Defenseless Defender

[generaldowns]

This has been around for a few years, and I'm completely ok with this rule and how it's been implemented and enforced. A blindside block 20 yards away from the play IS completely unnecessary. The situation in the video in the first post, is much more problematic.

 

Not blind side blocks A ref who believes that a guy shouldn't continue blocking a db for example that could recover and make a TD saving tackle and flags the blocker...have seen way too much of that.

[ThrillVille Cardinal51]

I thought you were going to post a video from the game I was at last week. Identical situation.

[Baseballfan3]

By the new rules:

 

ART. 10 . . . A blindside block is a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching.

 

ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall

n. Execute a blindside block outside of the free-blocking zone with forceful contact unless initiated with open hands.

 

Have to look for three things on this hit

Was the contact forcible or excessive? By the fact that the defender is laying on the ground, yes it was forcible

Did the defender see the blocker coming? No

Did the blocker use open hands? No

If any of these answers are the opposite of what they are in this scenario, it is not a penalty. This is a quality call with the rules that are in place.

 

The same result would have been accomplished legally had he simply lead with open hands

[atm10]

By the new rules:

 

ART. 10 . . . A blindside block is a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching.

 

ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall

n. Execute a blindside block outside of the free-blocking zone with forceful contact unless initiated with open hands.

 

Have to look for three things on this hit

Was the contact forcible or excessive? By the fact that the defender is laying on the ground, yes it was forcible

Did the defender see the blocker coming? No

Did the blocker use open hands? No

If any of these answers are the opposite of what they are in this scenario, it is not a penalty. This is a quality call with the rules that are in place.

 

The same result would have been accomplished legally had he simply lead with open hands

 

excellent post :thumb:

[plantmanky]

By the new rules:

 

ART. 10 . . . A blindside block is a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching.

 

ART. 3 . . . No player or nonplayer shall

n. Execute a blindside block outside of the free-blocking zone with forceful contact unless initiated with open hands.

 

Have to look for three things on this hit

Was the contact forcible or excessive? By the fact that the defender is laying on the ground, yes it was forcible

Did the defender see the blocker coming? No

Did the blocker use open hands? No

If any of these answers are the opposite of what they are in this scenario, it is not a penalty. This is a quality call with the rules that are in place.

 

The same result would have been accomplished legally had he simply lead with open hands

 

In the clip above, the defender turned his head to the right and saw the kid, now only about 3 or so steps before being hit, but he saw him coming.

[Baseballfan3]

In the clip above, the defender turned his head to the right and saw the kid, now only about 3 or so steps before being hit, but he saw him coming.

we are obviously not watching the same play. I can see the defenders facemask the entire time. Also, why would the defender look to his right and away from the runner when he is still 1/2 to 1 yd ahead of the runner at the time of the illegal block?

[BigTiger55]

Too much interpretation for me to like the rule. If a 200 lbs blocker does everything correct leading with the hands, it's still going to look excessive against a 135lbs defender rather he sees it coming or not.

[plantmanky]

we are obviously not watching the same play. I can see the defenders facemask the entire time. Also, why would the defender look to his right and away from the runner when he is still 1/2 to 1 yd ahead of the runner at the time of the illegal block?

 

Hear the footsteps.

[85_Rebel]

Okay it is the rule.

 

In my opinion, any blocker in that position makes that block, that way. I am not sure how you coach a kid any differently than what we see on the video.

 

Basically, in today's world, any contact that 'whoa's' the crowd is illegal contact.

[Jo-Jo13]

The point of this post is not if the block was illegal or not by the rule, but what do you think about the rule?

[atm10]

The point of this post is not if the block was illegal or not by the rule, but what do you think about the rule?

 

and you asked how it's enforced, and by rule it's illegal. That's like asking what do you think of the roughing the passer rule, the block in the back rule....

[BigRedDiesel]

Have seen several potential game changing TDs called back for this rule AND for a strange rule that is enforced having to do with a player getting blocked with enthusiasm legally before the whistle is blown who "isn't near enough the ball carrier"...that one has been a doozy to deal with this year and last. It penalizes kids that play hard from snap to whistle. Really puzzling and frustrating.

 

My son pancaked a kid a few weeks ago and had an official get in his face and tell him to, "stop being so aggressive." I'm not sure what that's all about.

 

Watch this video about 2017 rule changes, in 2016 it is a legal block, in 2017 under NFHS rules it is NOT. The video is made by a referee and explains the rule changes.

Cannot lead with the shoulder anymore for a block out of the free blocking zone.

 

This. You are just not going to get away with blocks like that anymore. They are especially looking for it on punts and kickoffs. We can argue about whether we like the rule or not, but I don't think there's any debate that it is illegal under the new emphasis guidelines.

[generaldowns]

My son pancaked a kid a few weeks ago and had an official get in his face and tell him to, "stop being so aggressive." I'm not sure what that's all about.

 

 

 

This. You are just not going to get away with blocks like that anymore. They are especially looking for it on punts and kickoffs. We can argue about whether we like the rule or not, but I don't think there's any debate that it is illegal under the new emphasis guidelines.

 

"Stop being so aggressive..." This is football...with pads and helmets, blocking and tackling....I understand that injuries can be devastating and we all want to improve the safety of this game we love so much, but I've heard similar comments from referees with kids that were playing hard to the whistle....it's a little puzzling. It's a little frustrating to this observer.

[Tmh55]

I understand the point of the rule. If its away from the ball then there is no need for it and it should be flagged. If it is at the point of attack I hate it. I have coached for a long time and anyone who has can tell you the kid that is not going hard is the one who will get hurt. You are basically saying they should set a screen like in basketball but with pads and a helmet on. Which means absorb the hit from someone who is going full speed. In my opinion telling your kid to get hurt to keep from hurting someone else.

[MarineOne]

The penalty here is for an illegal Blind-side Block. This block would've been legal had the player extended his hands in front of him and made first contact with the hands (the definition of a block). When a player hits another player like this from the side, while leading with anything other than the hands...it's a foul. The player doing the hitting is simply head hunting here...play football and block legally, no problem.