Definition of "adjacent" sideline

[Andrew McCarthy]

It came to my attention at a meeting last night that there are two interpretations floating around out there regarding what we consider to be the adjacent sideline relative to the new blocking below the waist rule...

1.  The adjacent sideline is determined by an imaginary north-south line down the center of the field.  The sideline you are physically closer to is considered the adjacent sideline. [A single formation would have different blocking restrictions depending on the position of the ball between the hashes]

OR

2.  The adjacent sideline is determined by an imaginary north-south line through the position of the ball.  As the offense looks toward the defense, if you are lined up to the right of the ball, the right sideline is your adjacent sideline. [A single formation would always have the same blocking restrictions regardless of the position of the ball between the hashes]


Any idea which is the intended definition?

[TXMike]

RR's bulletin makes it pretty clear.  We don't care about the ball.  It is a centerline through the middle of the field.

[El Macman]

RR's bulletin makes it pretty clear.  We don't care about the ball.  It is a centerline through the middle of the field.

Actually, the "north-south" line is anywhere between the sidelines, and it is only used to determine whether or not the block is parallel to it, or at some angle to either side. It has no bearing on determining which sideline is a player's "adjacent" sideline. In fact, it doesn't even exist until a block is thrown.

As for determining the adjacent sideline, RR's bulletin on BBW says, " ...the sideline closer to a player at the snap determines the direction he is allowed to block low." So, the position of the ball has nothing to do with it. If you are closer to the right sideline than the left sideline (at the snap), then the right sideline is your adjacent sideline. That being the case, then, yeah, being on one side or the other of the centerline of the field is going to govern.

My heartburn with the bulletin definition is that it is possible for a lineman or a back to be nearer to the sideline on the opposite side of the formation than the one on his side of the formation, AND be more than 7 yards from the middle lineman or outside the tackle box, respectively. Unlikely, yes - because it it would require an unbalanced formation toward a sideline from an inbounds line - but possible. That would mean that (technically) such a player(s) could legally BBW back torward the formation. I doubt that this is intended, but that's a conclusion that could be drawn from RR's bulletin. Fortunatley, the rules don't really define which is the adjacent sideline. So, it will be easy for RR to issue a bulletin that re-defines the adjacent sideline as being the one to the same side of the middle lineman as the player. And, I believe that is what is intended.

[TXMike]

And since the middle lineman is "normally" where the ball will be at the snap also, we are back to where we were and where we should be.

Using the field centerline opens the doors to some vicious blocking possibilities depending on how the offense sets up.

[Andrew McCarthy]

My heartburn with the bulletin definition is that it is possible for a lineman or a back to be nearer to the sideline on the opposite side of the formation than the one on his side of the formation, AND be more than 7 yards from the middle lineman or outside the tackle box, respectively. Unlikely, yes - because it it would require an unbalanced formation toward a sideline from an inbounds line - but possible. That would mean that (technically) such a player(s) could legally BBW back torward the formation. I doubt that this is intended, but that's a conclusion that could be drawn from RR's bulletin. Fortunatley, the rules don't really define which is the adjacent sideline. So, it will be easy for RR to issue a bulletin that re-defines the adjacent sideline as being the one to the same side of the middle lineman as the player. And, I believe that is what is intended.

That's what I was trying to get at with #1.  A low "crackback" block will sometimes be legal.

This will be a difficult rule to officiate.

[El Macman]

That's what I was trying to get at with #1.  A low "crackback" block will sometimes be legal.

I don't think that result is intended, but, by the technical language we have to date, that conclusion can be drawn.

[ref6983]

I don't think that result is intended, but, by the technical language we have to date, that conclusion can be drawn.

The original rule that went out for comment had this as being "formation-based". It subsequently got changed to being "distance from sideline"-based per the bulletin mentioned earlier.

My hunch is that we will be going back to the original interpretation.

[Locker Room]

There was a play in one of Dr. Redding's memo's where a back was in motion directly behind the QB who was under center.  Will that change depending on the two possible interpretations talked about in this thread?  Some teams have the back in motion close to behind the QB when the ball is snapped.

[TXMike]

Does not matter if he is behind the QB.  Where is he in relation to the centerline of the field?  That is what we have to judge.  If he is to the left of center line he can block low towards left sideline but not towards right sideline. 

[Diablo]

Does not matter if he is behind the QB.  Where is he in relation to the centerline of the field?  That is what we have to judge.  If he is to the left of center line he can block low towards left sideline but not towards right sideline. 

I think the new rule is meant to reflect the same intent of the old rule.  That being, there is more harm done when Team A players are BBW towards the position of the ball when it was snapped.  That translates to it's legal for linemen beyond 7 yards from the middle lineman and backs outside the tackle box to BBW towards the sideline beyond the outside shoulder to the blocker's postion at the snap - relative to Team A's formation at the snap.  And they are forbidden to BBW toward the sideline in the direction of the position of middle lineman at the snap.

Otherwise, why would the rules makers change the directionality of the legality? 

[ABoselli]

Move the hashes in and it's a non issue

[El Macman]

Move the hashes in and it's a non issue

Even if you eliminated the inbounds lines and the succeeding spot was always in the center of the field, it would still be possible for A to be in a formation with wide splits, with the middle lineman more than 7 yards from the center of the field. Thus, it would still be possible for a lineman to be more than 7 yards from the middle lineman, but nearer to the sideline opposite of him from the middle lineman, meaning he would be legal to BBW toward the formation (and, likewise, certainly a back would be outside the normal tackle position). So, that doesn't help.

Define the adjacent sideline as the one to the same side of the middle lineman as the player in question, or eliminate BBW altogether.
 

[pgh guy]

I'm waiting to hear word from the Commissioners' meeting on how this play is to be officiated.  There is no doubt that this will be difficult to officiate based on "adjacent sideline" and positions of backs at the snap.  I'm sure the intent was good, but the language has muddied the waters.  Are we to flag these types of blocks that appear illegal until we can get a consensus as to where a blocker originated at the snap?  An above post mentions that there will be blocks that look like crap, that will be legal based on the verbiage of this rule.  Until I hear otherwise, it makes sense to flag the blocks that appear illegal if we do not have definite knowledge of where the blocker originates.  Thoughts?

[TXMike]

That may work in 7 man crews but I don't see it working well in 5 man without one heck of a B.

[copedaddy]

Just trying to do the math (I'm a science teacher) but if the ball is snapped at the hash, and a player is more than 7 yards from the ball he is past the middle of the field. His adjanent sideline would be away from the ball according to the field diagram in the book. The middle of the field is 6.6 yards from the hash. I would dare say you cannot block back toward the ball low from that position. This is of course talking about a stationary player on his line of scrimmage. ?

[copedaddy]

Of course I am talking about a normal balanced formation.

[TXMike]

The examples I have seen of problematic plays involve RB's who are in motion and when the ball is snapped they are just to one side of the field centerline. 

[ref6983]

Ok, no need to continue commenting here given that the definition being based on the distance to the sideline. It will absolutely be based on the side of the formation of the player at the snap.

Now, you can focus on some of the inherent issues this definition might create.

Note, the adjacent sideline of a player in motion directly behind the snapper will be that sideline toward which he is in motion.

[jg-me]

Stay tuned to this issue. I hear there is likely to be an adjustment/interpretation made that affects the motion issue. Most likely the adjacent sideline for a player in motion will be the sideline he is moving toward at the snap. Hopefully this takes place as it would make the determination of 'adjacent sideline' much simpler.

[ref6983]

Stay tuned to this issue. I hear there is likely to be an adjustment/interpretation made that affects the motion issue. Most likely the adjacent sideline for a player in motion will be the sideline he is moving toward at the snap. Hopefully this takes place as it would make the determination of 'adjacent sideline' much simpler.

Not quite...see previous post.

[jg-me]

Thank you. Yes, I left out that important detail regarding the location of the motion man at the snap.

[El Macman]

Just trying to do the math (I'm a science teacher) but if the ball is snapped at the hash, and a player is more than 7 yards from the ball he is past the middle of the field. His adjanent sideline would be away from the ball according to the field diagram in the book. The middle of the field is 6.6 yards from the hash. I would dare say you cannot block back toward the ball low from that position. This is of course talking about a stationary player on his line of scrimmage. ?

If the snapper was always the middle lineman, your math works. But he ain't. Granted, it would be an unusual formation, but it is entirely possible for the middle lineman to be one, two - up to 5 - players removed (let's don't even get into a formation with an even number of linemen) from the snapper. That would easily allow a lineman to be nearer to the sideline opposite the middle lineman from him than the sideline on his side of the formation. Likewise, a back could easily be outside the "tackle box" but be nearer the sideline opposite the middle lineman from him, than the sideline on his side of the formation.
So, it will have to be formation based.

[copedaddy]

I have to go with Ref6983, the side of the formation you are on determines the "adjacent" sideline. It makes things very simple.