Snowflake football rules

[Hammerhead]

https://media.kvue.com/embeds/mobile/video/269-8337784/amp#amp=1?jwsource=cl check out this block DJ Baptist.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Is that kind of hit even legal now? At least the lady in the Honda commercial they made me watch can now change lanes without fear of hitting someone.

[IndyBison]

Is that kind of hit even legal now? At least the lady in the Honda commercial they made me watch can now change lanes without fear of hitting someone.

That hit hasn't been legal under any rule set for as long as he's been alive. They play under NCAA rules in Texas HS so this is a definite targeting foul which has been in place for 6 or 7 years. That comes with an automatic ejection. In NFHS it's a foul for an illegal blind side block the past 2 years. It's also targeting under HS rules which is about 3-4 years old. Prior to that it was a foul for spearing because he used the crown of his helmet to initiate contact on an opponent. NFHS is not an automatic ejection but could be if the official determined it was flagrant and the opponent was defenseless. I think that would definitely be supported here. This was a viscous, violent hit against a defenseless player. I hope this isn't the type of block he initiates with the Bison.

[OrygunBison]

That hit hasn't been legal under any rule set for as long as he's been alive. They play under NCAA rules in Texas HS so this is a definite targeting foul which has been in place for 6 or 7 years. That comes with an automatic ejection. In NFHS it's a foul for an illegal blind side block the past 2 years. It's also targeting under HS rules which is about 3-4 years old. Prior to that it was a foul for spearing because he used the crown of his helmet to initiate contact on an opponent. NFHS is not an automatic ejection but could be if the official determined it was flagrant and the opponent was defenseless. I think that would definitely be supported here. This was a viscous, violent hit against a defenseless player. I hope this isn't the type of block he initiates with the Bison.

Yeah, if we want to save this sport that we love so much, we need to stop glorifying plays like this. Yeah, I know, I like a good hard (legal) hit like anyone else but this type of violent, defenseless situation just doesn't have a place in the sport anymore, at least if we want moms to let their boys play in the future. I know that there are always those that complain about the pussification of the sport but the hard truth is that the longer we wait to adjust the game, the more chance there is to lose it entirely...or at least to something less recognizable. As a youth football coach, we're doing everything that we can to limit this type of contact.

Flame on...

Tony - feel free to delete or disengage this post if you'd like. I'd hate to completely ruin the young man's celebratory verbal thread.

[56BISON73]

I dont see how the the player in pursuit is defenseless. If he wouldnt have been blocked he would have made the tackle. Its not like he was 10 yards away and not involved in the play which would have been a meaningless hit. The only thing I can see possibly wrong is he hit him too high according to todays rules. To me it was a good block. When in pusuit remember the old adage--keep your head on a swivel.

[Vet70]

I hope this isn't the type of block he initiates with the Bison.

I am pretty confident that the coaching staff will school him on that issue.

[EC8CH]

I dont see how the the player in pursuit is defenseless. If he wouldnt have been blocked he would have made the tackle. Its not like he was 10 yards away and not involved in the play which would have been a meaningless hit. The only thing I can see possibly wrong is he hit him too high according to todays rules. To me it was a good block. When in pusuit remember the old adage--keep your head on a swivel.

D1 Chipper #1...

Travis Beck INT...

Leevon Perry...

That poor Bearcat didn't have his head on a swivel!

[IndyBison]

I dont see how the the player in pursuit is defenseless. If he wouldnt have been blocked he would have made the tackle. Its not like he was 10 yards away and not involved in the play which would have been a meaningless hit. The only thing I can see possibly wrong is he hit him too high according to todays rules. To me it was a good block. When in pusuit remember the old adage--keep your head on a swivel.

Don't use the dictionary definition of defenseless. The rules specifically define it. If someone's attention is away from where the contact is coming, they are defenseless. In NCAA, technically the passer is defenseless for the remainder of the play after a change of possession. You can still block them, but personal fouls that reference a defenseless player apply to them. In this case the defender is running toward the sideline, but all of his attention is in the direction of the runner. The blocker knows this and is taking full advantage of that by blowing them up like this. There are several other ways he could have made this block and taken the defender out of the play. His intent here was to take him out of the game. Initiating hits with the crown of your helmet are more about protecting the blocker rather than the blockee. You are taking a direct hit to the brain and you could dangerously compress your spinal column.

I haven't gone back to look at the video, but I don't believe this was DJ using this in a promotional video. Wasn't it a local news station social media post? I'm just as critical on the officials if they didn't flag this as I am on him or making this block. They don't get much easier than this.

[Gully]

I'm sure it's illegal by rule now......but in terms of how I've understood the game there was nothing dirty about that hit at all. The guy was in position to make the tackle and was hit hard from the side. The way I was taught the game we even had a play designed where a WR would come in from the side to crack back on a LB and as long as your head was on the front side of the defender, a penalty wasn't called. As defenders we were taught it was your fault if you didn't keep your head on a swivel.

This was just a good football play IMO.

In terms of losing the game we love, from my perspective, it's already largely happened and I don't watch nearly much as I used to because of it.

[OrygunBison]

I'm sure it's illegal by rule now......but in terms of how I've understood the game there was nothing dirty about that hit at all. The guy was in position to make the tackle and was hit hard from the side. The way I was taught the game we even had a play designed where a WR would come in from the side to crack back on a LB and as long as your head was on the front side of the defender, a penalty wasn't called. As defenders we were taught it was your fault if you didn't keep your head on a swivel.

This was just a good football play IMO.

In terms of losing the game we love, from my perspective, it's already largely happened and I don't watch nearly much as I used to because of it.

Whether legal or not, many of the parents that I talk to in Oregon, Michigan, and North Dakota (places I've lived and where I visit with some regularity with people that know about my youth coaching experience) are turned off from the sport from seeing that intense level of violent contact. It doesn't matter whether or not it is technically legal to a concerned mom when she sees it. Unfortunately, I just don't think that it ought to be coveted anymore.

[IndyBison]

I'm sure it's illegal by rule now......but in terms of how I've understood the game there was nothing dirty about that hit at all. The guy was in position to make the tackle and was hit hard from the side. The way I was taught the game we even had a play designed where a WR would come in from the side to crack back on a LB and as long as your head was on the front side of the defender, a penalty wasn't called. As defenders we were taught it was your fault if you didn't keep your head on a swivel.

This was just a good football play IMO.

In terms of losing the game we love, from my perspective, it's already largely happened and I don't watch nearly much as I used to because of it.

I can't imagine there was ever a time where a blocker could lower his head to hit an opponent in the head with the crown of his helmet regardless of whether or not he saw it coming. I wasn't officiating when you played, but if you got that information from your coaches there is a chance it wasn't correct. I hear coaches and players say today you can't have a block in the back if you get your head in front of the defender which has nothing to do with the rule.

With all the head injury issues rules makers have become much smarter on blind side hits, especially blow up hits. Not only could they cause head injuries on the hit or the defender's head hitting the turf. But blows to the body can cause internal organ injury. We had a milder hit of a kid on a similar play a few years ago. Luckily the trainers recognized something wasn't right so they took him to the hospital. It may have saved his life as his spleen had split in half. He was in the hospital for 8 days!

It is very easy for a blocker to take a defender out of the play on plays like this without jeopardizing taking him out of the game or more. Football is already a collision sport that is violent. Unnecessary violence should be removed when possible. Or we will lose this game entirely.

[fmfantasy]

https://www.hudl.com/profile/6326851/DJ-Baptist

In this kids defense we shouldn't judge by that poorly edited clip.... goto this 2018 highlights video and the 1:45 mark you can see the same play develop from the start and a better angle and he clearly puts his left shoulder into the defenders chest. now whether you call him defenseless or not maybe but no helmet to helmet at all.

[IndyBison]

https://www.hudl.com/profile/6326851/DJ-Baptist

In this kids defense we shouldn't judge by that poorly edited clip.... goto this 2018 highlights video and the 1:45 mark you can see the same play develop from the start and a better angle and he clearly puts his left shoulder into the defenders chest. now whether you call him defenseless or not maybe but no helmet to helmet at all.Can't tell for sure from that angle but the defender is defenseless on that situation. Under current NCAA rules this is only a foul if it's targeting. I don't believe it is. Under NFHS rules this is likely an illegal blind side block because he initiated it with his shoulder. You might pass if it isn't forceful but I can't tell for sure how forceful from this distance and angle. He played under NCAA rules so this was likely not a foul.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[56BISON73]

D1 Chipper #1...

Travis Beck INT...

Leevon Perry...

That poor Bearcat didn't have his head on a swivel!

??????????????????

[EC8CH]

??????????????????


http://youtu.be/2FKkmPOzjDk@t=2h43m16s

Keep an eye on the 50 yard line.

[56BISON73]

http://youtu.be/2FKkmPOzjDk@t=2h43m16s

Keep an eye on the 50 yard line.

Any particular timeline???

[bri-dog]

Any particular timeline???

2:43 in on Beck's INT

[56BISON73]

http://youtu.be/2FKkmPOzjDk@t=2h43m16s

Keep an eye on the 50 yard line.

Nice block

[IndyBison]

Nice block

Currently legal in NCAA as it doesn't look like targeting and the defender is not away from the play. Would be a textbook illegal blindside block in NFHS. I expect we'll see that hit become a foul in NCAA in the next couple years. On a play like that it wouldn't take much contact for the defender (originally offensive player turned defender after change of possession) to go down. BTW...that would be a foul in the NFL as well since the blocker is going back toward his own goal line. If you think this kind of hit needs to be a part of football you are OK with the game no longer existing. Because it will be gone if we continue to allow that kind of unnecessary hit.

[westnodak93bison]

Nice blockAnd Larson with the QB keeper to score the TD! Listen to the call

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[56BISON73]

Currently legal in NCAA as it doesn't look like targeting and the defender is not away from the play. Would be a textbook illegal blindside block in NFHS. I expect we'll see that hit become a foul in NCAA in the next couple years. On a play like that it wouldn't take much contact for the defender (originally offensive player turned defender after change of possession) to go down. BTW...that would be a foul in the NFL as well since the blocker is going back toward his own goal line. If you think this kind of hit needs to be a part of football you are OK with the game no longer existing. Because it will be gone if we continue to allow that kind of unnecessary hit.

Its not unnecessary. It was an integral part of the play. Football will only go away when jackasses over regulate the game to the point its not football anymore. Just like your example of a block being illegal if hes going back to his own goal line??? WTF Who in the hell is thinking that when a play is going on? JFC this shit is getting ridiculous.
If you arent willing to play the game the way its supposed to be played then sit out and be a mommas boy and play soccer.

It was still a nice block.

[westnodak93bison]

Yeah, pretty soon its gonna be no 3 point stance and flag football

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Its not unnecessary. It was an integral part of the play. Football will only go away when jackasses over regulate the game to the point its not football anymore. Just like your example of a block being illegal if hes going back to his own goal line??? WTF Who in the hell is thinking that when a play is going on? JFC this shit is getting ridiculous.
If you arent willing to play the game the way its supposed to be played then sit out and be a mommas boy and play soccer.

It was still a nice block.

Yes you can and should block him because he's still very much in the play. What you don't need to do is blow him up like this. If he doesn't see you coming a slight push is sufficient to put him on the ground. I've seen it happen often and it happens to be when I'm trailing a play and someone accidentally bumps me. The other thing you'll notice is if the blocker knows the defender sees him coming he hits him completely different. This is a great example of someone who knows he can blow him up because he doesn't see it coming. Sometimes they look for the guy who doesn't see it coming and blocks him instead of someone who is closer to the runner but would see his hit coming. That's what is changing. It has been the rule in the NFL for several years and they seem to be able to block people.

I did a Google search for legal blind side block videos and this one gives several good example of legal blind side blocks. As you can see each of these takes the defender out of the play but is much less violent than the other examples given. These are actually more common than the blowup hits even in NCAA where the blow up hit is still legal as long as the defender isn't out of the play or it's not targeting. They just don't get glorified like the blow up hit does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Y3qN4BO2k

[Gully]

I can't imagine there was ever a time where a blocker could lower his head to hit an opponent in the head with the crown of his helmet regardless of whether or not he saw it coming. I wasn't officiating when you played, but if you got that information from your coaches there is a chance it wasn't correct. I hear coaches and players say today you can't have a block in the back if you get your head in front of the defender which has nothing to do with the rule.

With all the head injury issues rules makers have become much smarter on blind side hits, especially blow up hits. Not only could they cause head injuries on the hit or the defender's head hitting the turf. But blows to the body can cause internal organ injury. We had a milder hit of a kid on a similar play a few years ago. Luckily the trainers recognized something wasn't right so they took him to the hospital. It may have saved his life as his spleen had split in half. He was in the hospital for 8 days!

It is very easy for a blocker to take a defender out of the play on plays like this without jeopardizing taking him out of the game or more. Football is already a collision sport that is violent. Unnecessary violence should be removed when possible. Or we will lose this game entirely.

They play is so fast and comes into the screen so late I couldn't see if he was hitting with the crown of his helmet.....but I'll take your word for it.

As for "if your head is in front, you can't have a block in the back", that's exactly what our coaches taught us. I'm not sure how everyone's understanding ended up so much different than the rules. It's really is a mystery (seriously) to me.

[Gully]

Yes you can and should block him because he's still very much in the play. What you don't need to do is blow him up like this. If he doesn't see you coming a slight push is sufficient to put him on the ground. I've seen it happen often and it happens to be when I'm trailing a play and someone accidentally bumps me. The other thing you'll notice is if the blocker knows the defender sees him coming he hits him completely different. This is a great example of someone who knows he can blow him up because he doesn't see it coming. Sometimes they look for the guy who doesn't see it coming and blocks him instead of someone who is closer to the runner but would see his hit coming. That's what is changing. It has been the rule in the NFL for several years and they seem to be able to block people.

I did a Google search for legal blind side block videos and this one gives several good example of legal blind side blocks. As you can see each of these takes the defender out of the play but is much less violent than the other examples given. These are actually more common than the blowup hits even in NCAA where the blow up hit is still legal as long as the defender isn't out of the play or it's not targeting. They just don't get glorified like the blow up hit does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Y3qN4BO2k

So you can only hit someone as hard as "necessary"....that's the ultimate judgement call....I guess you're able to hit larger players harder than smaller players then because....it's necessary?

To me the type of hit should cause the penalty, not the force involved. Late hits, out of bounds hits, clipping and today I suppose helmet to helmet (although I still find that crazy) I understand but I always kind of thought about it as you hit people as hard as you can....in CLEAN hits (not those listed above).

Anyway, I'm not arguing the rules or the intent of those running the game, I agree they're attempting to change the game. I'm just saying I preferred it the old way, you know, the way it's been played successfully and with great popularity for decades.

[Vet70]

We might as well cut to the chase and go straight to two-hand touch.

[IndyBison]

They play is so fast and comes into the screen so late I couldn't see if he was hitting with the crown of his helmet.....but I'll take your word for it.

As for "if your head is in front, you can't have a block in the back", that's exactly what our coaches taught us. I'm not sure how everyone's understanding ended up so much different than the rules. It's really is a mystery (seriously) to me.

Gully Gully Gully my friend. How many times have I told you to not get your rules knowledge from announcers or coaches (who probably get most of their rules knowledge from announcers)? I don't believe the block in the back rules ever stated to get your head in front. I know it hasn't in the 20 years I've been doing this. More than likely it's going to be a side block if you do that, but it has no bearing on whether or not it's a foul. It's all based on the location of the contact initiated and the blocker is usually in chase mode. Coaches have a tendency to over simplify rules or misinterpret them, and I get that. But they also create difficult situations for officials because people assume they are wrong when they are actually right.

Another good football example is "play to the whistle." I completely understand why coaches say that. They want their players to play the entire play and not let up. But the down is over when it's over by rule (i.e. runner down, incomplete pass, out of bounds, score). The whistle is only letting everyone know the play has ended. Forward progress situations is kind of exception especially as it relates to late contact. But it still applies if the ball is loose. The official is going to give the runner an opportunity to break out of it, but if he doesn't he's ruling the runner's progress was stopped previously and any loose ball that comes out between that and when the whistle blows is not a fumble. It also won't result in a late hit during that time because it's not obvious to players the play might be over.

The basketball examples I always use are "over the back" and "reaching in." Those are both total announcer/coach fouls and don't exist anywhere in the basketball rule book. As I understand it (I am NOT a basketball official) is what most people consider over the back is actually displacement from behind to reach a rebound. So you can go over someone's back and even make contact to get the rebound as long as you don't displace them in the process. But the foul is not called "over the back." Reaching in is similar but doesn't exist. I believe it involves impeding the progress of the ball handler while making contact.

[IndyBison]

So you can only hit someone as hard as "necessary"....that's the ultimate judgement call....I guess you're able to hit larger players harder than smaller players then because....it's necessary?

To me the type of hit should cause the penalty, not the force involved. Late hits, out of bounds hits, clipping and today I suppose helmet to helmet (although I still find that crazy) I understand but I always kind of thought about it as you hit people as hard as you can....in CLEAN hits (not those listed above).

Anyway, I'm not arguing the rules or the intent of those running the game, I agree they're attempting to change the game. I'm just saying I preferred it the old way, you know, the way it's been played successfully and with great popularity for decades.

There's a difference between hitting someone hard and blowing up someone who doesn't see the hit coming. There are a lot more legal hard hits on the field than illegal ones. It's still a very physical, violent game when you are in the middle of it. It's not that hard of a judgement most of the time. And to our previous point there is no foul for helmet to helmet contact. Any time you initiate forcible contact to an opponent with crown of your helmet (regardless of impact point) it's targeting. And if you forcibly hit a defenseless player above the head and neck with any part of your body (including the helmet) it's targeting. There are many more instances of helmet/helmet contact that not a foul than is a foul. Most OL play involves helmet contact, especially in run blocking. Runners getting tackled up the middle often involves helmets colliding. It's when you use the helmet as part of the tackle where it becomes an issue. Wrap up tackles usually don't result in targeting fouls but Superman hits might.

If you look at most of the illegal blind side blocks in the NFL or NFHS (and I assume eventually in NCAA) they are during change of possession including kicks. There is almost always an element of distance and time between when the blocker sees the defender and then initiates the block. They are usually going in opposite directions or at least opposite angles. The blocker will often pass up a guy who sees him coming to blow up the guy who doesn't see it coming. This wasn't that common back in the day and became glorified with highlight shows and often blamed on SportsCenter (probably somewhat true). They seek that block because it was praised by coaches and often featured on highlight videos. As the video I shared above demonstrates you can accomplish the same thing with a screen block or by initiating the block with your hands rather than your body. Even before the blind side block rule 2 years ago in HS this was more common than the blow up hits, but they still happened. Since most of them happen on change of possession there aren't that many opportunities for them to occur in a game. We maybe see 2 or 3 fouls per season in 12 HS games and not that many more before the change. In my D3 college game they aren't that common either. It will not drastically change the game if the rule is changed. And the players will be safer.

[G_Funky]

We might as well cut to the chase and go straight to two-hand touch.

meh...then you'll just have to deal with people bitching that the "touch" was too much like a "push".

[G_Funky]

This was a viscous, violent hit against a defenseless player. I hope this isn't the type of block he initiates with the Bison.

He also made the effort to stop in at the kid's high school and apologize. Brought a signed jersey from the rest of his teammates. And this wasn't just a normal game, it was also a pretty heated rivalry. So its not like hes some characterless asshole out there looking to cheap shot people. If he had a pattern of these types of blocks I would imagine there would be a compilation out there somewhere...but there's not so it was obviously an anomaly. I mean when I was in high school we didnt apologize to kids after we de-cleated them...we gave out "slobber knocker" awards after each game and put the hits on the end of the year highlight tape.

[Vet70]

meh...then you'll just have to deal with people bitching that the "touch" was too much like a "push".

So, it's "good touch", "bad touch"?

[KilldeerBison]

meh...then you'll just have to deal with people bitching that the "touch" was too much like a "push".

While grabbing the flag, the runners pants were ripped off, with intent to humiliate the runner (too aggressive)?

[IndyBison]

He also made the effort to stop in at the kid's high school and apologize. Brought a signed jersey from the rest of his teammates. And this wasn't just a normal game, it was also a pretty heated rivalry. So its not like hes some characterless asshole out there looking to cheap shot people. If he had a pattern of these types of blocks I would imagine there would be a compilation out there somewhere...but there's not so it was obviously an anomaly. I mean when I was in high school we didnt apologize to kids after we de-cleated them...we gave out "slobber knocker" awards after each game and put the hits on the end of the year highlight tape.

Definitely! Players don't usually do this kind of thing because they are jerks or they are dirty. They are just trying to hit somebody and don't understand the danger (he's just as likely to hurt himself as his opponent with this hit). I definitely wouldn't think less of him because of one illegal hit. When you are on the field you often pick up on the guys that are actually trouble and it's very rarely a surprise when you give the coach a heads up. His teammates will often give it away also. I'll ask the center, "so is #74 often difficult." He usually responds with an eye roll and something like, "he's an idiot and gets in trouble every week." Some guys are just too amped up and don't play with an intelligent filter. It's usually just a matter of time before they do something to get them in trouble. One play usually doesn't define that though.

[VirginiaBison]

Can't this discussion be move to a different thread title vice continuing to carry it on a Recruit Named thread?

[Greta Van Herd]

Can't this discussion be move to a different thread title vice continuing to carry it on a Recruit Named thread?

Ditto. And I nominate that it be christened The Snowflake Football Rules and Refs thread.

[westnodak93bison]

Plays happen so fast that I really doubt most targeting fouls are intentional.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Plays happen so fast that I really doubt most targeting fouls are intentional.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I disagree because most of them involve a player taking several steps to the block or tackle. The intentional part is usually because the defender is trying to hit the defender rather than tackle them. It's not an absolute but for the most part if you try to tackle the runner rather than just hit the runner, you usually don't commit targeting. The really dumb ones are with the crown of the helmet into a guy already on the ground. You don't even need to touch him and can easily avoid that specific contact.

Targeting fouls are intended to change a behavior and get players to tackle rather than hit. I haven't seen data that shows the number of targeting fouls year over year so I have no idea if it's actually working to change that behavior. On blocks most targeting occurs on the blindside hits after a change of possession or the receiver coming back to block on a sweep. If they make those blindside blocks illegal you'll likely see a lot less targeting there as well.

[VirginiaBison]

Can't this discussion be move to a different thread title vice continuing to carry it on a Recruit Named thread?

Guess not. Just wondering how continuing the discussion in the name of DJ Baptist helps retention and recruiting. I guess you all know best. Or personal point scoring is more important that recruiting and retention to BV.

I guess DJ Baptist is supposed to believe that any press is better than no press even when BV folks suggest you created cheap shot.

LET IT GO and CLOSE THIS THREAD! Please.

[gabisonfan]

Guess not. Just wondering how continuing the discussion in the name of DJ Baptist helps retention and recruiting. I guess you all know best. Or personal point scoring is more important that recruiting and retention to BV.

I guess DJ Baptist is supposed to believe that any press is better than no press even when BV folks suggest you created cheap shot.

LET IT GO and CLOSE THIS THREAD! Please.

Amen, this doesn't seem like it would encourage anyone to want to go to Fargo for the next 4 years of their life.

[Bison 4 Life]

Amen, this doesn't seem like it would encourage anyone to want to go to Fargo for the next 4 years of their life.

I'm pretty sure our coaches say "don't look at Bisonville".

This isn't the first or last recruit thread ruined.

[yopaulie]

Yes you can and should block him because he's still very much in the play. What you don't need to do is blow him up like this. If he doesn't see you coming a slight push is sufficient to put him on the ground. I've seen it happen often and it happens to be when I'm trailing a play and someone accidentally bumps me. The other thing you'll notice is if the blocker knows the defender sees him coming he hits him completely different. This is a great example of someone who knows he can blow him up because he doesn't see it coming. Sometimes they look for the guy who doesn't see it coming and blocks him instead of someone who is closer to the runner but would see his hit coming. That's what is changing. It has been the rule in the NFL for several years and they seem to be able to block people.

I did a Google search for legal blind side block videos and this one gives several good example of legal blind side blocks. As you can see each of these takes the defender out of the play but is much less violent than the other examples given. These are actually more common than the blowup hits even in NCAA where the blow up hit is still legal as long as the defender isn't out of the play or it's not targeting. They just don't get glorified like the blow up hit does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6Y3qN4BO2k

I'll start by saying I am concerned about my son playing tackle football with all we know, especially when he gets older...that said...

I watched the video, and I think the challenge I and others on here have, is that the more penalties are based on degree of force used, it makes penalties much more of a subjective call than an objective one. If your block sends someone back a yard is that too harsh?, two yards? To the ground? Or are you trying judge intent? What if in the videos the runners had cut or circled back and the lightly blocked player then made the tackle...the coach will tell their players to block harder the next time. It just seems like there is so much more subjectivity in rules for refs which leads to inconsistency and refs impacting game outcomes on really gray area judgments. For example, how many actual non-aggregious (I realize that's not a rulebook term) hits on the qb were personal foul flags this year in the nfl - I saw quite a few and they were sometimes game deciders.

[56BISON73]

Guess not. Just wondering how continuing the discussion in the name of DJ Baptist helps retention and recruiting. I guess you all know best. Or personal point scoring is more important that recruiting and retention to BV.

I guess DJ Baptist is supposed to believe that any press is better than no press even when BV folks suggest you created cheap shot.

LET IT GO and CLOSE THIS THREAD! Please.

Do you really think that recruits come to BV to find out what fans think of them? Do you really think that BV plays a role in our player and recruit retention???? Seriously?

[IndyBison]

I'll start by saying I am concerned about my son playing tackle football with all we know, especially when he gets older...that said...

I watched the video, and I think the challenge I and others on here have, is that the more penalties are based on degree of force used, it makes penalties much more of a subjective call than an objective one. If your block sends someone back a yard is that too harsh?, two yards? To the ground? Or are you trying judge intent? What if in the videos the runners had cut or circled back and the lightly blocked player then made the tackle...the coach will tell their players to block harder the next time. It just seems like there is so much more subjectivity in rules for refs which leads to inconsistency and refs impacting game outcomes on really gray area judgments. For example, how many actual non-aggregious (I realize that's not a rulebook term) hits on the qb were personal foul flags this year in the nfl - I saw quite a few and they were sometimes game deciders.There is no rule against blocking hard. Many blocks are hard. The issue is blowing up a guy who doesn't see it coming. There is some judgement there but it's not a very difficult one. NFHS addressed it by saying blind side blocks have to lead with your hands. Pretty easy to see if you lead with the hands. The video avoids the blocker clearly takes several steps, lowers his head and hits a defenseless player directly in the ear hole with the crown of his helmet. Not much judgment needed there.

Football is still legally a very violent sport. I see it all the time on the field. Normal tackles are painful. But blowing up a guy who doesn't see it coming is unnecessarily violent. You can "what if" all day but if your solution is to attempt to sever his spleen then I don't know what to tell you. If a runner circles back into an area he has already left and nobody is there to block that defender that's on them.

I agree this conversation should go on some other thread. DJ will likely be an excellent addition to the Bison and hopefully have a great career. We shouldn't tarnish his commitment thread with rule talk.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Christopher Moen]

As I have said before about Baptist after the first time I saw his highlight video, "Pretty physical and violent for a WR!!!" Regardless if the block was illegal or not, the coaching staff will get him ready for rules of the game. However, I love how he plays, especially in regards to how he fights for the ball. I don't expect to see this guy gator-arming a pass when a hard hit is imminent, but rather him catching the ball while doling out punishment towards anyone trying to prevent him from making the play. I think his physical style of play will fit well for a Bison player.

[Gully]

Gully Gully Gully my friend. How many times have I told you to not get your rules knowledge from announcers or coaches

A lot. You do tend to repeat yourself. I'm not arguing the rule, I'm simply stating that's what our coaches taught us. Were you there during my practice?

[3Putt]

Do you really think that recruits come to BV to find out what fans think of them? Do you really think that BV plays a role in our player and recruit retention???? Seriously?

Google "DJ Baptist" and see where this thread shows up. It was the second page of results for me and the first page from Bing. It's not too big a jump to a player finding a thread about them.

[Vet70]

Google "DJ Baptist" and see where this thread shows up. It was the second page of results for me and the first page from Bing. It's not too big a jump to a player finding a thread about them.

This is why everyone should stay away from all social media.

[VirginiaBison]

Do you really think that recruits come to BV to find out what fans think of them? Do you really think that BV plays a role in our player and recruit retention???? Seriously? Yep! They don't have to come to BV. Their friends will find this stuff and just spread it around. That's what social media is all about.... face time. If they don't see stuff written about them, their friend do and post it to them.... you have to live in a closet without any life to not know that recruits don't see what social media is saying about them.

[56BISON73]

Yep! They don't have to come to BV. Their friends will find this stuff and just spread it around. That's what social media is all about.... face time. If they don't see stuff written about them, their friend do and post it to them.... you have to live in a closet without any life to not know that recruits don't see what social media is saying about them.

Since I dont stalk recruits I guess Im not in that loop.

But I think you are doing a lot of assuming. Not only about him coming to BV but his friends also????

As questioned before I seriously doubt that whats said on BV has any bearing on our recruits. Plus thinking that BV has any bearing on the retention of players is pretty far fetched as well.

[NEBison]

Yep! They don't have to come to BV. Their friends will find this stuff and just spread it around. That's what social media is all about.... face time. If they don't see stuff written about them, their friend do and post it to them.... you have to live in a closet without any life to not know that recruits don't see what social media is saying about them.

I'm pretty active on twitter and have never seen a post from Bisonville about a recruit on there.

[G_Funky]

Yep! They don't have to come to BV. Their friends will find this stuff and just spread it around. That's what social media is all about.... face time. If they don't see stuff written about them, their friend do and post it to them.... you have to live in a closet without any life to not know that recruits don't see what social media is saying about them.

Okay lets say said scenario plays out...and he comes and checks the thread. What is he going to find? A bunch of anonymous posts about whether or not his block was legal. It already went viral...like big time...you think a bunch of people arguing among themselves is going to be the worst he's seen or heard? This is a public forum designed to provide a platform for people with similar interests to discuss those interests. I would actually find it a little bizarre if there wasn't a thread related to his block as it's entirely relevant.

No one has judged his character or insulted the kid personally so there's really nothing to see here.

[MAKBison]

Okay lets say said scenario plays out...and he comes and checks the thread. What is he going to find? A bunch of anonymous posts about whether or not his block was legal. It already went viral...like big time...you think a bunch of people arguing among themselves is going to be the worst he's seen or heard? This is a public forum designed to provide a platform for people with similar interests to discuss those interests. I would actually find it a little bizarre if there wasn't a thread related to his block as it's entirely relevant.

No one has judged his character or insulted the kid personally so there's really nothing to see here.

G if I remember correctly you were a former player at SU correct? just saying your perspective might be a bit more relevant on this than others.