Blindside Inconsistencies

[SlaughterHouse6]

I have noticed an uptick in blindside and helmet to helmet calls this season. However, the one call that I consistently don't see called is the motion or non-motion crack-back on sweeps. Would this not be considered a blindside block, because the play itself is based on that exact deception. Please advise, thanks!

P.S. I actually love this play design, but if we are evolving, then this should be addressed.

 

[Legacy Zebra]

Simply cracking or delivering a blindside block is not necessarily a foul in and of itself. The rules define a blindside block, but then go on to say a player may not deliver a blindside block “by attacking an opponent with forcible contact”. So if it is something like setting a screen or an open handed shove, it does not meet the criteria for a foul. Even though it is by definition a blind side block, it is not an *illegal* blindside block.

 

[SlaughterHouse6]

Simply cracking or delivering a blindside block is not necessarily a foul in and of itself. The rules define a blindside block, but then go on to say a player may not deliver a blindside block “by attacking an opponent with forcible contact”. So if it is something like setting a screen or an open handed shove, it does not meet the criteria for a foul. Even though it is by definition a blind side block, it is not an *illegal* blindside block.

Thank you for the explanation. If I’m reading it correctly, as long as it’s not a violent blindside block, it is within the rules. What if it is violent in the sense it’s helmet to helmet or helmet to chest stopping the full momentum of the unaware defensive player?

 

[Legacy Zebra]

That question is kind of getting into another can of worms, so let’s look at one rule at a time. If the blocker is hitting the defender with his helmet, that is a pretty good clue that he now meets the “attack” criteria in the rule. So if it is indeed forcible, it would qualify as a foul for an illegal blindside block.

Now the other portion of this question. “Helmet to helmet contact” and “leading with the helmet” are not fouls in and it themselves. But in the context of blindside blocks, they are good signs that meet the “attack” criteria of the rule. If a player is leading with his head, it’s probably a foul for blindside block.

And finally, while helmet to helmet contact is not a foul by itself, a player receiving a blind side block is defined as defenseless. So if you have a blindside block with helmet to helmet contact, it could be targeting if there is an indicator present. Indicators include launching, crouch and thrust, lowering the head to attack, or attacking with the forearm, shoulder, or elbow.

 

[SlaughterHouse6]

That question is kind of getting into another can of worms, so let’s look at one rule at a time. If the blocker is hitting the defender with his helmet, that is a pretty good clue that he now meets the “attack” criteria in the rule. So if it is indeed forcible, it would qualify as a foul for an illegal blindside block.

Now the other portion of this question. “Helmet to helmet contact” and “leading with the helmet” are not fouls in and it themselves. But in the context of blindside blocks, they are good signs that meet the “attack” criteria of the rule. If a player is leading with his head, it’s probably a foul for blindside block.

And finally, while helmet to helmet contact is not a foul by itself, a player receiving a blind side block is defined as defenseless. So if you have a blindside block with helmet to helmet contact, it could be targeting if there is an indicator present. Indicators include launching, crouch and thrust, lowering the head to attack, or attacking with the forearm, shoulder, or elbow.

100% answered my question. Thank you for taking the time to give an awesome explanation!

 

[ragid0]

I wish there were more zebras like Legacy Zebra.

 

[SlaughterHouse6]

agree!