Not a Chop Block

[Longestday]

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.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I have seen that before. I think it is coached by the opposing D's to try and engage for a beat or two and slow down our pulling linemen who clearly are just trying to get to the second level. I am not saying this is a strategy meant to draw chop block calls but rather that it is the flip of how we want linemen to "brush" and then go past. The result is a greater chance of an official mistaking what is happening in real time as a dangerous chop block.

I don't think these kind of mistakes by officials bug me as much as letting too much holding go uncalled. I do hate bad calls here but at least it is over something where player safety is the motive for the rule. On the others I want officials to get it right more often because it is all about gaining unfair advantages. I want to see better play and execution decide OL-DL encounters not who can hold the other guy the best.

I was really annoyed at the several face-mask penalty's that weren't called in our first two games.

 

[presjacket]

Why is 78 even trying to cut there to begin with?

 

[augustabuzz]

Why is 78 even trying to cut there to begin with?

That DT is his assignment and he is too far away at the snap to get to him any other way.

 

[Animal02]

I think the chop block rule inside the tackle box is asinine......as long as both players are contacting from the front. There is just too many things that happen incidentally within that area to call a 15 yd penalty on. Double team and one pa slips, etc. It is different outside the tackle box and also is you have someone hitting high in front and low from behind, but two in front there is no great risk of injury.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I saw that play live and near about went through the roof when they called a chop block. Andrew Marshall did just about everything he could do to avoid contact with the DT. I think that was Battle, moved laterally to make contact with Marshall's side and shoulder, while Marshall shrugged past him without returning any contact. The back judge blew that call bigtime!

 

[Dave.S]

Sunbelt Refs!!!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We should send that tape to the league office and see what they say.

 

[forensicbuzz]

We should send that tape to the league office and see what they say.

I would bet pretty heavily that the GTAA has already done that.

 

[takethepoints]

I think the chop block rule inside the tackle box is asinine......as long as both players are contacting from the front. There is just too many things that happen incidentally within that area to call a 15 yd penalty on. Double team and one pa slips, etc. It is different outside the tackle box and also is you have someone hitting high in front and low from behind, but two in front there is no great risk of injury.

In general, I think the refs would agree. You see a lot fewer chop block penalties then you did a few years ago. There is just too much traffic to say that something intentional occurred. And, yes, this isn't even close. And, yes, the opposing DCs are obviously training their interior DLs to do this in hopes of drawing a penalty.

And, even more yes, refs seem to be giving up on holding. It's getting to be like walks in the NBA out there; unless the guy takes five steps - or, in this case, tackles the OL - you don't call it. This puts a team that doesn't "push-and-dance" but instead, you know, actually hits somebody at a disadvantage. Jeebus, I hate this.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

And, yes, the opposing DCs are obviously training their interior DLs to do this in hopes of drawing a penalty.

Actually, though I do agree this is happening, I doubt it's for the reason you suggest. I suspect DC's are training their interior DL's to disrupt our OL's getting to the next level thus freeing up their MLB to run unimpeded to the ball. If it results in a chop, all the better. See, they don't know if another guy is gonna go low or not, so it wouldn't behoove them to do it for the reason you suggest.

 

[AE 87]

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.

 

[augustabuzz]

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.

Really? I thought he was knocked off balance and rolled onto the back of the DL's leg.

 

[Stonewall]

i think most chops blocks are inadvertent as our OL attempts to move to the second level. there was certainly no intent to high/low the DL in this instance.

 

[LongforDodd]

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.

IMO, a mere split second of time elapsed between the disengagement of the center and the engagement of the guard. If that is the technical definition and/or distinction between a Chop/No Chop then perhaps these types of plays should be reviewed in the booth. Do we want that? I don't think so, really. I think too many calls are reviewed right now. I don't fault the refs for this one. We need to get better at the Techniques we're taught if we want to split these hairs.

 

[Declinometer]

Great tape. I've always believed that at times the officials get caught up in the perceived momentum shift and in ways, perhaps unconsciously, propagate it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

Agree with you if that's what actually happened on the play. Disagree on your description of the play, our C had already disengaged by the time the DT was hit low by the G.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

IMO, a mere split second of time elapsed between the disengagement of the center and the engagement of the guard. If that is the technical definition and/or distinction between a Chop/No Chop then perhaps these types of plays should be reviewed in the booth. Do we want that? I don't think so, really. I think too many calls are reviewed right now. I don't fault the refs for this one. We need to get better at the Techniques we're taught if we want to split these hairs.

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.

 

[presjacket]

That DT is his assignment and he is too far away at the snap to get to him any other way.

Who was #50's assignment? It seems like his first step his forward instead of forward and to the right like #78. Is it the linebacker to the left in the vine or is it someone we can't see?

At the end of the clip, the LG, C, RG, & RT are all in very close proximity to each other with only two defenders being blocked by the 4. Yet the DE on the right side is unblocked and so is the LB behind him.

Did the B-Back get the ball and what was the result of the play before the penalty? I can't remember from the game.

I guess what I am getting at is that it seems that we have made more mistakes on this play than just getting called for a chop block. Then again I know absolutely nothing about football other than I enjoy it.

 

[Declinometer]

Who was #50's assignment? It seems like his first step his forward instead of forward and to the right like #78. Is it the linebacker to the left in the vine or is it someone we can't see?

At the end of the clip, the LG, C, RG, & RT are all in very close proximity to each other with only two defenders being blocked by the 4. Yet the DE on the right side is unblocked and so is the LB behind him.

Did the B-Back get the ball and what was the result of the play before the penalty? I can't remember from the game.

I guess what I am getting at is that it seems that we have made more mistakes on this play than just getting called for a chop block. Then again I know absolutely nothing about football other than I enjoy it.

It was a first down on a key drive on a third down play that forced us to punt and helped the GS momentum.