1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

To Chop or not to chop... there is no question

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Football' started by Longestday, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    You have to intentionally engage high and low. This was not intentional as it is obvious who each person is intending to engage. This might have been hard to see live....

    TampaGT, vamosjackets and CHE90 like this.
  2. wreckrod

    wreckrod Helluva Engineer

    Ehhhhhhh, I don't know. I don't think it was that bad of a call. It's not exactly clear who 62 is trying to block. 25 for VT ole'd him, but he was headed right for where 8 ended up. I can absolutely see why they called this live.
  3. steebu

    steebu Helluva Engineer

    To be fair to the incompetent ref, it happened so fast that all the umpire saw was the end result.

    On the other hand, look at that execution. Parker Braun trapping the 3 on the playside. Watch the right side of the VT deffense; they recognize "COUNTER OPTION!!!" and start peeling off, leaving Kirvonte a nice hole to run through. Shamire going to the 2nd level to take out the Mike.

    Same play Marcus Marshall scored on to get us to 30 last year.
  4. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Are you all blind... 62 must cut 25 or he is in the middle of the mesh of TQM and Benson. 55 was too much of a beast and pushed his guy over 62. Look where 8 starts and where 62 is going at the start... no where close.
    noodles and augustabuzz like this.
  5. Lavoisier

    Lavoisier Helluva Engineer

    I posted this in the other thread but I really don't think that would have been flagged on 90% teams. Our OLine is just under a microscope because opposing coaches lobby the officials hard to look for anything that could be considered a chop block. It's wasn't the wrong call to flag it but come on.
    deeeznutz and katlong like this.
  6. smathis30

    smathis30 Helluva Engineer

    Yeah I can't seem to find the ruling where it says it has to be intentional in AR9 where chop blocking is defined. Really doesn't make sense for any block/tackle that was made illegal for safety reasons to be only called if it's intentional. Kinda defeats the purpose ya know
    alentrekin likes this.
  7. Longestday

    Longestday Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    In gridiron football, a chop block is an attempt by an offensive player to cut block(block at the thigh level or lower) a defensive player while the defender is already engaged by another offensive player.

    An attempt to cut block must be present. 62 did not attempt to cut 8. He was attempting to cut 25. Although, it would have been hard to call like unless you where looking closely.
    katlong and augustabuzz like this.
  8. JacketFromUGA

    JacketFromUGA Helluva Engineer

    I don't know. I think the call was fine.
  9. iceeater1969

    iceeater1969 Helluva Engineer

    Why did 62 go low? Seems like he could have engaged high and legally hold 25 for 2 seconds.
    Notice that the center was doing lots of cut blocks earlier in game and switched drive block when doing down blocks.
    Great play. 75 could have tried cut the other st, but walled him off w drive block. Great blocking
  10. takethepoints

    takethepoints Helluva Engineer

    Longest is right.

    I think this is like a "roughing the passer" incident where a DL is pushed into a QB by an OL. The VT D has been taught how to take on a cut block (btw, the same technique they taught me in high school when almost all blocks were cut blocks). Bailey comes out to cut 25 to his outside so he's cut off from the play. 25 not only pushes him to the ground, but throws him out of the way so he can get to the backfield. Result = Bailey ends up hitting the DT in the legs as he is in the process of being pancaked by Cooper. This is a lot of things, but a chop block it is not. And it should not have been called.

    Btw, I wonder how the MLB felt when he saw that Shamire had a clear lane ahead and was headed right at him. Not too comfortable, I'll wager.
    Longestday likes this.
  11. wreckrod

    wreckrod Helluva Engineer

    Depends on the play and blocking, but often the backside guard and tackle are supposed to "scoop" meaning cut block the backside pursuit of the defense. Most of the time that backside defender is seeing that the play is going away and so they will attack down and in hard (Clemson ate our lunch with this), so the cut there would normally have the defender on their face.
    Longestday likes this.
  12. RamblinWreck92

    RamblinWreck92 Banned

    Dumb play. Why is 62 diving at ankles rather than typical run blocking? #25 just laughably sweeps him aside and he ends up getting flagged for a penalty that probably wasn't but I can't blame the refs for throwing the flag because it looks like a chop. Simple Standup blocking doesn't get a flag thrown there.
    thebull35 likes this.
  13. incognito

    incognito Georgia Tech Fan

    Don't know the rule as its written, but OL fall down a lot, even when not cut blocking. What if Ivey hits #25 up high bounces off, then falls down where he did in the game. Would that be a chop block? I wouldn't think so. And #25 does put his hands on him, so there's contact with another player before the supposed chop. I think its a bad call.
    Longestday likes this.
  14. augustabuzz

    augustabuzz Helluva Engineer

    It was one of many bad calls by this crew.
    GTRanj likes this.
  15. dressedcheeseside

    dressedcheeseside Helluva Engineer

    Getting flagged for a chop is the risk you take every time you decide to go low when your linemate beside you decides to go high. Miss your target and the likelihood gets even higher. I’ve seen worse chop calls than this one. That said, I see LD’s point, too. I think it might be a bit much to expect a ref to know intent in real time. We get the benefit of slow mo and full view rear perspective.
  16. TheSilasSonRising

    TheSilasSonRising Helluva Engineer

    It is a chop block. Dont think refs call penalties based on unknown intentions, but results of actions. Bet there is never an intention to jump offsides either, or rough a kicker.

    And if nothing else, it is a result of coaching an OL to dive to the ground taking himself out of the play, keeping his head down and taking his eyes off his target.

    This C/S type coaching may have cost us a TD.

    Bet as a kid, Sewak was taught that during a fight, to run up behind someone and slug them. Then run away.
    smathis30 likes this.
  17. SidewalkJacket

    SidewalkJacket Helluva Engineer

    LOL. Everyone. Cut. Blocks.
    augustabuzz and Whiskey_Clear like this.
  18. Sean311

    Sean311 Helluva Engineer

    Looks like a chop block to me.
  19. FredJacket

    FredJacket Helluva Engineer

    If the point of this post is to elevate my respect for officials who have to make split second decisions to penalize or not penalize a particular "engagement"... all at real live speed & no benefit of replay or committee discussions, well then... mission accomplished.
    orientalnc likes this.
  20. YJMD

    YJMD Helluva Engineer

    In light of the video showing his momentum altered by the defender, I would agree with no call here, though I am not sure the rules clarify this and certainly don't believe intentionality matters. Many other penalties that have nothing to do with intention.

    But who could be mad at the refs for seeing a high-low block in real time and flagging it? It's their freaking job and they did it reasonably. There were plenty of other nits to pick with them.
    plangineer likes this.

Share This Page