Some More Low Block Videos

[TXMike]

#1 -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytEU7_22n54


#2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhOsIY8Pka4

[El Macman]

The first one is clear - illegal for 2010 and 2011 (his adjacent sideline was to his left, and block low to the right).

The second one is arguable as to being "north-south," Yes, the blocker is moving horizontally until right before the contact, but the force of his block can be argued as being perpendicular and through the blockee's body. He moves to his left (adjacent sideline to his right), but he holds his ground, bends over and leans downfield just as the defender runs into him. I could easily see a coordinator ruling this as North-South.

Other opinions may be just as valid. Just offering my opinion based on my experience.

[Hawkeye]

The first one is clear - illegal for 2010 and 2011 (his adjacent sideline was to his left, and block low to the right).

That block was not illegal for 2010, the ball was snapped on the left hash, the block occurred to the right of the left hash so the blocker was past the original position of the ball and blocking away from the original position of the ball.

[El Macman]

That block was not illegal for 2010, the ball was snapped on the left hash, the block occurred to the right of the left hash so the blocker was past the original position of the ball and blocking away from the original position of the ball.

Yep - I goofed. Legal in 2010 - not a block toward the ball. Thanks for the correction.

[NVFOA_Ump]

In video #1 if the slot back who throws the low block was slightly further to his right and just behind the tackle (or the tackle was slightly wider in front of the slot back) this block would also be legal in 2011 as well?

[El Macman]

In video #1 if the wingback who throws the low block was slightly further to his right and just behind the tackle this block would also be legal in 2011 as well?

Don't quite follow the question. Where he is related to a tackle is irrelevant. It is strictly his relationship to the snapper.
In this play, he is on the left side of the snapper, so his adjacent sideline is the left sideline. He may BBW toward the left sideline, but not toward the right sideline.

If he is directly behind the snapper at the snap, his adjacent sideline is supposed to be the one toward which is moving, which would be the right sideline, in this case, which would make the block legal.
What we don't have a definitive ruling on is which is his adjacent sideline if he is running in place directly behind the snapper. He isn't moving toward any sideline, so which is his adjacent? If he is jogging in place, he doesn't have much more advantage than if he was stationary. Unless, and until, RR gives us a ruling, I think I'll see which way he goes after the snap, and his first move toward a sideline will declare his adjacent sideline.

[ref6983]

Don't quite follow the question. Where he is related to a tackle is irrelevant. It is strictly his relationship to the snapper.
In this play, he is on the left side of the snapper, so his adjacent sideline is the left sideline. He may BBW toward the left sideline, but not toward the right sideline.

If he is directly behind the snapper at the snap, his adjacent sideline is supposed to be the one toward which is moving, which would be the right sideline, in this case, which would make the block legal.
What we don't have a definitive ruling on is which is his adjacent sideline if he is running in place directly behind the snapper. He isn't moving toward any sideline, so which is his adjacent? If he is jogging in place, he doesn't have much more advantage than if he was stationary. Unless, and until, RR gives us a ruling, I think I'll see which way he goes after the snap, and his first move toward a sideline will declare his adjacent sideline.

Tough angle, but with the tight splits, it appears the WB is lined up directly behind the TE position, so he is completely within the tackle box. He is unrestricted so this is not a foul.

Play 2 is a foul as the player is blocking away from his adjacent sideline.

[TXMike]

the TE is in the tackle box???

[El Macman]

Tough angle, but with the tight splits, it appears the WB is lined up directly behind the TE position, so he is completely within the tackle box. He is unrestricted so this is not a foul.

Play 2 is a foul as the player is blocking away from his adjacent sideline.

He is in motion, so he has different rules. The tackle box has nothing to do with a player in motion. Until he gets on the opposite side of the snapper, his adjacent sideline is the one on his side of the snapper. In this case, his adjacent sideline is to the left of the snapper, so he may BBW to the left (or N-S), but not toward the right, which he does - that's a foul for 2011.

[NVFOA_Ump]

.... Where he is related to a tackle is irrelevant. It is strictly his relationship to the snapper. ....

Doesn't 9-1-6-2-b come into play here if the flanker back is just behind the tackle, instead of just outside the tackle?  And if he is "completely inside the tackle box" there is no "sideline adjacent" constraint is there?

9-1-6-2-b Players of the offensive team who at the snap are completely inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.

[NVFOA_Ump]

He is in motion, so he has different rules.

Is he in motion in video clip #1?  I've got him set and moving with the snap.

[ref6983]

Is he in motion in video clip #1?  I've got him set and moving with the snap.

He is not in motion. He's a stationary back at the snap and is completely inside the tackle box per Rogers' last memo which states that a player "directly behind" the TE position with the linemen in normal to tight splits (two feet or less) is inside the tackle box.

[TXMike]

That is not how I read the memo.  I read it that if the formation is tight, THEN the TE can be considered in the tackle box, not if the formation is considered normal.  That being said, this is not the best video to determine splits.  Anytime a camera (video or still) is used that has a telephoto (zoom) lens, you get perspective distortion.  But if the splits are tight, then the RB is likely in the box.  If they are normal, he is not.

[ref6983]

That is not how I read the memo.  I read it that if the formation is tight, THEN the TE can be considered in the tackle box, not if the formation is considered normal.  That being said, this is not the best video to determine splits.  Anytime a camera (video or still) is used that has a telephoto (zoom) lens, you get perspective distortion.  But if the splits are tight, then the RB is likely in the box.  If they are normal, he is not.

I guess the exact distance of normal splits is left to the reader, but the guideline of two feet seems pretty accurate. In normal splits you would not be able to put a player in between two linemen and two feet seems about right for that. Once you go beyond that, you probably could get a player in between two linemen and then it would become "wide splits".

For the sake of argument, I won't use "normal", but just use the memo's words "not more than two feet".

I did originally say the angle was tough, but it does appear that these lineman are indeed less than two feet apart (it even looks like it might be as tight as a normal FG formation), but you can't tell for sure.

All that being said, I will rephrase: "Based on what *appears* to be a very tight formation, the WB is completely inside the tackle box, is not in motion, and is unrestricted. Therefore, his block is legal.

[TxSkyBolt]

He is in motion, so he has different rules. The tackle box has nothing to do with a player in motion. Until he gets on the opposite side of the snapper, his adjacent sideline is the one on his side of the snapper. In this case, his adjacent sideline is to the left of the snapper, so he may BBW to the left (or N-S), but not toward the right, which he does - that's a foul for 2011.

Believe he's refering to play one.....There is no motion in play one.

[El Macman]

I can be so full of crap at times. My apology ref6983. No - not in motion in play one.

So, it is a question of his location at the snap. Is he in the tackle box or not? The Snapper-LG and LG-LT splits appear to pretty small, but the gap between the LT and the WB is pretty large. Lacking better video, I'd go with him being outside the TB, with the left sideline as his adjacent sideline, making his BBW toward the right sideline illegal.

[TXMike]

I seem to recall......"When in doubt, he's out"

[Atlanta Blue]

I seem to recall......"When in doubt, he's out"

That's a baseball adage.

[TXMike]

And Redding used it in his preseason video re blocking below  the waist

[ref6983]

And Redding used it in his preseason video re blocking below  the waist

He did and it is absolutely true. However, it does not give anyone license to blatantly disregard the fact that if a player is completely within 5 yards of the snapper, he may block below the waist in any direction whether he is touching the tackle or not.

The rule was, justly or unjustly, changed to eliminate the requirement that a player is restricted unless he breaks some part of the tackle. 5 yards is now 5 yards.

In the first play, even though the angle is bad, there is more than enough evidence to indicate a) tight splits, and b) the WB is within 5 yards of the snapper based on simple math: it's 8 yards from hash to the top of the numbers, the WB isn't even halfway between them. It appears that the end man on the line is about halfway.

If we had an end zone shot, then we would know for sure and since we don't, we'll have to just move on. However, the basic point is that it will be the case this year that we will have wingbacks not touching the tackle who *will be unrestricted*.

[TXMike]

He has to be more than just touching the tackle box.  He has to be ENTIRELY inside the tackle box to be unrestricted, justly or unjustly.  Since the rule has changed from legal at all times except those times when it is not to ILLEGAL at all times except when it is, seems we should err on side of ILLEGAL

[ref6983]

He has to be more than just touching the tackle box.  He has to be ENTIRELY inside the tackle box to be unrestricted, justly or unjustly.  Since the rule has changed from legal at all times except those times when it is not to ILLEGAL at all times except when it is, seems we should err on side of ILLEGAL

No argument with any of that as long as everyone understands "err" doesn't mean "I'm going to disregard the rule as written."

[Diablo]

In the first play, even though the angle is bad, there is more than enough evidence to indicate a) tight splits, and b) the WB is within 5 yards of the snapper based on simple math: it's 8 yards from hash to the top of the numbers, the WB isn't even halfway between them. It appears that the end man on the line is about halfway.

I say it is 11 yds from hash to top of the numbers.  The hash marks and top of the numbers are 20 & 9 yds from the sideline, respectively.

[ref6983]

I say it is 11 yds from hash to top of the numbers.  The hash marks and top of the numbers are 20 & 9 yds from the sideline, respectively.

It appeared this was a high school game with high school hashes so I used 53' 4". Probably closer to 9 yards in that case rather than 8.  If it's a college field then it would be as you state.

[TXMike]

HS game in Texas so it is a NCAA marked field