think it 'ought' to be, then:
(BTW, I should have qualified that the ball has not left the TB when the block occurs, in all scenarios.)

1. Illegal - not part of the initial charge.
2. Illegal - not part of the initial charge.
3. Illegal - not part of the initial charge.
4. Legal block below the waist. Neither the ball nor the blocker have left the TB, and the BBW was from the front. Team A should not be restricted in blocking a B player that has left the TB and returns, since that is not fully in Team A's control.
5. Legal block below the waist. Neither the ball nor the blocker have left the TB, and the BBW was from the front. Should be the same for both teams.

One old man's opinion.

[ElvisLives]

We have direct information from Shaw that once a player leaves the tackle box, he may no longer BBW - period. The language we have seen to date doesn't specifically say this, but Shaw has given this information to folks.
So, that is one question answered.

[ElvisLives]

Shaw made a presentation to members of the Texas Association of Sports Officials (TASO) last night, and provided about as much information anyone could have asked. Here are the 'takeaways' from his presentation:

The new BBW rules are for player safety. The NCAA has loads of data showing how the implementation of previous BBW rules have reduced injuries.

Don't be too technical on the extension of the Tackle Box one-yard beyond the NZ. The intent is to eliminate low blocks on defenders in the "second level".

Initial charge:
-Not necessarily straight ahead, but needs to be the initial action. Example: Offensive tackle trying to block a charging defensive tackle at the “edge,” at the snap, drives directly toward the DT, but an angle - not directly forward - and makes contact at the side - this is a legal block.
-Needs to be immediately at the snap. A clear delay before a player begins his charge is not “initial charge.”
-Any sort of second action, such as a coming off of one block to make another block, changing direction, standing up, or stepping backward, before making a low block is not within the initial charge, and the block must be from the front, in the TB, as long as the ball is in the TB.

All low blocks must be actually made within the tackle box, to be legal. A low block on an opponent who is clearly outside the TB, even if the blocker's feet may still be in the TB, is not legal. But, don’t be too technical about the tackle box. If the block itself is right at the edge, don’t be too technical.

No player that comes from outside the TB, or a player that leaves the tackle box and then returns inside the tackle box, may block low, anywhere on the field, regardless of direction.

The restrictions on Team B are greater than for Team A, i.e., Team B may only block low during the initial charge by stationary players within one yard of the NZ. Other than that, no BBW by Team B, anywhere on the field (including in the TB, even though Team A may be allowed to BBW there). The Rules Committee knows this, but are concerned about defenders blocking low on lead blockers - particularly those moving laterally - and causing injury.

No, not all teams/coaches are happy about these rules. No matter. These are the rules. They are expected to follow them, and officials are expected to enforce them.

[HoustonHL]

 No player that comes from outside the TB, or a player that leaves the tackle box and then returns inside the tackle box, may NOT block low, anywhere on the field, regardless of direction

[Grant - AR]

No player that comes from outside the TB, or a player that leaves the tackle box and then returns inside the tackle box, may NOT block low, anywhere on the field, regardless of direction

I think that's a double negative and, technically, not what you meant.  "No player...may block low." 

[HoustonHL]

Yes, thank you for the correction.

[lonnieritch1981]

This is best revision of the BBW rule since its inception. Now we can officiate this foul, whereas before it was murky at best.