15 yd penalty that killed 1st drive

[VeloClone]

It is silly to determine where the defender is looking, like in your made up scenario. That’s why where the ball carrier is and how the block happens is what you can look at. The defender in these situations are always going to be looking at the runner, which is how blind side blocks occur. If the runner is coming from a different direction, blockers need to be aware of how they are blocking from now on.

It is not unreasonable for a defender to be expected to look at both the runner and where the defender is running. If you hit a defender obliquely so he can't see you even when he looks where he is going that should be blind side.

In this case, he hit him from nearly the same direction as his direction of movement and in addition the blocker crossed right in front of the runner to get to the defender to make the block so if the defender was looking where he was going and was looking at the ball carrier there is no way the blocker was not in the defender's field of vision.

 

[3TrueFans]

So I'm back to my example. If I'm looking straight up at the sky can I not be blocked under this rule?

Do we really need to do this? What if a guy doesn’t have a head?

 

[CyCloned]

Here's the 15 yd penalty called on Johnnie Lang that killed our first drive Saturday. You tell me if this is a good call or not? I know there's a new rule this year, but if this is now considered a 15 yd penalty, then it's no longer football IMO. This is the definition of a perfect block. Shoulder right to the chest. Some say it was blindsided, but how? And don't tell me that the UNI defender wasn't in the play and couldn't have made the tackle.

View attachment 66146

Thanks, I never watched the end of this and it came up near the end of the 4th quarter, so I watched the UNI TD in overtime again. There is no way that guy caught the ball, and UNI must have had 4 holds on that play. Now I am mad again.

 

[Urbandale2013]

If that is the definition I would argue Jones was not outside the UNI players field of vision. He could have reasonably seen him with the turn of the head. If we aren't talking about where they are actually looking but rather where they could reasonably see then haven't we shifted the burden to them to be aware of what is near them?

That’s the definition I think a reasonable person would take. The only reason people are taking the other interpretation IMO is to justify the call.

 

[AuH2O]

I guess that's where we will agree to disagree. I certainly think there are situations where that is true. Kickoffs come to mind, where you have a 40 yard running start and you target a guy. But if you rewatch this play it's completely reactionary, and questionable at best whether he is in his "field of vision".

This is the whole point. Based on the angle of pursuit by the defender and angle Lang comes for the block it simply is in his field of vision, and I have no idea how it can be argued otherwise. It simply isn't close to outside of his field of vision.

 

[VeloClone]

Do we really need to do this? What if a guy doesn’t have a head?

I think Mike the Headless Chicken belongs here.

 

[VeloClone]

This is the whole point. Based on the angle of pursuit by the defender and angle Lang comes for the block it simply is in his field of vision, and I have no idea how it can be argued otherwise. It simply isn't close to outside of his field of vision.
View attachment 66152

I agree, but keep in mind he is wearing a helmet which does generally restrict field of vision somewhat.

 

[Cyclone.TV]

Aren't written rules mean to be taken literally? It's not like I'm making up this "field of vision" term. It's literally exactly what the rule says. So at a minimum, clarifying what "field of vision" is would go a long ways.

Ok. So you can block someone as long as their head can turn and look at you. My mind is changed.

 

[Clonefan32]

Ok. So you can block someone as long as their head can turn and look at you. My mind is changed.

So then how do you define "field of vision"?

 

[Cyclone.TV]

So then how do you define "field of vision"?

It's in the "football sense". Using common sense when thinking about where a defender would be looking....they are going to be looking at someone who just caught a pass and is running with it. They are coming from a different direction than the blocker, hence would be out of that defenders "field of vision".

I may be crazy, but that's how I see it. I understand I seem to be in the minority here.

 

[cycjob]

Here's the 15 yd penalty called on Johnnie Lang that killed our first drive Saturday. You tell me if this is a good call or not? I know there's a new rule this year, but if this is now considered a 15 yd penalty, then it's no longer football IMO. This is the definition of a perfect block. Shoulder right to the chest. Some say it was blindsided, but how? And don't tell me that the UNI defender wasn't in the play and couldn't have made the tackle.

View attachment 66146

That was exactly what I would have asked Lang to do. It wasn't cheap, it was a clean block executed perfectly. I understand protecting players, but if that isn't a legal block then the game of football no longer exists.

 

[cycjob]

Perhaps they should penalize the defender for not looking where he was running to? If he had not been focused on the receiver, he could have easily seen Lang there. I know that's ridiculous, but so was this penalty.

 

[3TrueFans]

but if that isn't a legal block then the game of football no longer exists.

I want to give this specific sentence like 17 dumb ratings but I don't know how to do that.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I just don't know what else Lang is supposed to do in that situation besides just let him tackle the ball carrier. If Lang eases up, he gets ran over due to the size mismatch. I don't feel as though that was excessive compared to other crack back blocks.

This is the problem I have. When a player lets up and doesn't go 100% the risk of injury increases significantly.

 

[TedKumsher]

My unathletic-and-never-ever-played-football self cannot grasp that a blocker wouldn't be able to block someone without "blowing them up". I think Lang could have made sure the defender wasn't able to make the tackle without planting his shoulder into the guy's chest.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

My unathletic-and-never-ever-played-football self cannot grasp that a blocker wouldn't be able to block someone without "blowing them up". I think Lang could have made sure the defender wasn't able to make the tackle without planting his shoulder into the guy's chest.

The problem is that the UNI player is running full steam. The blocker lowering his shoulder on this particular play put himself in a better position to absorb the contact. IMO if the blocker pulls up and just tries to make enough contact to slow down the defender the risk of the blocker getting seriously hurt is just as high as what the penalty is trying to prevent.

 

[TedKumsher]

When Lang first starts intentionally going towards the defender to block him I would say that Lang is not in the defender's "field of vision".
He blocks the guy to the right, not the guy at the top left.




I would say still not in "field of vision" here:





This is going back to when the catch is first made. The defender's back is exposed to Lang (even if barely) -





Even at this point, the defender seems focused on the runner and unaware of the block. But at this point it's the defender's fault and Lang is in his "field of vision" (my opinion). However at this point I think it's already a "blindside" penalty unless the blocker (Lang) chooses not to "blow up" the defender (which might also be too late at this point). --

 

[TedKumsher]

The problem is that the UNI player is running full steam. The blocker lowering his shoulder on this particular play put himself in a better position to absorb the contact. IMO if the blocker pulls up and just tries to make enough contact to slow down the defender the risk of the blocker getting seriously hurt is just as high as what the penalty is trying to prevent.

Shove the defender off balance to the side instead of planting yourself like a brick wall? Certainly not possible 100% of the time but . . . Generally speaking I still think a blocker will have the ability to choose to setup a block that doesn't "blow up" an oblivious defender . . . most of the time.

 

[AuH2O]

It's in the "football sense". Using common sense when thinking about where a defender would be looking....they are going to be looking at someone who just caught a pass and is running with it. They are coming from a different direction than the blocker, hence would be out of that defenders "field of vision".

I may be crazy, but that's how I see it. I understand I seem to be in the minority here.

I am fine with having a rule to eliminate the crack backs and peel back blocks. They are brutal. Think about Ruth's murder of that KU guy on a punt return in Ames. I do think the main intent is to get this type of block eliminated as an actual technique and being part of plays. I think that is a good idea. I don't know if an improvisation downfield like this is really the intent, but I'm fine with that being called if it actually fit the definition of the violation, which this play does not.

I think your post provides an example of what I don't like about this call and how it's likely going to be called until they define it better. "Field of vision" is not a subjective thing. It varies slightly from one person to the next, but we have officials probably like this poster defining it in terms of "football field of vision." Sounds a lot like officials determining what constitutes a "football move" in determining a completion. Big surprise - plays were called wildly different from one game to the next, one official to the next.

The defender might be looking at the ball carrier, but he's not watching him through gun scope. In this play the defender turns and takes a good step or two damn near head on with Lang.

 

[Gunnerclone]

I think Mike the Headless Chicken belongs here.

Hey Mike.