to the sports animal guys

[getrdone]

in response to caller about the chop/cut block on austin box-said if he is in the box it's legal-not a bad call-

the rule is: if you are a receiver-you can't block low-cut-chop-whatever you want to call it-unless the player is a)head up with you or b) outside of you

so the block not only was not called-td would not have counted-box is hurt

[tulsaoilerfan]

Dirty play IMO

[Williesan]

The receiver #85 went straight for Box's knee, while the play was going away from that general area and that's my biggest beef. It was a dirty, cheap shot and I hope the league has something to say about it.

[SoonerBacker]

In the post-game interview, Stoops said it MAY be just a sprain. They won't know for sure until they can examine it tomorrow. Let's hope that's the case.
Doesn't excuse the low-life puke who did it, though. Dirty play, for sure.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

In the post-game interview, Stoops said it MAY be just a sprain. They won't know for sure until they can examine it tomorrow. Let's hope that's the case.
Doesn't excuse the low-life puke who did it, though. Dirty play, for sure.

unless its severed, that is always his first diagnosis

[TopDawg]

Dirty? Yeah.

Legal? As I understand it, yes. The chop block penalty is called when a defender is engaged with one blocker and another offensive player comes in and hits him below the waist. People go for the legs quite often, even our players from time to time. This one looked like it came with bad intentions, but I think it's still legal. I'm just glad that guy didn't get any more receptions. I got tired of his stupid "make some noise" gestures after every catch he made (3?)

[OUinFLA]

unless its severed, that is always his first diagnosis


and even if it is severed, Bob will expect him to have adapted to his new leg by game time Saturday.

[Williesan]

Dirty? Yeah.

Legal? As I understand it, yes. The chop block penalty is called when a defender is engaged with one blocker and another offensive player comes in and hits him below the waist. People go for the legs quite often, even our players from time to time. This one looked like it came with bad intentions, but I think it's still legal. I'm just glad that guy didn't get any more receptions. I got tired of his stupid "make some noise" gestures after every catch he made (3?)

Legal? I beg to differ... First off it wasn't a "chop block." A chop block is a high-low block on a lineman. A lineman (offensive or defensive) cannot engage an opposing lineman high, and another come in at the thigh or lower and take the engaged lineman's legs out from under him. It's dangerous to the knees.

As to tonight's situation on Austin Box - (edit: here's the video of the play in question):

http://s33.photobucket.com/albums/d68/montysix/?action=view&current=e01cf93f.pbr

(All rule quotes come from the NCAA Rulebook, 2007 Ed.)


RULE 2 - DEFINITIONS
Section 3 - Blocking
ARTICLE 1.
Part a. Blocking is obstructing an opponent by contacting him with any part of the blocker’s body.
Part b. Pushing is blocking an opponent with open hands.This defines a "block."


Below Waist
ARTICLE 2.
Part a. Blocking below the waist is the initial contact below the waist with any part of the blocker’s body against an opponent, other than the runner. When in question, the contact is below the waist (Rule Interpretation 9-1-2-e).

Part b. Blocking below the waist applies to the initial contact by a blocker against an opponent who has one or both feet on the ground. A blocker who makes contact above the waist and then slides below the waist has not blocked below the waist. If the blocker first contacts the opposing player’s hands at the waist or above, it is a legal “above the waist’’ block (Rule 9-1-2-e).This defines what is a "block below the waist."

Here's where the officials missed the call tonight:


RULE 9 Conduct of Players and Others Subject to Rules
Sec 1 - Contact and Interference Fouls
Article 2,
Part e. Blocking below the waist is permitted except as follows (A.R. 9-1-2-IVXI):

1. Offensive linemen at the snap positioned more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone.

2. Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely outside the frame of the body of the normal tackle (second player from the snapper) position in either direction toward a sideline, or in motion at the snap, are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone. The frame of the body does not include arms or legs extended sideways (A.R. 9-1-2-XXVI).#85 for OK State was lined up outside in a slot right position, and blocked below the waist on Box back towards the center of the field on the opposite side of the field from where the play ended.

That's 15 for an illegal block below the waist, and replay the down. (And IMHO, the league should seriously look into suspending #85 - he made no hesitation to go low, lead with his helmet and take his knee.) :mad::mad::mad:

(Edit: I made this assessment early Sunday morning, only seeing the replay once during the game. After seeing the posted video above, I firmly stand by this assessment.)

Obviously, this game is not going to be in the archive as an example of "what to do" for the Big XII or NCAA. But this particular incident should make the rounds as a "point of emphasis" for all officials.

Hope this helps.

Williesan

[TopDawg]

This also came up in another thread. Here's what I found looking around a little.


Ahhh...yeah. Crackback. That's different. I'ts still kinda tricky. This seems to be the rule that addresses is:

Rule 9-1-2-e


e . Blocking below the waist is permitted except as follows (A.R. 9-1-2-IV-XI):

1 . Offensive players at the snap positioned more than seven yards in
any direction from the middle lineman of the offensive formation or
in motion at the snap are prohibited from blocking below the waist
toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone
and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone.
The following formation sets are legal, and the players are not restricted
by Rule 9-1-2-e when blocking toward the ball:
( a ) An offensive end positioned less than two yards from the legal
clipping zone.
( b ) A wing back positioned one yard to the outside of an end who
is flexed no more than one yard from the legal clipping zone.
( c ) A slot back positioned no more than one yard outside the legal
clipping zone and inside an end who is one yard outside the slot
b a c k .

Here is a diagram of when it's legal and when it's not. (http://www.eaifo2.org/files_pdf/NcaaBBW2004.pdf) I'd have to see the play again to know for sure. Suffice it to say that it doesn't seem like an "automatic" call.

That diagram makes me believe that it's very much a judgment call based on where they're lined up. LIke I said, I'd have to see the play again to know if Box was inside or outside the zone. As you can see, just a few feet before the snap can make all the difference in the world.

Again, I'm no expert, but it doesn't look like it's an automatic call. It may still be the wrong call, but it doesn't appear to be as blatantly wrong as some are claiming.

[Sooner_Rog]

I think it was a weak block by a tired and desperate player... Tough break for Box...

[Williesan]

Definitely need to see the replay TD.

My biggest concern was the fact Box was moving towards the play and this happened. It would stand to reason that he was "inside the box" in this case, so until I see the replay I won't question the legality of the block - just the intent.

Off to bed for now.

Williesan

[SoonerStormchaser]

If Bob doesn't send the tape of this game up to the league office regarding the no-fumble call and that POS lineman's cheap **** chop block, then something's glaringly wrong.