New "No Blind Blocking" Rule

Moiraine said:
It would suck a$$ to take one of those hits
Click to expand...


As a recipient of a blind side block in HS (off an interception, I was chasing the DB with the ball), I can confirm that is does indeed suck a$$ to take one of those.  I remember trying to pop back up right after it to prove it didn't hurt, but I took a step or two and just fell back down.  It took me a good 5-10 minutes to get my bearings back after it.

With that said, the block is a part of football, but a very dangerous part.  I am in favor of finding ways to make the game safer, so trying to limit hits like that is a good goal.  But I am not sure of the best way to go about eliminating it from the game.

 
So basically the Kenny Bell block in the B1G championship game against Wisconsin?  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Five said:
As a recipient of a blind side block in HS (off an interception, I was chasing the DB with the ball), I can confirm that is does indeed suck a$$ to take one of those.  I remember trying to pop back up right after it to prove it didn't hurt, but I took a step or two and just fell back down.  It took me a good 5-10 minutes to get my bearings back after it.

With that said, the block is a part of football, but a very dangerous part.  I am in favor of finding ways to make the game safer, so trying to limit hits like that is a good goal.  But I am not sure of the best way to go about eliminating it from the game.
Click to expand...


Ya I got knocked out on a play like this in high school. Still not in favor of this rule as it's being implemented. 

 
God this is messy. When I read the OP I was ready to defend the rule, as it's possible to block a player who doesn't see you without completely obliterating them. But then when I read the rule, I thought that the wording is way too vague and open to subjectivity and really unfair to defenders. But then I thought about how I know from personal interactions with D1 referees that the way the rules are written and the way they're taught to enforce the rules are not the same thing, and there are such a thing as unwritten rules.

So I don't really know what to think. Other than where does this lead, and will it be enforced in a way that is actually fair. I doubt it.

 
MichiganDad3 said:
In an effort to move CFB closer to flag football, there is a new rule against blind blocks this year. You cannot hit anyone with force if they are not looking at the defender. I guess no block in the back was not good enough. Can you imagine how many bad flags this creates? I want less decision making by the refs, not more.
Click to expand...
A friend and I were discussing after reading an article about NCAA banning the 3 man wedge.  They said it was among the highest instances of injury after they studied injury statistics.  

So if we sit down every year and make a new rule to take away the thing that is creating the most injuries football gets whittled down one thing at a time until there is no real contact left.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
307husker said:
Can we just have our defensive linemen line up backwards, back their way through the line before spinning around untouched in the backfield???  It's a thought...   :P
Click to expand...


I remember reading that back in the 20s or 30s when teams ran the full house backfield one college team had the center face the backfield so he could hike the ball accurately to any of the backs.

And NO I DIDN'T SEE IT MYSELF!

 
JJ Husker said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yes, you can expect a blocker to not explode into the blockee and decleat the guy but you can't expect him to just set a screen and take the hit himself.

 
They called one last night. Watch for #83 coming up from the bottom of the screen 

giphy.gif


 
GSG said:
They called one last night. Watch for #83 coming up from the bottom of the screen 

Click to expand...




In what way did that help with player safety? He wasn’t close to going full speed at that point because he had just changed direction. I understand wanting to prevent Kenny Bell blocks, even though they’re fun to watch, but damn, this one doesn’t make the players safer. The guy even bounced back up immediately and started running. And it was a block on one of the 2 guys who had the best chance to tackle the ball carrier. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
brophog said:
It’s a problematic rule, imo. It comes down to what the official deems forcible contact, and that’s a very difficult call on the field of play. You can get in the way, you can even initiate contact, but you can’t blow the guy up. 
Click to expand...




You can still blow a guy up but he as far as the ref is concerned the blocker just needs to be in said blockee's 'field of vision'.  Regardless it's going to create some dicey calls.

 
They called one in the MN/SDSU game as well, it was pretty similar. So I'm definitely more concerned, these guys are not "outside the field of view," the defenders are just looking past them to the ball carrier.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top