New "No Blind Blocking" Rule

[MichiganDad3]

2 hours ago, Enhance said:

I'm interested (nervous?) to see how this is actually enforced because it seems like there could be a lot of nuance.

 

For example, if I'm a blocker pursuing a defender, and that defender's shoulders are squared up to me, but their head is turned and I'm technically outside their current "field of vision," will I be penalized for hitting them? I can understanding wanted to do away with the hits that happen on the side/shoulder pad area where a tackler clearly couldn't see it coming, but the language seems a bit vague.

 

That said, I don't rightly know or recall how many hits Nebraska blockers had last year that would qualify as a penalty now. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm sure there were some.

I cringe when I think of refs judging a players field of vision

[MichiganDad3]

14 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yes. I suppose they could have a rule where the player doesn’t get laid out like that (which I thought was the defenseless player rule). But this is taking it to an idiotic level.

Then we have soccer, and coaches teaching players how to flop 

[Moiraine]

Just now, MichiganDad3 said:

Then we have soccer, and coaches teaching players how to flop 

 

 

Would still be better than what this rule could be. 

[MichiganDad3]

25 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I was thinking of that Scott Frost block vs A&M posted above and of course the Kenny Bell, bell ringer vs Wisc.

 

Yep, and how are we supposed to make teams "feel" the physicality of playing against Nebraska if we can't hit? The OL hitting 2nd level players, the WRs not giving up on blocks, and even the QB laying someone out, these are what made past Husker opponents give up.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

35 minutes ago, ZRod said:

That's just football. Text book example of why every defensive coach ever says "keep your head on a swivel!"

THANK YOU.  I tried to take it one stepe further and tell kids to try to take snap shots of where people would be.  I remember 2 times being "blind side" blocked.  Once in HS and Once in college.  Both times as soon as I started turning I "knew" it was coming.  The first guy launched himself into my midsection knocking the wind out of me.  The second guy must have had a conscious because he could have ruined my day but kinda hit/pushed me.  This is part of football.  Its the reason everyone can't play

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, 30-50 Feral Hogs said:

 

 

34 minutes ago, ZRod said:

That's just football. Text book example of why every defensive coach ever says "keep your head on a swivel!"

 

Yep, and anything that guy does to try to lessen the contact he makes with the other player is going to be more dangerous for his own well being. If he lightens up on the hit then he ends up getting rolled by the guy he’s supposed to block. I know what they’re trying to accomplish but they also need to make the players somewhat accountable for their own safety. They shouldn’t penalize a guy for making a block on another who is running around oblivious of his surroundings. I just hate giving refs more judgement calls to make. And this is a bad rule to not use judgement and likely very uneven application with judgement. We’ve seen the wide disparity in how they call targeting.

[Husker in WI]

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Yep, and anything that guy does to try to lessen the contact he makes with the other player is going to be more dangerous for his own well being. If he lightens up on the hit then he ends up getting rolled by the guy he’s supposed to block. I know what they’re trying to accomplish but they also need to make the players somewhat accountable for their own safety. They shouldn’t penalize a guy for making a block on another who is running around oblivious of his surroundings. I just hate giving refs more judgement calls to make. And this is a bad rule to not use judgement and likely very uneven application with judgement. We’ve seen the wide disparity in how they call targeting.

 

I disagree with the first part. He can engage with his hands and drive like a normal block, he doesn't have to launch into the defender to protect himself. There are options other than launching with your shoulder or getting run over.

 

That being said, I completely agree on the second part. The wording of the rule makes me wonder if they would call a blindside block even if they kept their feet and blocked clean, and I'd have a big problem with that. In that case you would be right, they'd be asking players to either get run over or let the guy make the tackle.

[JJ Husker]

32 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I disagree with the first part. He can engage with his hands and drive like a normal block, he doesn't have to launch into the defender to protect himself. There are options other than launching with your shoulder or getting run over.

 

That being said, I completely agree on the second part. The wording of the rule makes me wonder if they would call a blindside block even if they kept their feet and blocked clean, and I'd have a big problem with that. In that case you would be right, they'd be asking players to either get run over or let the guy make the tackle.

 

I agree. On that particular play, he could've done something other than launch the way he did. But generally, in similar situations, it can be a trade off between delivering the hit or receiving it. From experience, it is always better to be the hitter instead of the hittee. There's a lot of pure physics happening out there and when people back off, lots of times the result won't be as pleasant.

[4skers89]

If a ref sees a defender looking at a blocker they probably won't call it because of the field of vision part of the rule.  Of the video clips posted the defender could easily avoid a massive collision if they were looking at where they were running to rather than locking on to the runner.  Defenders will learn that they are better off not keeping their head on a swivel to get the 15 yard penalty thus making the game less safe.  The more solid the block the more likely it will get called so defenders will become floppers.  This is going to get called often and will nullify a lot of big plays.  Reverses might as well be removed from playbooks.  At least allow blockers to offer hugs, kisses or a bouquet of flowers to the defender to keep them from making a tackle.

[HS_Coach_C]

1 hour ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I disagree with the first part. He can engage with his hands and drive like a normal block, he doesn't have to launch into the defender to protect himself. There are options other than launching with your shoulder or getting run over.

 

That being said, I completely agree on the second part. The wording of the rule makes me wonder if they would call a blindside block even if they kept their feet and blocked clean, and I'd have a big problem with that. In that case you would be right, they'd be asking players to either get run over or let the guy make the tackle.

I agree that he could have done something else, but have you ever tried to use your hands to stop someone running full speed? 

[NoLongerN]

Well, don't think we are going to get football the way it was ... but I'm all good with what was communicated in the Aub/ARK video.  If it is always this type of block, then I'm okay with that.

[B.B. Hemingway]

Sometimes, I'm not even sure why we bother playing the sport.

[84HuskerLaw]

Football was intended to be a rough and tumble game.   All these so-called 'safety' rules are not really making the game safer in my view.  Exactly how many injuries have been actually avoided as a result of the targeting rule?    I doubt there have actually been many, if any. 

 

This rule really ought not be called the blindsided rule but more the blind defender rule.   It seems obvious that there will be plenty of opportunities for a defender (the would-be tackler) to simply turn his head a bit and create a 15 yard penalty and kill what otherwise might have been a great play.   I think maybe they should atleast consider applying the penalty yardage after the play is over (i.e. on the following play).   The feigned 'blind side hit' will become the obvious way to get the flag on almost any play.  There probably ought to be a '15 yard penalty called on the defender who failed to keep a lookout.   When a football play is live, every player has a strict duty to keep his eyes open and be aware of all things around him.   Football is blocking and tackling.    Any player on the field during live action is by definition not defenseless.   He has every choice to either be involved in the play or not.   If he tries to block or tackle, he is choosing to enter a contact situation.   The targeting rule is poor, at best, and this one sounds terrible.      

[Cdog923]

4 hours ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

I might have to stop watching football soon...  I can't decide what rugby team to adopt.  The all blacks or the wallabies 

 

All-Blacks. Duh. 

[Husker in WI]

1 hour ago, HS_Coach_C said:

I agree that he could have done something else, but have you ever tried to use your hands to stop someone running full speed? 

Sure, it's not hard. I do come from a naturally strong family though, so might be harder for others. 

 

 

But seriously yeah, it does make it more difficult. I do think there's a middle ground between using only hands and launching though. It's more like blitz pickup for a RB. And that is way tougher, anyone can light a guy up if he's not looking. Not many are good at blitz pickups. 

 

 

 

I mean I'm with everyone that this version of the rule is terrible. I don't think it's crazy to try and eliminate the hits like that clip though. They're fun to watch, but I can still enjoy football without them and maybe more ex football players have good quality of life after they're done.