2022 NCAA Football Rules Changes

[JacketFan137]

Not the same mechanism of injury, sorry. It's just not. Chop blocking is generally from the side, not straight on. Chop blocking is done when the player is already engaged high, defenseless, with an inability to disengage to protect themselves. Chop blocks are generally not expected (because they're illegal) so the player never sees it coming. All are reasons why there is no comparison between cut blocking and chop blocking.

Any time you make contact with a vulnerable joint there is risk for injury. Football is an inherently dangerous sport. I would posit that cut blocking is no more dangerous than any other type of blocking. Pancake blocks have the player thrown to the ground and then the blocker fall on him.

i’m sorry but this is just not something i can agree with based on experience in the field. getting hit in the knees is inherently more dangerous than most any tackle. our bodies are built to sustain impact from like mid thigh to your chest/shoulders, not the knee and below.

while yes, a chop block is more likely to hit the side of your knees, guys running full speed across the field to hit you in the knees will never be safe.

is it the only cause of injury in football. no. no one has made that argument, but in the grand scheme of things the game can be played with or without those blocks and still go on and largely look the same. because the negatives far outweigh the positives this is a rule change that makes logical sense.

At issue here is that it gives a pretty sizable competitive advantage to the factories that can recruit all world OL/DL. By eliminating the equalizer that was smaller linemen utilizing cut blocks in a zone scheme, it forces schools to play their smaller OL straight up against the bigger DL. In the absence of any real data suggesting a correlation between cut blocks and increased injury probability, this seems an ill informed decision that could hurt any chance of competitive balance between the top tier of P5 and everyone else...

at the same time i could make the argument that this is protecting the smaller teams by not allowing them to be cut blocked by larger offensive lineman/TEs/WR.

i can see how this could be seen as a slight for the smaller teams but overall it is pretty clearly intentioned for safety. while no data has been presented as i don’t think anyone has really gone out of the way to conduct the research one way or the other, logically thinking about human anatomy and physiology makes it pretty obvious that getting hit in the knees is inherently dangerous and not something humans have evolved to withstand. if that were the case there would be a lot more padding on your knees and ligaments would be vascularized

 

[slugboy]

At 190 lbs, practically the only way I'm going to block a 300 LB DT or even a 250 lb LB is a cut block. So, the 300 lb player is less likely to get injured, but the risk is getting moved to the 190 lb player.

 

[takethepoints]

if we still ran the option that blocking rule would present a major problem

It might. Looking at it, it depends own how the rules are enforced. The main thing is that an option team would need bigger ABs and WRs (no more Bostics or Zenons, alas, but a Godhigh would do fine), but that is already the way the academies are going due to rules already in place. OL blocking wouldn't be effected all that much, again depending on how the refs enforce the rules.

Enforcement is always the big issue. Holding is still a penalty, but the general enforcement of it is that you can hold on every play as long as you don't a) actually tackle the opposing player or b) grab an arm as they go by you and the ref is right on top of you. Lock their arms up "by accident", sure. Push them with your arms extended, sure. Result = teaching OLs to block has become Italian soccer practice; i.e. you train the OLs to break the rules. Except for option teams, of course; they actually, you know, HIT people.

If the refs enforce the blocking rules as written, then the option teams won't have that big a problem. If they are trying to stop cut blocking, then they will, but so will everyone else. Then it will descend into the kind of problems we now have with targeting penalties.

 

[JacketFan137]

At 190 lbs, practically the only way I'm going to block a 300 LB DT or even a 250 lb LB is a cut block. So, the 300 lb player is less likely to get injured, but the risk is getting moved to the 190 lb player.

the way this rule is set up i don’t think this is a realistic scenario to get a penalty. a DT isn’t really likely to end up outside the tackle box anyway and assuming you’re a 190 lb scat back you will be blocking that guy in pass pro where you will be within the rules to cut him. if you’re a receiver being put in a situation to block a dt you need to ask your OC why you are in that position before you go complain that it’s a penalty now haha

as far as the linebacker example you could run into that scenario but unfortunately that’s just sports in general. some guys are big some aren’t. if i’m a 6’8 forward and i have to go up against embiid/gianni/shaq and the only way to stop him is fouling him then that’s just something the coach has to adjust for unfortunately

 

[JacketFan137]

It might. Looking at it, it depends own how the rules are enforced. The main thing is that an option team would need bigger ABs and WRs (no more Bostics or Zenons, alas, but a Godhigh would do fine), but that is already the way the academies are going due to rules already in place. OL blocking wouldn't be effected all that much, again depending on how the refs enforce the rules.

Enforcement is always the big issue. Holding is still a penalty, but the general enforcement of it is that you can hold on every play as long as you don't a) actually tackle the opposing player or b) grab an arm as they go by you and the ref is right on top of you. Lock their arms up "by accident", sure. Push them with your arms extended, sure. Result = teaching OLs to block has become Italian soccer practice; i.e. you train the OLs to break the rules. Except for option teams, of course; they actually, you know, HIT people.

If the refs enforce the blocking rules as written, then the option teams won't have that big a problem. If they are trying to stop cut blocking, then they will, but so will everyone else. Then it will descend into the kind of problems we now have with targeting penalties.

they could figure it out eventually i’m sure. shanahan and their family has had to in the nfl as the rule changes effected their ability to run their zone runs. would probably just mean your coaches have to re evaluate what they look for in the athletes they put on the field. prioritize bigger and thicker guys rather than small speedsters etc. but i think initially we’d have to go to the drawing board to figure it out and i don’t think it would happen overnight

 

[takethepoints]

One of my favorite books is Duncan Watts's Everything Is Obvious (Once You Know the Answer). (Haven't read it? Do that at once.) The main story in the book is that the kind of "common sense" arguments we hear about cut blocking and knee injuries are almost always wrong. Common sense is very useful in everyday life and we tend to believe it is just as useful a tool when talking about large scale behavior. It isn't. Repeat: it isn't. Large scale behavior - like, say, football games -and their results are always an emergent process. The only way to make useful decisions about them is to collect data and see what it tells us. Sometimes - rarely - common sense wins out. Usually, we find that what our common sense tells us just plain wrong. And, now that we have football games on film at every level, saying that the data can't be collected is indefensible.

Ok, I know I'm preaching to the choir here so I'll stop. But major rule changes to a sport due to supposed injury dangers that aren't supported by data are, imho, just plain silly.

 

[Vespid]

i know it’s not the same thing but the mechanism of injury is still the same meaning either way the guy is getting hit in the knees. i don’t want to doxx myself because of some people on this site worry me but this is something i have a lot of education and experience with. if you walk into any physical therapist’s office i can promise you they will say any hitting around the knees is very dangerous regardless of if it’s a tackle, cut block, chop block whatever.

these rules are coming in cause anything that can be done to limit contact to the knees is a good thing as far as player safety is concerned

BS. Unless they legislate away tackling below the waist, any claims that curtailing cut blocking is done in the interest of player safety is disingenuous at best.

 

[takethepoints]

they could figure it out eventually i’m sure. shanahan and their family has had to in the nfl as the rule changes effected their ability to run their zone runs. would probably just mean your coaches have to re evaluate what they look for in the athletes they put on the field. prioritize bigger and thicker guys rather than small speedsters etc. but i think initially we’d have to go to the drawing board to figure it out and i don’t think it would happen overnight

I bet Paul or Moncken or Calhoun could tell you what to do in a week. Changing the players might take a bit longer, but I think the active option coaches have pretty much all done that already.

 

[JacketFan137]

BS. Unless they legislate away tackling below the waist, any claims that curtailing cut blocking is done in the interest of player safety is disingenuous at best.

idk man i don’t think everything has to be laced with conspiracy against the option and smaller schools. this is a pretty large scale change happening at every level of ncaa football, including g5 fcs. there’s really no need for the option to be phased out of football so it’s kind of a wild assumption to assume this is strictly done with ulterior motives.

this is also kind of a bad point to make because tackling and blocking are two fundamentally different things and in different situations.

you will be flagged for roughing the passer if you hit the qb low in the pocket. this is because like the cut blocks that have been made a penalty, these hits are likely to be blindsides and are a SAFETY issue. in the open field i think they recognize that this is nearly impossible to regulate as well as the fact this isn’t really an efficient way to tackle someone to begin with. the ball carrier will have a lot more freedom to avoid the tackler and can influence the way they are hit. that’s not always gonna be the case with a block

 

[bobongo]

At 190 lbs, practically the only way I'm going to block a 300 LB DT or even a 250 lb LB is a cut block. So, the 300 lb player is less likely to get injured, but the risk is getting moved to the 190 lb player.

Good point.

 

[Pointer]

I would be much more open to these rules changes if there was actually data to back it up.

I ask you all, how many players did we lose on defense when we ran the option due to cut blocking? How many opponents' players were lost? Same two questions for any other option teams, or Wake Forest for that matter.

It just doesn't make sense period. Rule makers need to back it up with actual relevant data, or let it go. Teams running the schemes relying on cut blocking and teams playing them give you data that show it's not any more dangerous.

 

[bobongo]

I would be much more open to these rules changes if there was actually data to back it up.

I ask you all, how many players did we lose on defense when we ran the option due to cut blocking? How many opponents' players were lost? Same two questions for any other option teams, or Wake Forest for that matter.

It just doesn't make sense period. Rule makers need to back it up with actual relevant data, or let it go. Teams running the schemes relying on cut blocking and teams playing them give you data that show it's not any more dangerous.

Seems there was one guy Clemson made some spurious claim of having been injured by a cut block. Anyone remember any particulars of that? I may be confusing it with something else in my foggy recollection...

 

[Pointer]

Seems there was one guy Clemson made some spurious claim to have been injured by a cut block. Anyone remember any particulars of that?

Also the Kentucky bowl game from 2016, then the replay showed it was his own teammate that hit him lol.

 

[bobongo]

Also the Kentucky bowl game from 2016, then the replay showed it was his own teammate that hit him lol.

But the lack of documented injuries didn't stop opposing coaches from carping about cut blocks. A convenient excuse for their defenses being shredded.

 

[forensicbuzz]

i’m sorry but this is just not something i can agree with based on experience in the field. getting hit in the knees is inherently more dangerous than most any tackle. our bodies are built to sustain impact from like mid thigh to your chest/shoulders, not the knee and below.

while yes, a chop block is more likely to hit the side of your knees, guys running full speed across the field to hit you in the knees will never be safe.

is it the only cause of injury in football. no. no one has made that argument, but in the grand scheme of things the game can be played with or without those blocks and still go on and largely look the same. because the negatives far outweigh the positives this is a rule change that makes logical sense.


at the same time i could make the argument that this is protecting the smaller teams by not allowing them to be cut blocked by larger offensive lineman/TEs/WR.

i can see how this could be seen as a slight for the smaller teams but overall it is pretty clearly intentioned for safety. while no data has been presented as i don’t think anyone has really gone out of the way to conduct the research one way or the other, logically thinking about human anatomy and physiology makes it pretty obvious that getting hit in the knees is inherently dangerous and not something humans have evolved to withstand. if that were the case there would be a lot more padding on your knees and ligaments would be vascularized

You’re creating a straw man argument. Almost no one gets hit in the knees in open field cut blocks. Defensive players use their hands to keep the defender from their legs and if blocker does get through, the defender is off the ground so there is no resistance to the contact (hence no injuries). I played DB. We were taught how to protect yourself. That’s why you see up-down drills.

If open field cut blocking was as inherently dangerous as you say, the data would show it. It doesn’t. Chop blocks are also more dangerous because the cleated are engaged when contact is made. Just does not happen often in the open field.

This is my last comment on this.

 

[g0lftime]

I would be much more open to these rules changes if there was actually data to back it up.

I ask you all, how many players did we lose on defense when we ran the option due to cut blocking? How many opponents' players were lost? Same two questions for any other option teams, or Wake Forest for that matter.

It just doesn't make sense period. Rule makers need to back it up with actual relevant data, or let it go. Teams running the schemes relying on cut blocking and teams playing them give you data that show it's not any more dangerous.

What happened to the natural versus artificial turf debate several years ago. Supposedly artificial caused more knee injuries. I think studies ultimately didn't support that theory.

 

[Pointer]

What happened to the natural versus artificial turf debate several years ago. Supposedly artificial caused more knee injuries. I think studies ultimately didn't support that theory.

I don't know about knees, but turf sure messed up ligaments in my foot from a soccer league I played. Granted there were two types of turf, one that has the newer loose grass with the plastic/rubber pellets and an older carpet style. The older carpet style field is where my foot got messed up.

 

[JacketFan137]

You’re creating a straw man argument. Almost no one gets hit in the knees in open field cut blocks. Defensive players use their hands to keep the defender from their legs and if blocker does get through, the defender is off the ground so there is no resistance to the contact (hence no injuries). I played DB. We were taught how to protect yourself. That’s why you see up-down drills.

If open field cut blocking was as inherently dangerous as you say, the data would show it. It doesn’t. Chop blocks are also more dangerous because the cleated are engaged when contact is made. Just does not happen often in the open field.

This is my last comment on this.

while you have called my argument a straw man you have created an unrealistic scenario yourself. yes, in a perfect world everyone uses their hands and no one takes the shot to the knees but as one article posted said players are getting sloppy with that because they don’t practice defending the cut as it’s just opening up players to get injured. these are college kids who are prone to mistakes i don’t expect everyone to just flawlessly defend it every time. also regardless of where the cut block is, it’s just more likely to see you hit below the knees than you would in a regular block. by your logic we don’t need to make horse collars, clipping, and other penalties illegal because not every horse collar and clip is gonna be the dangerous kind.

while there is no study that states they result in injuries (and no study conducted that says it’s safe either) common sense and medical knowledge would tell you it’s not very safe to get hit in the knees with someone’s full weight on you. while this isn’t every time it’s gonna happen a whole lot more when cutting is legal than other wise. i pretend to be a know it all on here all the time and i’m largely unqualified but this is the one thing i can confidently speak on with qualifications.

we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree

 

[forensicbuzz]

while you have called my argument a straw man you have created an unrealistic scenario yourself. yes, in a perfect world everyone uses their hands and no one takes the shot to the knees but as one article posted said players are getting sloppy with that because they don’t practice defending the cut as it’s just opening up players to get injured. these are college kids who are prone to mistakes i don’t expect everyone to just flawlessly defend it every time. also regardless of where the cut block is, it’s just more likely to see you hit below the knees than you would in a regular block. by your logic we don’t need to make horse collars, clipping, and other penalties illegal because not every horse collar and clip is gonna be the dangerous kind.

while there is no study that states they result in injuries (and no study conducted that says it’s safe either) common sense and medical knowledge would tell you it’s not very safe to get hit in the knees with someone’s full weight on you. while this isn’t every time it’s gonna happen a whole lot more when cutting is legal than other wise. i pretend to be a know it all on here all the time and i’m largely unqualified but this is the one thing i can confidently speak on with qualifications.

we’re just gonna have to agree to disagree

The unrealistic scenario I created is the exact scenario that occurs every day on the football field. If this were an issue, the injury rate would be so high as to drive change long ago. It's okay that we disagree. I'm not disagreeing that hyperextending knees is bad for the joint, that happened to me in HS (not a cut block, but taking on a blocker that was 75 pounds heavier than me in a stupid drill of DBs vs. OL). Our shoulder pads met and my left knee hyperextended because his mass and velocity was greater than mine. I thank curse coaches every morning for bad drills that hurt smaller players. My comment is that it happens rarely and that's because it's not any more dangerous than most other blocks. The data just doesn't support it.

I commented again because I had some bourbon on the flight home and I had what I felt was relevant information to add. I do not think it will change your mind, but I'm not trying to.

 

[g0lftime]

FB is just a game with a high potential for injuries of all types. Big strong and fast guys colliding and often at full speed. Amazing there aren't more injuries. Now long term delayed problems are being identified. It's a very violent sport. I support most of the targeting calls but some are not correctly applied.