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

[orientalnc]

Looking at the replay I agree with longestday, but the umpire standing behind the defensive linemen is not just looking at that engagement. He made a very defensible call. The umpire's job may be the toughest one on the field and I give a lot of slack to the guys who do that job.

 

[iceeater1969]

The play is a called play to the right of the center. The r t is inside his defender. No need to cut.
A lot of posters simply refuse to recognize the fact that holding is legal

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This chop block looks like that gag you played as a kid where you’d bend down behind somebody and then somebody else will push the poor sucker over you.

 

[33jacket]

its not a question of intent; the rule regarding intent to engage is around a guy falling over another guy. Bottom line, is the guy was engaged high and got cut low. Can anyone disagree with this? Regardless of intent. What HAPPENED, is the guy was engaged high, and got cut low. Its a fact. The rule is structured to prevent a guy on the ground rolling around getting called for a cut, or a chop. Hence why they say intentional.

This guy was actively cutting so he intended to execute a cut. He hit the wrong man. He was trying to hit the guy to his left. But, due to line motion. Hit the guy to his right. Unfortunately, 1) he intended to execute a cut 2) he hit the wrong guy 3) the wrong guy being hit was engaged high. IMO, this was a good call; and more a failure on the OL for not executing his block on who he intended to hit.

Now, if you mean to shoot person A. And hit person B. You still get arrested 2nd degree for hitting person B.

IMO, regardless of his intent. This was a penalty. Thats the point of penalties in this world. A false start is not intentional. Its called. It was an accident by our OL. But IMO this was a chop block; an accidental one. But it was one.

 

[B Lifsey]

its not a question of intent; the rule regarding intent to engage is around a guy falling over another guy. Bottom line, is the guy was engaged high and got cut low. Can anyone disagree with this? Regardless of intent. What HAPPENED, is the guy was engaged high, and got cut low. Its a fact. The rule is structured to prevent a guy on the ground rolling around. This guy was actively cutting. He hit the wrong man. He was trying to hit the guy to his left. But, due to line motion. Hit the guy to his right. Unfortunately, 1) he intended to execute a cut 2) he hit the wrong guy 3) the wrong guy being hit was engaged high. IMO, this was a good call; and more a failure on the OL for not executing his block on who he intended to hit.

Now, if you mean to shoot person A. And hit person B. You still get arrested 2nd degree for hitting person B.

IMO, regardless of his intent. This was a penalty. Thats the point of penalties in this world. A false start is not intentional. Its called. It was an accident by our OL. But IMO this was a chop block; an accidental one. But it was one. Not only that, the guy was being cut from the side/behind too...thats borderline clipping....so even if you don't call the chop, you can consider clipping

Shouldn't, then, a 2nd degree chop block only be a 5 yard penalty?

 

[33jacket]

Shouldn't, then, a 2nd degree chop block only be a 5 yard penalty?

it should be 10. 3rd degree 5

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Shouldn't, then, a 2nd degree chop block only be a 5 yard penalty?

Actually, they differentiate between roughing and running into the kicker...

 

[ilovetheoption]

You know, this one is close enough that I'm willing to cut the refs some slack.

Perhaps he didn't MEAN to cut cooper's man, but his block on 25 was so disastrously executed that he ended up cutting cooper's man in a very real way.

I'm willing to concede the penalty just to discourage such awful blocks. (this is a joke, btw).

To me, this is in the realm of leg whipping. If you get spun around and your leg just happens to whip around and take out somebody's legs, Im okay with you getting penalized. You may not have MEANT to leg whip a guy, but you did.

This is different, to me, then the "defense grabs the lineman on the way past" issue, because in that instance, the defensive player gets "chopped" because of his own actions. He brings it on himself.

In this instance, the defender did nothing wrong, and still ended up getting chopped.

I'm fine with the call, here.

 

[MWT89]

Is there anywhere to find out how many chop block penalties we've had this season (or even over the course of a few years)? That is, where do we stand vis-a-vis other ACC programs?

 

[okiemon]

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.

That's a great look. Seeing the slomo, I agree it was not intended as a chop block. I also see where the ref might not have realized that when it happened so quickly.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

After watching how much holding goes on, I think the days having to cut block are numbered. If Refs don't call holding anymore, then we might as well block straight up and just hang on to everyone. /end rant

 

[plangineer]

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.

Agreed, there are other calls / should be calls that I'm more frustrated with - like all of the missed false starts at the Wake Forest game: https://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2...ry-of-ref-performance-during-wake-forest-game

 

[Longestday]

@ilovetheoption

I disagree with 62 not executing his block well. He was aimed at the spot the blitzing LB (25) would have been had the LB continued forward progress. The LB had to stop or be laid out on the ground and did not get to the mesh or to Benson. 62 did his job and prevented his assignment from getting to the mesh.

I also wonder about legal holding making the cut block less of a need inside the box. Keep in mind, a cut block is quicker and is better used with such wide splits. Hard to get in front of a man to legally hold if he is shooting a gap. Shorten the gaps will make legal holding easier but less space for a back to get through. Also keep in mind that shorter gaps and straight up blocking becomes more about jimmy and joes and who is bigger. Cut blocking is a great equalizer as the legs are the week point.

I am not mad about the call actually. Shoot, I keep seeing the slow motion from the halfway point and it looks like a chop block (just like a ref might not see the whole block). I just saw a lot of people calling this a chop block and I don't think it was....


But chop blocks are drive killers. I would much rather miss a false start call than have a chop blocked called. There were two defensive offside that were clear on VT that were not called. I saw them in my seat and I saw it on the video.

 

[katlong]

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.

The call hurt (fortunately didn't affect the end result of the game) and I watched this in slow motion like 30 times yesterday (thanks for posting it). It looked to me as if it was not intentional. I do not fault the ref for calling it, as it was hard to see in real time and the defender did wind up being engaged by two, even if it was unintentional.

I'm more irritated about the play before the half where there was not a flag on VT #94 Hill for what he was doing to Marshall after landing on top of him. The ref had to pull him off of Marshall after he landed on him, then remounted and tried to twist his neck and pull on his helmet. I haven't known VT to play dirty like Miami and Duke, and it made me angry. Fans were calling for a flag at the time, but I couldn't see it from my seat. I watched it over and over again last night and just got more irritated every time, as the ref was right there!

 

[jackets55]

Is there anywhere to find out how many chop block penalties we've had this season (or even over the course of a few years)? That is, where do we stand vis-a-vis other ACC programs?

A review of the play by play listed on ESPN website, shows the following GT offensive penalties through the VPI game: 2 illegal blocks(chop). One each in the Tenn and VPI games. Cooper was the named player in each case. In addition we have been called for the following on offense: Holding (2), False Start (14), Illegal Shift (2), Personal Foul (1). We are currently tied for 4th in the NCAA for fewest penalties per game.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

A review of the play by play listed on ESPN website, shows the following GT offensive penalties through the VPI game: 2 illegal blocks(chop). One each in the Tenn and VPI games. Cooper was the named player in each case. In addition we have been called for the following on offense: Holding (2), False Start (14), Illegal Shift (2), Personal Foul (1). We are currently tied for 4th in the NCAA for fewest penalties per game.

What opposing fans don't realize is when we do actually chop block, it's by accident and it doesn't happen nearly as often as they like to think. Those two facts do not add up to a dirty team. A third fact: we don't injure opposing players anymore often than any other team, adds more evidence.

 

[bke1984]

Why on Earth can't we just drive block the dude and eliminate this crap. I hate seeing our guys face plant and the defender make a play.

 

[CuseJacket]

Virginia Tech Sideline thread: Serious question. Why are cut blocks legal?

Aka "Hokies try to learn the rules"

Also would be timely for someone to share a gif of Virginia Tech cut blocks.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Virginia Tech Sideline thread: Serious question. Why are cut blocks legal?

Aka "Hokies try to learn the rules"

Also would be timely for someone to share a gif of Virginia Tech cut blocks.

So much butt hurt on that message board.

You would think an educated fan base would know better. Cut blocks rarely injure anybody. Meanwhile, how many players got banged up on other plays throughout the game that did not involve a cut block...12? 15? Not just the guys who had to get helped off, but those that called for a replacement and had to limp off. Its like this every single game. I rarely see anybody get injured on a cut block.

So if cut blocks rarely ever result in an injury, then by their logic, we should first look at whether or not we should replace tackling with 2 hand touch.

 

[iceeater1969]

Sorry to pick on 62 As it's his first start.
He made some fine blocks, .
On this one he LOOKS DOWN as he engages. He could have cut block at the guys higher then gone into feet to cut off. His guy gave him a simple arm push but he was already going to into ground.
I was very pleased with 62 s first game performance .

Looking at r t - the stick and his block o n the crashing right d e . He hits him high and then goes by him trusting that r t will take the influence of the a b reverse.