New Rules Change

[RLR]

so basically this?

 

[33jacket]

It's not rocket science. If our guy gets wide before the LB, they're turning inside to block them.

you are right, but generally the playside AB has OLB or S responsibility which often; actually almost every time, the OLB is lined up directly in front of the AB and the S is over the top, by the time the AB is there to execute the block he is head up or wide. So this is a definition vs what really happens in our O. Rarely does the AB crack back in to pick off an inside aligned guy...because IIRC that was already illegal low.

I think really, this is much ado about nothing....

 

[33jacket]

so basically this?

IMO no, that was a head up blitzer; and you are allowed to cut them....I think the rule is more or less coming from outside into the side or blind angle of a tackler....vs a cut in the tackle box period. Here the guy kinda blocked him on one side; so you can argue its back into the ball I guess. If thats the case then there will be a TON of flags on RB's trying to cut DE's rushing on passing downs...and blitzing LBs.

See this is where the logic of actually playing the game, supercedes the analytics of a rule. You can't possibly execute a cut block in pass pro without blocking back to the line on some blocks. Guys are avoiding blocks which means body positions change etc. I can't imagine cut blocks only being directed towards the sidelines...Its also why they are slowly ruining the game. The fact remains, cuts are rarely responsible for injuries, any more than any other thing in football. Its dumb

IMO the spirit of the rule is to eliminate the more surprise cut block back into the body "towards" the ball that the tackler isn't prepared for....

 

[dressedcheeseside]

IMO no, that was a head up blitzer; and you are allowed to cut them....I think the rule is more or less coming from outside into the side or blind angle of a tackler....vs a cut in the tackle box period. Here the guy kinda blocked him on one side; so you can argue its back into the ball I guess. If thats the case then there will be a TON of flags on RB's trying to cut DE's rushing on passing downs...and blitzing LBs.

See this is where the logic of actually playing the game, supercedes the analytics of a rule. You can't possibly execute a cut block in pass pro without blocking back to the line on some blocks. Guys are avoiding blocks which means body positions change etc. I can't imagine cut blocks only being directed towards the sidelines...Its also why they are slowly ruining the game. The fact remains, cuts are rarely responsible for injuries, any more than any other thing in football. Its dumb

IMO the spirit of the rule is to eliminate the more surprise cut block back into the body "towards" the ball that the tackler isn't prepared for....

We were very lucky that wasn't flagged even under the old rule. That looks like an illegal block below the waist to me.

Blocking below the waist is prohibited by:

• backs who are entirely outside the tackle box or are in motion at the snap, unless the block below the waist is made along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to the blocker at the time of the snap;

The block in the vid was not "along a north-south line", imo. The grey part is whether our Abacks are "entirely outside the tackle box" or not presnap. They typically line up just outside the tackle's outside shoulder.

 

[Skeptic]

In our base formation, yes.

Explain "tackle box" then, since they are halfway, give or take, aligned outside the OT. This seems to me another rule that is so subjective that it becomes a setup for the ref who is aching to call a penalty. Not that any of them are.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Explain "tackle box" then, since they are halfway, give or take, aligned outside the OT. This seems to me another rule that is so subjective that it becomes a setup for the ref who is aching to call a penalty. Not that any of them are.

The rule, which is not new by any means, is designed to prohibit blind-side low blocks, which is good for the safety of the game, imo. They just have a difficult time getting the words right.

Our typical Aback lead cut is perfectly legal. There's nothing to see here. These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along.

 

[GlennW]

Explain "tackle box" then, since they are halfway, give or take, aligned outside the OT. This seems to me another rule that is so subjective that it becomes a setup for the ref who is aching to call a penalty. Not that any of them are.

I tend to agree with you on this and think it is in response to whiners who complained about getting cut "unexpectedly" and how dangerous it is whereas any block in the back from behind is a clip and is already a penalty and it's already illegal to trip and hold from the front and side so now if a player is engaged within the designated yards and begins to block and gets pushed down as they block beyond the 3 yards so it looks like a cut block then there might be a potential penalty called even if there was never an intended cut block thrown. Dumb rule.

 

[AE 87]

you are right, but generally the playside AB has OLB or S responsibility which often; actually almost every time, the OLB is lined up directly in front of the AB and the S is over the top, by the time the AB is there to execute the block he is head up or wide. So this is a definition vs what really happens in our O. Rarely does the AB crack back in to pick off an inside aligned guy...because IIRC that was already illegal low.

I think really, this is much ado about nothing....

Thanks captain obvious. I never said it affected our base play nor that it was a huge deal. I just said that it does affect some plays and blocking adjustments we have used.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

... so now if a player is engaged within the designated yards and begins to block and gets pushed down as they block beyond the 3 yards so it looks like a cut block then there might be a potential penalty called even if there was never an intended cut block thrown. Dumb rule.

extremely rare and really just an example of bad officiating regardless of rules. How does someone get pushed down and then make a block and then how's that supposed to look like a cut? The intention of a cutter going low is almost never in doubt, it's pretty obvious.

 

[33jacket]

Thanks captain obvious. I never said it affected our base play nor that it was a huge deal. I just said that it does affect some plays and blocking adjustments we have used.

Wow

 

[33jacket]

We were very lucky that wasn't flagged even under the old rule. That looks like an illegal block below the waist to me.

Blocking below the waist is prohibited by:

• backs who are entirely outside the tackle box or are in motion at the snap, unless the block below the waist is made along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to the blocker at the time of the snap;

The block in the vid was not "along a north-south line", imo. The grey part is whether our Abacks are "entirely outside the tackle box" or not presnap. They typically line up just outside the tackle's outside shoulder.

For me this is just football but i am with you, you probably could call it but i also see it being close and a no call....like holding is sometimes

 

[dressedcheeseside]

For me this is just football but i am with you, you probably could call it but i also see it being close and a no call....like holding is sometimes

You're right, it's definitely a judgement call by the ref. Unfortunately, with all the undo attention heaped on us, refs might be looking for something that isn't all there.

 

[daBuzz]

We were very lucky that wasn't flagged even under the old rule. That looks like an illegal block below the waist to me.

Blocking below the waist is prohibited by:

• backs who are entirely outside the tackle box or are in motion at the snap, unless the block below the waist is made along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to the blocker at the time of the snap;

The block in the vid was not "along a north-south line", imo. The grey part is whether our Abacks are "entirely outside the tackle box" or not presnap. They typically line up just outside the tackle's outside shoulder.

IIRC, that rule you quoted only came into existence within the past 3 or 4 years. I don't believe it was in effect when that game happened in 2009.

 

[LongforDodd]

We were very lucky that wasn't flagged even under the old rule. That looks like an illegal block below the waist to me.

Blocking below the waist is prohibited by:

• backs who are entirely outside the tackle box or are in motion at the snap, unless the block below the waist is made along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to the blocker at the time of the snap;

The block in the vid was not "along a north-south line", imo. The grey part is whether our Abacks are "entirely outside the tackle box" or not presnap. They typically line up just outside the tackle's outside shoulder.

In that play wasn't our blocker split out a few yards from where an A-back normally lines up? It sure looks that way. I don't believe that blocker was in the usual Aback position just off the tackle.

 

[Skeptic]

you are right, but generally the playside AB has OLB or S responsibility which often; actually almost every time, the OLB is lined up directly in front of the AB and the S is over the top, by the time the AB is there to execute the block he is head up or wide. So this is a definition vs what really happens in our O. Rarely does the AB crack back in to pick off an inside aligned guy...because IIRC that was already illegal low.

I think really, this is much ado about nothing....

yes.