"Block below the waist" on the Thomas Run

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,125
I watched this replay over and over, and this was just a terrible call. Deon Hill's helmet and shoulder pads were in front of the guy when he dove. The VT player stiff armed his helmet, high stepped, and lost his balance to fall. The ref that was right behind the play didn't throw the flag, so I'm not sure where it came from, but I can't imagine you'd have a better vantage point than that. Awful...

...but who cares...we won!!! GO JACKETS!
 

orientalnc

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,848
The announcers on TV said the down-field block below the waist cannot be from the back or side. It has to be from the front. I hated what happened, but that was a good call. And, a dangerous block.

From the College Football Foundation website:
Here is the new rule. Imagine a zone that extends seven yards from the snapper toward each sideline, goes five yards into the defensive secondary and in the other direction goes all the way back to the offensive team’s end line. Before a change of possession a back who is stationary inside the tackle box and a lineman inside the seven-yard zone may legally block below the waist inside this zone until the ball has left it. Everyone else on the offensive team may legally block below the waist only if the block is clearly to the front of the opponent. This only-from-the-front rule also holds true for everyone on the offensive team once the ball has left the zone. In addition no one on the offense is allowed to block below the waist if the block is directed toward his own end line.
 

Towaliga

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
671
The announcers on TV said the down-field block below the waist cannot be from the back or side. It has to be from the front. I hated what happened, but that was a good call. And, a dangerous block.

When the TV crew interviewed an ACC representative, he made the comment about not blocking from the back or side. However, that is the rule for a block in the back, but what was called was a block below the waist. I'm too lazy to go look to see if that verbiage is applicable to a block below the waist as well, but I don't think so. Therefore, it almost sounded like the on-air official was trying to cover up for a bad call by referencing something that is not applicable to the call. I could be wrong (I often am, just ask my wife).
 

orientalnc

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,848
Towaliga: Learn to use the QUOTE feature. I don't completely disagree with your comment, but I did not write all of that.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
Specifically, the on-air ref said that a block below the waist has to occur between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock on the defender. Whether it was Hill's intention to perform a cut block or not, it sure appeared to me that he blocked below the waist and it definitely wasn't between 10 & 2 on the defender. So I personally didn't think it was a bad call. Hurt like crap to see that TD called back though.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
The block wasn't below the waist till the defender stiff armed Hill and pushed him below the waist. Was a bad call IMO. But I can see why it looked like a foul live. Unfortunate call but understandable too.
 

Animal02

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,054
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Specifically, the on-air ref said that a block below the waist has to occur between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock on the defender. Whether it was Hill's intention to perform a cut block or not, it sure appeared to me that he blocked below the waist and it definitely wasn't between 10 & 2 on the defender. So I personally didn't think it was a bad call. Hurt like crap to see that TD called back though.
Especially when he could have just run a little interference and JT would still have scored
 

GlennW

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,189
It was a bad call. Hill's block wasn't BELOW the waist when it was initiated (nor was it in the back), it was on, or just above, the waist.

Anyone knows that when a blocker engages someone in said block, they can:

1) lose their own "traction" or position they may begin to fall, which will, naturally force the position of the block either up, or down; or

2) the blocker will be engaged, themself, by the defender, who will try to remove the blocker, and they can push the block either up, or down, from where it was initiated.

In the case in point, what happened, the block was at the waist line (not below it), but the defender was moving away and defending the block with his hands, deflecting it down while he was turning away so he could continue chasing Justin as he blew past him.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,259
It looked to me like Hill's INTENTION was to go low, he went low, he was well down the field running full tilt next to the guy near the boundary. I feel strongly it was the right call. The worst part was, all he needed to do was push the pursuer's shoulder pad a little and he wasn't catching JT. If he could get his helmet a little in front, then he was in position to block him legally up high. I understand why he blocked the way he did at the spur of the moment. I mean, these guys are always working on the cut block in space. It is probably just instinct at this point.
 

Eric

Retired Co-Founder
Staff member
Messages
12,734
Watching the replay...I give props to Hill on the effort. Right or wrong call...showed a lot of effort...didn't know he had that speed either.
 

ybeenormal

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
405
I thought maybe JT might be a step slower after that play. He looked like he had already played a 6 quarter game. But he went into beast mode and even turned it up a few notches. I hate that questionable penalty deflated him even if it was just a little.
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,259
I thought maybe JT might be a step slower after that play. He looked like he had already played a 6 quarter game. But he went into beast mode and even turned it up a few notches. I hate that questionable penalty deflated him even if it was just a little.
No doubt in my mind JT was gassed at the end of the game. This run was a factor. Just think, most RBs would be exhausted after a 165 yard day (with 40 yards called back) and they don't even have to scramble around or handle the ball on plays when they don't run.
 

GTJackets

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
574
Location
Moncks Corner, South Carolina
My question about that call is how many of us would have held a "cut the ref some slack", "it's a tough call to make in real time", or even "I think it was the right call" attitude if we lost the game by less than a TD? I suspect this thread has a slightly different flavor if the boys don't pull it out.

Thankfully they fought through for the win and we don't have to worry about it. Just a thought as I was reading through the replies.
 

GTJake

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,769
Location
Boise, Idaho
Is this penalty a modification of the old "clipping" penalty, illegal to block below the waist and from behind ?

I thought it was a bad call, may have had my gold colored glasses on though.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
It looked to me like Hill's INTENTION was to go low, he went low, he was well down the field running full tilt next to the guy near the boundary. I feel strongly it was the right call. The worst part was, all he needed to do was push the pursuer's shoulder pad a little and he wasn't catching JT. If he could get his helmet a little in front, then he was in position to block him legally up high. I understand why he blocked the way he did at the spur of the moment. I mean, these guys are always working on the cut block in space. It is probably just instinct at this point.
Those were my thoughts as well but you stated it better than I did. Regardless, it was nice to see the play break for a long gain like that. No doubt it affected Bud Foster's psyche and I think it forced him to alter his defense to try and stop the runs outside a bit more.
 

LongforDodd

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,728
The block wasn't below the waist till the defender stiff armed Hill and pushed him below the waist. Was a bad call IMO. But I can see why it looked like a foul live. Unfortunate call but understandable too.
I think it was clear, while watching in slow motion, that Hill intended to block below the waist all along. Sure, the defender pushed on him downwards but Hill's head was already at a point where the defender could push down on Hill's head...because Hill intended to block him below the waist and had committed to doing so.
 
Top