Illegal block penalties vs Vandy

[presjacket]

My apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere. Please point me there if it has been.

I was at the game and the ref's mic wasn't working. The play by play on the gameday app just said "illegal block". What were the calls on the field for the back to back penalties? Were they good calls? I couldn't tell from the replay in the stadium. CPJ was giving the ref an earful after the first call. I didn't notice on the 2nd one.

 

[Dustman]

My apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere. Please point me there if it has been.

I was at the game and the ref's mic wasn't working. The play by play on the gameday app just said "illegal block". What were the calls on the field for the back to back penalties? Were they good calls? I couldn't tell from the replay in the stadium. CPJ was giving the ref an earful after the first call. I didn't notice on the 2nd one.

The second one was a chop block. Mills cut a guy on the edge that was being blocked by someone else. I have no idea what they saw on the first one.

 

[deeeznutz]

First call I'm not sure got a replay so I couldn't tell if it was legit (announcers called it as a chop block), but the second appeared to be legit. It looked like Mills (I think it was the BB, but not 100% it was Mills) tried to cut a guy who the tackle was already engaging. They were both pretty much coming at the guy from the front so it wasn't as dangerous as a lot you see but still illegal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dustman]

We were first and 20 after the first penalty so whatever they saw would have been 5 yards downfield, right?

 

[tech_wreck47]

The second one was an iffy call, one of our lineman either slipped or got pushed to the ground in front of one of Vandys players about 10 yards downfield and cut the Vandy player down so that's where the chop block came from.

 

[tech_wreck47]

We were first and 20 after the first penalty so whatever they saw would have been 5 yards downfield, right?

It was actually 1st and 15 I believe. The score board said 1st and 20 but I think it was a mistake.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I wathed my DVR recording last night, after replaying the 1st "call" several times I still didn't see a chop block. The 2nd call was legit on Mills. Puzzling thing on the 1st call was the 1st call Vandy was is in a 3 man front. How the hell to get a chop block call on what would call for solo blocking and the other O linemen releasing to the 2nd level? It sure as hell wasn't on the play side so it's doubly puzzling.

 

[Frenchise]

I didn't see the first call, on the second one the lineman was actually releasing his block - they were barely making contact with each other's hands- when the RB cut him low.

It's a chop, but it was pretty much as ticky tacky as it gets and not your typical one, where the lineman is actively engaging and holding them high.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I wathed my DVR recording last night, after replaying the 1st "call" several times I still didn't see a chop block. The 2nd call was legit on Mills. Puzzling thing on the 1st call was the 1st call Vandy was is in a 3 man front. How the hell to get a chop block call on what would call for solo blocking and the other O linemen releasing to the 2nd level? It sure as hell wasn't on the play side so it's doubly puzzling.

It was on the play side, read my above comment it was about 10 yards down field I'll see if I can find it and the time for a reference.

Never mind the post below me has it.

 

[fairweatherhater]

I wathed my DVR recording last night, after replaying the 1st "call" several times I still didn't see a chop block. The 2nd call was legit on Mills. Puzzling thing on the 1st call was the 1st call Vandy was is in a 3 man front. How the hell to get a chop block call on what would call for solo blocking and the other O linemen releasing to the 2nd level? It sure as hell wasn't on the play side so it's doubly puzzling.

Longestday covers this in his video break down. The first one was an illegal block below the waist that happened about 8 yards in front of the line of scrimmage. It was still iffy because the OLineman (#79, Fromayan I believe) was engaged with the Vanderbilt player until the Vandy player turned away. At the same time, our OLineman fell down and took the Vandy player's legs out from under him. This was called an illegal block below the waist. I don't agree, but it's close enough that most officials will call it on us because they are looking for it.

Below is the place in the video where Longestday was going over that play:



Longestday said he doesn't see a chop block, but I do not think that's what the official said.

EDIT: Or I could've saved myself a bunch of effort by letting @tech_wreck47 post it.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Longestday covers this in his video break down. The first one was an illegal block below the waist that happened about 8 yards in front of the line of scrimmage. It was still iffy because the OLineman (#79, Fromayan I believe) was engaged with the Vanderbilt player until the Vandy player turned away. At the same time, our OLineman fell down and took the Vandy player's legs out from under him. This was called an illegal block below the waist. I don't agree, but it's close enough that most officials will call it on us because they are looking for it.

Below is the place in the video where Longestday was going over that play:



Longestday said he doesn't see a chop block, but I do not think that's what the official said.

EDIT: Or I could've saved myself a bunch of effort by letting @tech_wreck47 post it.

Thank you for saving me time lol, I saw it on the replay at the game, it was iffy to me for sure, but if the ref turned and just saw the last part I can see the call I guess.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What does the rule say?

 

[tech_wreck47]

What does the rule say?

That you can't chop block

 

[OldJacketFan]

If it was Fromayan it was call on how in the hell could it have been a chop block, by rule a chop block has to have 2 O linemen involved in the block, one high the other low?

 

[fairweatherhater]

What does the rule say?

Well here's something interesting:

Below Waist
ARTICLE 2. a. A block below the waist is a block in which the force of the initial contact is below the waist of an opponent who has one or both feet on the ground. When in question, the contact is below the waist (Rule 9-1-6).
b. A blocker who makes contact above the waist and then slides below the waist has not blocked below the waist. If the blocker first contacts the opposing player’s hands at the waist or above, it is a legal “above the waist’’ block (Rule 9-1-6).

According to this, I believe the block was legal because it started above the waist before the OL fell down. Anyone else have input?

EDIT: I should do more research before I start spouting off.

Here's some more relevant info:

Blocking Below the Waist
ARTICLE 6. a. Team A prior to a change of team possession:.

1. The following Team A players may legally block below the waist inside the tackle box until they leave the tackle box or until the ball has left the tackle box: (a) players on the line of scrimmage completely inside the tackle box and (b) stationary backs who are at least partially inside the tackle box and at least partially inside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the snapper. (A.R. 9-1-6-V)

2. Except as in paragraph 3 (below), players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) while the ball is still in the tackle box, and all players after the ball has left the tackle box, are allowed to block below the waist only if the force of the initial contact is directed from the front. “From the front” is understood to mean within the clock-face region between “10 o’clock and 2 o’clock” forward of the player being blocked. (A.R. 9-1-6-I-II, IV, VII-VIII)

3. Players not covered in paragraph 1 (above) may not block below the waist toward the original position of the ball at the snap until the ball carrier is clearly beyond the neutral zone.

4. Once the ball has left the tackle box a player may not block below the waist toward his own end line. (A.R. 9-1-6-III)

I think the block was legal, but if the official never saw the initial contact then they will call an illegal block below the waist.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well here's something interesting:

Below Waist
ARTICLE 2. a. A block below the waist is a block in which the force of the initial contact is below the waist of an opponent who has one or both feet on the ground. When in question, the contact is below the waist (Rule 9-1-6).
b. A blocker who makes contact above the waist and then slides below the waist has not blocked below the waist. If the blocker first contacts the opposing player’s hands at the waist or above, it is a legal “above the waist’’ block (Rule 9-1-6).

According to this, I believe the block was legal because it started above the waist before the OL fell down. Anyone else have input?

At first, it looks like Fromey just goofyfooted and fell down in front of the defender. But then it appears he rolled toward the defender once he was on the ground. My guess is if he just fell on his belly, or if he rolled away from the defender, he'd have been ok.

I dunno.

Maybe he was engaged with the defender but then disengaged and then dove at his legs. I'm just trying to guess what the ref thought he saw.

 

[OldJacketFan]

The ref called a chop block, it cannot by rule be a chop block if he called it on Fromayan. That's why I posted what I did about the first call, the 2nd Mills went low on the Vandy D lineman while he was engaged with the Tech O lineman. If you look at the penalty as signaled by the Ref you'll see two difference signals, the first was for a chop block, the 2nd for an illegal block.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The ref called a chop block, it cannot by rule be a chop block if he called it on Fromayan. That's why I posted what I did about the first call, the 2nd Mills went low on the Vandy D lineman while he was engaged with the Tech O lineman. If you look at the penalty as signaled by the Ref you'll see two difference signals, the first was for a chop block, the 2nd for an illegal block.

I think he just mispoke when he said chopblock. I'm pretty sure he meant to say illegal block below the waist on Fromey.

 

[fairweatherhater]

The ref called a chop block, it cannot by rule be a chop block if he called it on Fromayan. That's why I posted what I did about the first call, the 2nd Mills went low on the Vandy D lineman while he was engaged with the Tech O lineman. If you look at the penalty as signaled by the Ref you'll see two difference signals, the first was for a chop block, the 2nd for an illegal block.

I just rewatched it and the first one the official spouts a lot of syllables for the call (obviously can't hear it because of his mic not working). Chop block is real easy to say and it would be pretty evident if that was what he said. The announcers, on the other hand, said the first one was a chop block. I believe @dressedcheeseside is correct in stating that that was a mistake. On the second one, you can clearly read the official's lips to see that he is saying chop block. I do not know the signals offhand.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I just rewatched it and the first one the official spouts a lot of syllables for the call (obviously can't hear it because of his mic not working). Chop block is real easy to say and it would be pretty evident if that was what he said. The announcers, on the other hand, said the first one was a chop block. I believe @dressedcheeseside is correct in stating that that was a mistake. On the second one, you can clearly read the official's lips to see that he is saying chop block. I do not know the signals offhand.

When the official takes his two hands and karate chops himself in the hips it's a chop block.