Blocking Penalties??

[NorthernBison]

Last play of the first quarter, if you have the game recorded, Griz ball...flare pass to #7 right of the QB...watch the "chop block" there. But thats near the line of scrimmage, so thats a legal block. Now, what group of morons made this rule that complicated? Did any of them ever play football?

That was a legal block. First of all, a chop block is something completely different but you probably know that based on the parenthesis.

The play you referenced included a block below the waist. What made it legal is that it was delivered AWAY from where the ball was snapped. Toward the adjacent sideline.

The block we got flagged for was thrown toward the center of the field. It's basically a crack back type block.

I've seen some debate about whether it was above the waist. My response is that you're getting flagged on that whenever you throw your body at the defender at what you think is the waist. BTW, the hip is below the waist so unless you contact higher it will get flagged.

You know, I'm not debating this to "win". What concerns me is the regularity we are drawing these flags. Unless our staff coaches up techniques, we will see more of them and it could eventually cost the team dearly. The officials are not going to change how they call the game.

[bloodmakesthegrassgrow]

I'll have to look at it again, I didn't think his hand/fingers were inside the jersey. The ref was absolutely right on the play.

Ok, after watching it several times in slo mo, he grabs the center of the jersey. Naturally the jersey pulls down at the center of the back of the neck. If you don't follow the play all the way down it looks like he has a finger inside the jersey (since the jersey is stretched down in the center), but as the play continues and both players head down, the camera angle becomes more clear, more profile, and you see that his hand is something like 4 to 6 inches below the neck opening. At least that's the way I see it.

[A1pigskin]

Why was there a penalty called on Littlejohn when the replay reversed the spearing?

[bloodmakesthegrassgrow]

Why was there a penalty called on Littlejohn when the replay reversed the spearing?

Apparently they called two penalties, a targeting and a personal foul for ripping the helmet off. The replay overturned the targeting but left in place the personal foul.

[IndyBison]

Apparently they called two penalties, a targeting and a personal foul for ripping the helmet off. The replay overturned the targeting but left in place the personal foul.

I didn't see the play, but there is a rule change this year regarding targeting. If it is done in conjunction with another foul (typically roughing the passer, kick catch interference, or late hit) then announce both fouls. If replay determines it wasn't targeting the other penalty is still enforced. If it was only targeting then no penalty will be enforced. That is a big improvement over last year.

The low blocking rules are too complex to explain easily but surprisingly they are much simpler now than they were 3-5 years ago. The general sense though is low blocks by interior linemen are legal from the front or side while the ball is in the low blocking zone. Once the ball leaves then all low blocks must be at 10-to-2 think clock) of the player being blocked. The idea being he can see the block coming. The whole "adjacent sideline" thing went away last year.

[B. b. bison]

I didn't see the play, but there is a rule change this year regarding targeting. If it is done in conjunction with another foul (typically roughing the passer, kick catch interference, or late hit) then announce both fouls. If replay determines it wasn't targeting the other penalty is still enforced. If it was only targeting then no penalty will be enforced. That is a big improvement over last year.

Is there a preferred way to announce this so it's clear there are two fouls? This is what the ref announced (punctuation my own):
"Personal foul, targeting with the crown of the helmet. Defense number 38. Half the distance to the goal. 1st down. By rule, number 38 is disqualified from the game. The previous play is under further review"
"After further review, it's been ruled that there was not targeting. However, there was a personal foul that puts the ball half the distance to the goal. 1st down and goal to go. Number 38 is not disqualified."

Is the first announcement supposed to be read as: 'There was a personal foul and there was also targeting'? Is there anything that distinguishes that announcement from the announcement for a targeting foul without an additional personal foul?

Just trying to understand how this works. Thanks.

[td577]

My only problem with the blocking below the waist penalty on the bubble screen is that those plays are generally gone over with the refs before the game. If there was an issue about the blocking scheme, the refs should have let the coaches know then.

[IndyBison]

Is there a preferred way to announce this so it's clear there are two fouls? This is what the ref announced (punctuation my own):
"Personal foul, targeting with the crown of the helmet. Defense number 38. Half the distance to the goal. 1st down. By rule, number 38 is disqualified from the game. The previous play is under further review"
"After further review, it's been ruled that there was not targeting. However, there was a personal foul that puts the ball half the distance to the goal. 1st down and goal to go. Number 38 is not disqualified."

Is the first announcement supposed to be read as: 'There was a personal foul and there was also targeting'? Is there anything that distinguishes that announcement from the announcement for a targeting foul without an additional personal foul?

Just trying to understand how this works. Thanks.

Referees are supposed to announce both fouls. For example, "Roughing the passer with targeting" or "Kick catching interference with targeting". There are several types of personal fouls including targeting. Others are late hit, unnecessary roughness, horse collar tackle, and facemask. If he didn't say what the other personal foul was he probably should have.

My only problem with the blocking below the waist penalty on the bubble screen is that those plays are generally gone over with the refs before the game. If there was an issue about the blocking scheme, the refs should have let the coaches know then.

Any low blocks on a bubble screen are designed to be legal. Execution of those blocks are not always legal. A bubble screen is a pretty standard play so it would be unlikely to come up in the pre-game discussion. We usually hear about some odd double pass play, unbalanced line, or swinging gate formation.

[Bison"FANatic"]

I didn't see the play, but there is a rule change this year regarding targeting. If it is done in conjunction with another foul (typically roughing the passer, kick catch interference, or late hit) then announce both fouls. If replay determines it wasn't targeting the other penalty is still enforced. If it was only targeting then no penalty will be enforced. That is a big improvement over last year.

The low blocking rules are too complex to explain easily but surprisingly they are much simpler now than they were 3-5 years ago. The general sense though is low blocks by interior linemen are legal from the front or side while the ball is in the low blocking zone. Once the ball leaves then all low blocks must be at 10-to-2 think clock) of the player being blocked. The idea being he can see the block coming. The whole "adjacent sideline" thing went away last year.

Did it stay the same on who can block low or is that limited by the position presnap on the field still.

[td577]

Any low blocks on a bubble screen are designed to be legal. Execution of those blocks are not always legal. A bubble screen is a pretty standard play so it would be unlikely to come up in the pre-game discussion. We usually hear about some odd double pass play, unbalanced line, or swinging gate formation.

Thanks for the info.