Snowflake football rules

[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"?