Not a Chop Block

[vamosjackets]

Yeah, that call was total crap. One of the worst I've seen. The longer I've thought about that game, the more I've thought that the refs were blatantly against us, and they were a major factor in the game. The PI calls, the fumble ruled a forward pass, the chop block, etc. It took the booth reviews to make that game fair, and IIRC, the booth guys are from a different conference.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

OK, this is me, AE 87. It was a chop block, imo. We may not like it when DL initiate engagement, but a guy engaged high should not be hit low. We broke the leg of a kid from Syracuse this way last year iirc.

The cutting OL has to go out of his way because the DL is already engaged, so he could do st else, it seems to me.

?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

One way to avoid possible inadvertent chop blocks is to have the second blocker go high. Two high double teams are allowed.

 

[Longestday]

@vamosjackets I agree... as I go through the film I see so much holding when a runner goes by our defensive backs or even on the DE (although I see refs allow this all the time). Add in the pass interference calls and non calls and it does make me wonder a little. The forward pass on a pitch called on the field does not happen much? I will say I am not sure if there is enough evidence to overturn the call unless a lateral is within a "yard" forward/backwards. I think the ball may have been a few inches forward on the pitch, but I really can't be sure because of camera angles.

Both chop blocks are both bogus calls.

But sometimes the ball bounces each way, as the AB may have fumbled too....

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There's no way in hell that lateral should have been called a forward pass on the field. We have dozens of true forward pitches/passes that never get questioned that are called laterals every year. The default assumption is lateral (backward pass) unless it is blatantly obvious that it's forward which this was not, not by a long shot.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There's no way in hell that lateral should have been called a forward pass on the field. We have dozens of true forward pitches/passes that never get questioned that are called laterals every year. The default assumption is lateral (backward pass) unless it is blatantly obvious that it's forward which this was not, not by a long shot.

Btw, on replay the ball appeared to travel perfectly parallel to the LOS, imo. Still, that's not what is normally required for pitches to be considered laterals. Anything within 5 - 10 degrees of true parallel is almost never questioned.

 

[70Jacket]

Ya this is not a chop block...

The center never tried to engage the DT and was by him before the guard even hit the DT.

This defensive strategy is the cause for probably 90% or more of the interior chop block flags, GSU is well versed on drawing this flag. The center has to clear the DT quicker or audible the blocking assignment. I've seen this flag thrown even when the DT rides the center down the line and the guard completely misses the back side cut.

 

[LongforDodd]

I think they should be reviewed only by challenge, not as a matter of course. I'm not sure how it works in college, to coaches get x number of challeges like the NFL and are there consequences for losing a challenge? This type of call is subjective like a runner being called out in baseball. It may even be on the order of calling balls and strikes, which, btw, is not reviewable.

I guess I don't have a problem with reviews/challenges if it is done as the NFL does it. It would stink to get robbed on an obviously missed call.

 

[beernutts]

OK, this is me, AE 87. It was a chop block, imo. We may not like it when DL initiate engagement, but a guy engaged high should not be hit low. We broke the leg of a kid from Syracuse this way last year iirc.

The cutting OL has to go out of his way because the DL is already engaged, so he could do st else, it seems to me.

You're 100% wrong:

RULE 2
Chop block re: defense initiating contact. (2-3-3) E
It is not a foul if the defensive player initiates the contact

The OL has no control over what the DL does. If OL1 is assigned to Cut DL1, if DL1 goes and hits OL2, it is not a Chop block.

 

[Longestday]

This is the first one same thing but a little harder to see from the angle... not a chop! The center just was trying to get by the DL.

 

[DTGT]

This is the first one same thing but a little harder to see from the angle... not a chop! The center just was trying to get by the DL.

Defensive holding! We should have got 10 yards... (unless there is a pesky 'within 5 yards' condition or something...)

 

[presjacket]

This is the first one same thing but a little harder to see from the angle... not a chop! The center just was trying to get by the DL.

It looks like we wound up with 3 guys at dancing with #99 at the end of that clip. He did a nice job occupying blockers. I thought to myself, "Maybe he is a pretty good player." According to his bio and stats, he had more unassisted tackles against us than in his entire career before the game.

 

[Animal02]

This is the first one same thing but a little harder to see from the angle... not a chop! The center just was trying to get by the DL.

I think the mistake their is the guard not continuing on to pick up the LB.....instead of going at the DT when he was already engaged. Not saying that is what the assignments were, but sometimes you need to improvise.

 

[Stonewall]

Yeah, that call was total crap. One of the worst I've seen. The longer I've thought about that game, the more I've thought that the refs were blatantly against us, and they were a major factor in the game. The PI calls, the fumble ruled a forward pass, the chop block, etc. It took the booth reviews to make that game fair, and IIRC, the booth guys are from a different conference.

haha! you sound like some of the GS fans. if one thing is universal it is the hatred for the refs in college football.

 

[Stonewall]

There's no way in hell that lateral should have been called a forward pass on the field. We have dozens of true forward pitches/passes that never get questioned that are called laterals every year. The default assumption is lateral (backward pass) unless it is blatantly obvious that it's forward which this was not, not by a long shot.

fast forward to 40 secs into this video. anyone want to argue the eagles didn't strip perkins of the ball for a legit fumble that, alas, wasn't called? knee wasn't down, elbow wasn't down. butt never touched. ball came out and quickly recovered by GS.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

fast forward to 40 secs into this video. anyone want to argue the eagles didn't strip perkins of the ball for a legit fumble that, alas, wasn't called? knee wasn't down, elbow wasn't down. butt never touched. ball came out and quickly recovered by GS.

At :42 you can't tell if Perkins' knee is down or not because the GSU guy is blocking the camera's view of his knee and the ground. That's the difference between the reversed call and this. The whole "indisputable evidence" clause was put in for instances like this, where the official's view is blocked and he can't see everything. That is not the case in the reversed call. The official in the booth could see every little piece of data needed to make the right call. Sorry buddy. Disagree.

edit: Just noticed something else. At :46 you can see the official who made the call come into view. He was right there in perfect position to see the whole play in it's entirety. He had a much better angle to view the play than the camera.

All that said and you still could be right. Blown calls happen all the time in the great game of football. They happen on both sides and hopefully they don't decide the outcome. GSU still had the advantage after the fumble since GT had to march the entire field, something it hadn't done the entire half. Heck, it hadn't even managed a first down, iirc.

 

[Stonewall]

At :42 you can't tell if Perkins' knee is down or not because the GSU guy is blocking the camera's view of his knee and the ground. That's the difference between the reversed call and this. The whole "indisputable evidence" clause was put in for instances like this, where the official's view is blocked and he can't see everything. That is not the case in the reversed call. The official in the booth could see every little piece of data needed to make the right call. Sorry buddy. Disagree.

edit: Just noticed something else. At :46 you can see the official who made the call come into view. He was right there in perfect position to see the whole play in it's entirety. He had a much better angle to view the play than the camera.

All that said and you still could be right. Blown calls happen all the time in the great game of football. They happen on both sides and hopefully they don't decide the outcome. GSU still had the advantage after the fumble since GT had to march the entire field, something it hadn't done the entire half. Heck, it hadn't even managed a first down, iirc.

cheese, i love you, but that's a fumble and GS recovery. what's even worse is, as you point out, the official is RIGHT there.

perkins would have to be double-jointed and have his legs on backwards for any part of his knees to be touching in the split second between the time the ball comes loose and the :44 sec mark where his knees aren't dirty.

the GS player came from under then wrapped/rolled him upward and around. this simply doesn't allow perkins the chance for a knee to touch as the attitude of his body twists. his knees touch once he's toppled but the ball is long loose from his grasp at that point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

cheese, i love you, but that's a fumble and GS recovery. what's even worse is, as you point out, the official is RIGHT there.

perkins would have to be double-jointed and have his legs on backwards for any part of his knees to be touching in the split second between the time the ball comes loose and the :44 sec mark where his knees aren't dirty.

the GS player came from under then wrapped/rolled him upward and around. this simply doesn't allow perkins the chance for a knee to touch as the attitude of his body twists. his knees touch once he's toppled but the ball is long loose from his grasp at that point.

That's why I said:

"All that said and you still could be right. Blown calls happen all the time in the great game of football."

My point was that this call would be less likely to be overturned by the replay official for the reasons I stated. You just can't see his knees from the time he's wrapped up until the time the ball pops out. The GSU player blocks the camera. Hence the "indisputable" clause.

 

[Animal02]

cheese, i love you, but that's a fumble and GS recovery. what's even worse is, as you point out, the official is RIGHT there.

perkins would have to be double-jointed and have his legs on backwards for any part of his knees to be touching in the split second between the time the ball comes loose and the :44 sec mark where his knees aren't dirty.

the GS player came from under then wrapped/rolled him upward and around. this simply doesn't allow perkins the chance for a knee to touch as the attitude of his body twists. his knees touch once he's toppled but the ball is long loose from his grasp at that point.

The other question is what was the source of that video? They did not show any other angle of the play during the broadcast. They usually do with any controversy. And as Cheese said, there are many calls like that throughout many games, once the next play is run, the issue is moot.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Looked like a fumble. Getting the snap off on the next play seemed to take forever.