S-B Quiz 8 answers

[ElvisLives]

Hmmm. I would have sworn I posted my answers to S-B Quiz 8, but I don't see them, so I must not have.
Well, I got 7 of the 8 non-replay questions. But, I didn't read Q4 the same as S-B intended, apparently. (I had a BIB.) Nothing in the question led me to believe that the Team A blocker had maintained contact, and the block in the back was just a 'continuation' of action. Considering the block was 4 yards outside the 'blocking zone' (not tackle box), within which blocks in the back are allowed, I would have a hard time believing the block was continuous. And, considering the ball has left the blocking zone, I don't see this block as being legal. This being "in the spirit of the exceptions" is very much news to me.

What's next? Flopping on a prone/supine opponent is OK?

[Snapper]

That AR has been in book for a while now (since like 2020) and does define what they consider to be the spirit of the rule when it comes to pass protection.

People can perhaps argue that some old rules language could be cleaned up, but I see an AR like this as clear guidance.

[ElvisLives]

That AR has been in book for a while now (since like 2020) and does define what they consider to be the spirit of the rule when it comes to pass protection.

People can perhaps argue that some old rules language could be cleaned up, but I see an AR like this as clear guidance.

Not so clear. AR 9-3-3-IX first appeared in 2014, but did not include the current last sentence (sentence 8) that was added in 2020. That sentence lies at the heart of why this is a poorly written example. Sadly, the first seven sentences of the AR were not edited to clarify whether the blocking action in this scenario was all part of a continuing action, or if the block in the back was a separate action. But, then it goes on to say that, while continuous action would be legal, a separate action would be a foul if it occurred outside the "blocking zone" (not the "tackle box"). The blocking zone extends 3 yards behind the NZ. So, the AR is saying the action was either continuous, or within the blocking zone. The other piece of missing information that would be answered by offering a location of A12 is whether or not the ball had left the blocking zone. If the ball is outside the blocking zone, then the blocking zone no longer exists, and a separate action within THAT area would also be a foul.
The question writer added a specific location, which was 7 yards behind the NZ - well outside the blocking zone. Could it have been continuous action? Certainly. But, it makes a difference, and we need to know if it was continuous or a separate action. At 7 yards behind the NZ, a separate action would definitely be a foul.