Author Topic: You Kiss Your Mamma With That Mouth ? (Read 25668 times)

TXMike · « **on:** November 11, 2011, 05:48:05 AM »

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:35:19 AM »

So did they botch the enforcement (flag was at the 22 - maybe 21), for a BIB. R announced 1/2 distance enforcement, and the ball ended up at the 11 for the next snap. Did they get it wrong and were simply lucky with the spot of the foul?

TXMike · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:53:24 AM »

Foul at 22, flag made it to the 21, 10 yard penalty to the 11. Crew got it right despite the Referee (as usual)

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:08:27 AM »

They got the enforcement right, they just got the foul wrong. No way that was a BIB.

I know it's hard to see in regular speed, but one of the most frequently miscalled fouls when film is reviewed is BIB, and this is one.

TXMike · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:11:57 AM »

Agree that it is frequentklky miscalled but not this time. Righteous flag here.

RedTD · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:32:06 AM »

A clear BIB. Blocker is in chase mode, hits A in the left shoulder blade and he falls forward. That most likely spells BIB - although the last part is not always a true indicator.

pgh guy · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:02:06 AM »

This is a classic IBB

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2011, 11:07:51 AM »

I must give credit to a friend of mine for these pictures, I didn't pull them, but they show the point of impact.

A block in the back must be from behind, not from the side. The direction the player falls is immaterial. I can show you a player hit from the side that falls on his face, and another of a player that is hit in the back and falls on his back.

If the contact isn't on the numbers, leave your flag in your pocket.

TXMike · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2011, 11:13:38 AM »

That is why you are a coach and we are the zebras.

RedTD · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2011, 12:15:16 PM »

AB. If you look at the video and compare it with the last still photo, #44 takes one more step before there is contact. The still is NOT the instant of contact and if you read my post I did say that the direction the player falls is not necessarily a true indicator - just a piece to fold into the puzzle.

GoodScout · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2011, 12:42:08 PM »

Still photos tell us nothing. I usually agree with AB, but he's dead wrong on this one. It's a clear BIB and I guarantee he'd be calling for it if his team was K.

110 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 11, 2011, 02:43:17 PM »

If the guy in white simply turns his head in the other direction, the same angle, would you still call it?

I see shoulder-to-shoulder here, and I would sure hope that if I'm the covering official, I'm taking a pass on this.

TXMike · « **Reply #12 on:** November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM »

If it was shoulder to shoulder he would not have landed as he did.

WCFB · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2011, 04:30:29 PM »

Quote from: TXMike on November 11, 2011, 02:59:51 PM

If it was shoulder to shoulder he would not have landed as he did.

I am not so sure about that. It looks to me after R44 is contacted (1:01) he starts to fall to the side and rolls on the ground. I would say a shoulder to shoulder contact would create that kind of a fall. Initial contact is from the side, and that is why hes starts to fall sideways. The contact point is very suspect for IBB. I think it would be easier to explain a no call rather then a penalty on this one.

Diablo · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2011, 05:25:30 PM »

Quote from: LO_Guvna on November 11, 2011, 04:30:29 PM

The contact point is very suspect for IBB. I think it would be easier to explain a no call rather then a penalty on this one.

I agree. This is a borderline foul, not a no-brainer.
Although some supervisors believe otherwise, how the blockee falls or lands is not solely dependent upon where the force was applied. The direction of the blockee's momentum and how he tries to stay upright are significant factors.

WCFB · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2011, 05:37:32 PM »

Quote from: Diablo on November 11, 2011, 05:25:30 PM

The direction of the blockee's momentum and how he tries to stay upright are significant factors.

Good point

footballref · « **Reply #16 on:** November 12, 2011, 01:00:58 PM »

I believe AB is right on this play. Sure in real time it is close and this is one that will get called BIB frequently. After watching the replays I think this is a pretty clear side block. Not sure that I would have gotten it right on the field but after replay I would have kicked myself.

jjseikel · « **Reply #17 on:** November 12, 2011, 01:20:44 PM »

Quote from: RedTD on November 11, 2011, 08:32:06 AM

...hits A in the left shoulder blade...

Exactly. Which means it does NOT meet the definition of a block in the back.

Quote

...and he falls forward.

... which has nothing to do with whether a foul has been committed.

Quote from: Diablo on November 11, 2011, 05:25:30 PM

The direction of the blockee's momentum and how he tries to stay upright are significant factors.

... but have nothing to do with whether a foul was committed. The initial contact is the only thing that is significant.

BobMc · « **Reply #18 on:** November 12, 2011, 02:22:55 PM »

Block in the back you want to have a clear shot into the back. That does not exist in this play. A block on the shoulder is not a block in the back.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #19 on:** November 12, 2011, 06:52:45 PM »

Quote from: BobMc on November 12, 2011, 02:22:55 PM

Block in the back you want to have a clear shot into the back. That does not exist in this play. A block on the shoulder is not a block in the back.

I would disagree. While I do agree with Diablo's comment that this one is not a clear cut no-brainer, the guidelines that I have seen say that this one is an Illegal Block in the Back. The pursuer was in chase mode and never caught up with the defender he ended up blocking - it's not a side block since he never actually got to the side. The guideline that we've been given is fairly simple (attached diagram), but it still requires judgment on the "back corners".

[attachment deleted by admin]

Ref1986 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2011, 06:59:16 PM »

The coach got it right. How the defender falls is a bad standard to use, and is the reason why this is so often called incorrectly. If you and I are running side by side and I push you from the side, you will still fall on your face. My push won't be enough to overcome your forward momentum.

RedTD · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2011, 07:15:12 PM »

Quote from: Jaybird on November 12, 2011, 01:20:44 PM

Exactly. Which means it does NOT meet the definition of a block in the back.
I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV - BUT, the last time I looked, my shoulder blade is on my back. Maybe I should have called it a scapula

waltjp · « **Reply #22 on:** November 13, 2011, 12:23:58 AM »

Someone pointed out that the photos posted by AB are out of sequence. The second photo shows the play at the time of contact. The blocker's head is clearly in front of player being blocked and the blocker's shoulder is on the opposing player's arm. This is not a block in the back and I don't think it's close.

I agree with TXMike that this is one of the most frequently miscalled fouls in football. This is definitely one of them. The reason is that many officials make up their mind that any contact when a blocker is in chase mode is a foul. Of if the blocked player falls forward it it a foul. These are not indications that a foul has occurred - they're merely signs we should use to help identify suspects. You still have to see the whole play before pulling the flag. Unfortunately many officials do not and throw a flag on a preconceived notion of what might happen, or base the flag on the result of something they did not see.

This is a side block with initial contact with the blocker's shoulder on the opposing player's arm. The contact is maintained as the player being block rotates, making it look like a block in the back.

The coach is correct on this one. Sometimes officials can learn something from a coach.

TXMike · « **Reply #23 on:** November 13, 2011, 06:30:52 AM »

To be clear///I DID say it is a frequently miscalled foul but on this play I believe it to have been CORRECTLY flagged That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

dumbref · « **Reply #24 on:** November 14, 2011, 09:16:55 AM »

Add me to the side block side of the ledger and really didn’t think it was that close.

Author Topic: You Kiss Your Mamma With That Mouth ? (Read 25668 times)

110

Diablo

footballref

jjseikel

BobMc

Ref1986

waltjp

dumbref