Block in the back

[btb916]

Who was "guilty" of the block in the back on TLew's Pick 6? I can't see it in any replay, and I didn't see it at the game. Anyone know?

[the-rover]

There was a guy that got pushed, way behind the play, I don't think the guy even got knocked down....extremely weak call

[Widescreen]

I believe it was Casey Walker.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

#12

I thought we got off easy since it should have been a personal foul. The ball carrier was more than 15 yards in front of where the block was thrown so they could have flagged us for unnecessary roughness. Ala Tommie Harris on a TGRW INT Return in 2001...

[SoonerGibb7]

JaMarkus McFarland

[Seamus]

It was McFarland.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Not to be arguing for the sake of arguing, but on the TV replay it didn't even look like a foul. They showed (I thought) Jamarkus McFarland engaging behind the play, but his helmet was level and forward of the pads. Can't speak for Casey Walker.

[swardboy]

....some fairy in some ref's figment of an imagination....

[Lott's Bandana]

It was extremely weak, didn't affect the play and was the second time JMc had engaged that player as they were going down the field. He should have gotten praise for his hustle instead of the flag.


I'm guessing the coaches don't get on him too much about it.

[GDC]

Weak call

[StoopTroup]

#12

I thought we got off easy since it should have been a personal foul. The ball carrier was more than 15 yards in front of where the block was thrown so they could have flagged us for unnecessary roughness. Ala Tommie Harris on a TGRW INT Return in 2001...

You know....if that's the kind of Game you think should be played at this level....I guess you are right. I'm really seeing a huge difference in the way Refs are calling these penalties. A good number of them come out of the Refs pockets after an OU Turnover or a great play. They have little to do with whether or not the outcome of the play would have resulted in the player fouled being involved in the play or getting badly injured. Many of them have been suspicious to me for quite awhile. There was more than two OU Fans complained about in the ISU Game and the Finch call for Cross Body Blocking in another Game was awful.

We continue to be hit with calls that stop our momentum. Refs are there to keep the Game honest and friendly not to affect the outcome. Lately they seem to me to be affecting the Game more than anything. I might have been a bit wrong about the EZ hit we made on the Florida State WR and that hit he got that got him put out of the Game might have been marginally justified earlier this year when compared to what we are getting hit with this year in Big XII Play. Our guys aren't hitting nearly like that later in the Season and I think these calls have a lot to do with our Defense playing down to avoid them. We just aren't the Team we were when Travis Lewis was on the Sidelines. I won't blame Travis for that but I guess I'm saying we just aren't as vicious as we were earlier in the year. Some folks think firing the DC would help and I think maybe it's because some folks are tired of us ruling the Big XII.

If I'm right....we not only lose our DC, we probably lose our Head Coach. Who the hell would want to play under conditions like this? There are Teams leaving our Conference because they suck and can't get by us and we have now lost our Conference Championship and even a Home Game that should have been played in Norman against oSu this year. It's getting pretty weird is what I keep seeing. I'm sure Bob is trying to get us through this now and maybe at least put another Big XII Trophy in the Switzer Center this year. Yeah it's a Consolation but it's a damn good one in my book and I will take the time to go up and see it up there for 2011 just like I did for the Sun Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and the Big XII South Division Trophies that sit next to the Big XII Champion Trophies I saw Friday. I would have liked to have seen the Hat we won this year from fexas but alas the Trophy Case was empty for some reason.

I know some folks think I'm nuts for cheering on this Team but they are still in the hunt for Trophies even if us fans are ready to give up and just move onto next year. I'm looking forward to seeing Kameel, Jaz, Kenny and Trey pull down passes from landry as he continues to add to his Stats here at OU. I hope Landry decided to stay and push for a MNC next year even though I have a feeling he might go to the NFL.

At the end of this rant....I just can't let that call go. Travis deserved that moment and it was stolen from him.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Stoup, after rewatching it, I take back my thoughts on it being too far downfield. As a matter of a fact, it was crazy close to the play. Unfortunately, it is by every definition a block in the back.

http://pics.ouportal.com/LewisINTBlock.png

[NormanPride]

But the "block" hardly made contact and was mostly at the side. It should have been a no-call.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But the "block" hardly made contact and was mostly at the side. It should have been a no-call.

It was a bonehead play that should have been flagged. It actually reminded me of all the holds/blocks in the backs that limited Parker to 292 yards. Now if they would just be this picky on kickoff returns our special teams would be a lot better.

[cvsooner]

And as the play moves on the guy gets shoved closer to almost making the tackle. I agree, it's technically a foul. Did it affect the play? No. Hanky should've stayed put, unless refs were trying to make sure they didn't let players think they could do what they want.

[KABOOKIE]

You shut your mouth.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

And as the play moves on the guy gets shoved closer to almost making the tackle. I agree, it's technically a foul. Did it affect the play? No. Hanky should've stayed put, unless refs were trying to make sure they didn't let players think they could do what they want.

There is no rule that says that a flag shouldn't be thrown because it doesn't affect the play. Do you really want to give refs the leeway to determine if rules infractions "affect the play"?

[StoopTroup]

There is no rule that says that a flag shouldn't be thrown because it doesn't affect the play. Do you really want to give refs the leeway to determine if rules infractions "affect the play"?

I don't....but it just seems pretty damned suspect a few times this year. I'd rather like to think it's just one of those things that was called and was a good call and hey maybe we are just kicking ourselves when we are down and about to do something great....but it's seemingly had an affect on our Aggressiveness as a Defense since what we saw earlier this year.

[StoopTroup]

I'd also like to add that I know some folks are real big on Travis and some are really buying into the whole shark thing but Tom Wort had 11 Tackles to Travis' 3. I do think that Travis was robbed but like you say...maybe it just doesn't matter that it should be a good No-Call....you have to admit it sure was a Momentum killer and Travis other than that called back TD really had a Meh Day.

[8timechamps]

I'll agree with jkm on this one. The call was correct, and if anything, the player should realize where they are on the field and play accordingly. As a coach, I've been guilty of telling an official that the penalty a flag was thrown for "had no affect on the play", yet I also have said things like "So, the rules don't apply if the game is already decided?"...I know, in reality the rules should be enforced regardless of the situation, and in this case it was the correct call.

[toast]

meh, it was the correct call and the flag was warranted but I'm not going to get upset with McFarland. I know they're instructed about returns, but it's not their primary focus so I'll give him a break. Now if it had cost OU the game, that would be a completely different matter ;)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'll agree with jkm on this one. The call was correct, and if anything, the player should realize where they are on the field and play accordingly. As a coach, I've been guilty of telling an official that the penalty a flag was thrown for "had no affect on the play", yet I also have said things like "So, the rules don't apply if the game is already decided?"...I know, in reality the rules should be enforced regardless of the situation, and in this case it was the correct call.

Heh, precisely. I was more thinking about how easy it would be to justify fixing games, but whatever.

[Dale Ellis]

As an official you have to understand the intent of the rule in order to make the correct call in that situation. Obviously the intent of the rule is to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage by allowing them to block a defender from the blindside when that defender is in a position to make a play.

That's either a no call or it has to be so flagrant that it's called a personal foul.

[Dale Ellis]

meh, it was the correct call and the flag was warranted but I'm not going to get upset with McFarland. I know they're instructed about returns, but it's not their primary focus so I'll give him a break. Now if it had cost OU the game, that would be a completely different matter ;)

meh, not it's not.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

As an official you have to understand the intent of the rule in order to make the correct call in that situation. Obviously the intent of the rule is to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage by allowing them to block a defender from the blindside when that defender is in a position to make a play.

That's either a no call or it has to be so flagrant that it's called a personal foul.

The offense did gain an advantage. If you watch the whole play, you'll see the push moved the guy a yard to the top side of the field which gave Proctor a chance to hit him as well. No push and Proctor can't slow him down. Assuming FA doesn't make some block on him, he tracks Lewis down around the 2-3 without that push. The key is that from a trailing officials perspective, it looks like this guy has a free run at Lewis but the push helps another OU defender get a block.

[toast]

meh, not it's not.

It's about as clear a block in the back as there can be

[cantwait48]

yeah it was a block in the back, he was trying to explain himself to one of the coaches on the sideline saying he had his head in front but the replay clearly showed it behind as does the picture.

[Dale Ellis]

The offense did gain an advantage. If you watch the whole play, you'll see the push moved the guy a yard to the top side of the field which gave Proctor a chance to hit him as well. No push and Proctor can't slow him down. Assuming FA doesn't make some block on him, he tracks Lewis down around the 2-3 without that push. The key is that from a trailing officials perspective, it looks like this guy has a free run at Lewis but the push helps another OU defender get a block.


again, you have to understand the intent of the rule. Had that been in the BCS championship game, and the same call been made, and cost OU the game, you'd be in here screaming bloody murder instead of defending a horrible call.

[Dale Ellis]

yeah it was a block in the back, he was trying to explain himself to one of the coaches on the sideline saying he had his head in front but the replay clearly showed it behind as does the picture.

By the letter of the rule, it was, however anyone that has ever officiated knows you have to take what's happening on the field and apply it to your ruling. You don't just call it because "by God" that's the way it's described in the rule book.

[Dale Ellis]

it looks like this guy has a free run at Lewis but the push helps another OU defender get a block.

I watched the replay several times, that should not have been called.

[8timechamps]

As an official you have to understand the intent of the rule in order to make the correct call in that situation. Obviously the intent of the rule is to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage by allowing them to block a defender from the blindside when that defender is in a position to make a play.

That's either a no call or it has to be so flagrant that it's called a personal foul.

That was the correct call. There is no such thing as "intent of the rule". Maybe in an officials mind, but a penalty is a penalty, regardless of where it occurs.

[Dale Ellis]

There is no rule that says that a flag shouldn't be thrown because it doesn't affect the play. Do you really want to give refs the leeway to determine if rules infractions "affect the play"?

again, you have to know the intent of the rule, otherwise there cold be penalty called on literal every play of the game. You have to take the play as a whole and apply the ruling. You don't just see contact made in the back so you throw the flag.

If you guys want every penalty called every time because that's what the rules say, then by all means enjoy you're 6 hour games. Seriously, anyone arguing that penalty was justified and was the correct call is just being a contrarian.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

again, you have to understand the intent of the rule. Had that been in the BCS championship game, and the same call been made, and cost OU the game, you'd be in here screaming bloody murder instead of defending a horrible call.

You have me confused with someone else. I was at that Texas game when De'mond had 292 yards rushing and another 120+ called back for penalties like this. Everyone was screaming at the officials while I was saying "Don't do that, he's already past you". Btw, that game was one of those Rain-Sun-Rain games that soak you through and through.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

again, you have to know the intent of the rule, otherwise there cold be penalty called on literal every play of the game. You have to take the play as a whole and apply the ruling. You don't just see contact made in the back so you throw the flag.

If you guys want every penalty called every time because that's what the rules say, then by all means enjoy you're 6 hour games. Seriously, anyone arguing that penalty was justified and was the correct call is just being a contrarian.

Blocks in the back happen on sudden change, not every play of the game. Its why they are primarily called on punt returns and kick off returns. They also happen to be done in space where nothing impedes vision which is why they are so easy to see. Also from a young age, you are taught that if you can't get your head across the front of a defender you don't block them you pull up.

[jkjsooner]

It was a bonehead play that should have been flagged. It actually reminded me of all the holds/blocks in the backs that limited Parker to 292 yards. Now if they would just be this picky on kickoff returns our special teams would be a lot better.

The exact same thing came to my mind. The one hold was well behind the play and I believe it was a 40-60 yard run by Parker. Some dumb Blake coached players owe Parker the single game OU record.

[8timechamps]

again, you have to know the intent of the rule, otherwise there cold be penalty called on literal every play of the game. You have to take the play as a whole and apply the ruling. You don't just see contact made in the back so you throw the flag.

If you guys want every penalty called every time because that's what the rules say, then by all means enjoy you're 6 hour games. Seriously, anyone arguing that penalty was justified and was the correct call is just being a contrarian.

I'm arguing that the penalty was correct, because it was. The player's head was clearly behind the shoulder of the pursuit player when he made contact...by rule, that's a block in the back.

It's not the job of the official to decide whether or not the "intent" of the rule is in effect on a specific play, it's their job to enforce the rules of the game. If we are going to start depending on the officials to officiate a game based on the "intent" of every rule, then every outcome would be questioned. The officials call the plays they see, not the ones they don't (in other words, I don't buy the "a penalty could be called on every play" argument).

Officials make bad calls every game, no argument about that from me. This one, however, was correct.

[FtwTxSooner]

I don't there there have been too many officials graded down, demoted, or given lesser assignments for correctly calling a penalty regardless of whether you can make an arguement if it had an affect on the play itself.

However, for an official to not throw a flag, that can come back to bite them when they get evaluated.

This is readily apparent for all the PFs involving helmet contact, defenseless players, etc. They are instructed to throw the flag even if they are unsure on whether the hit was illegal. If they want to make their way up to the top crew, get BCS bowl games, etc., they have to call anything close.

[sooner_born_1960]

My philosophy is, a shoulder is not a back. If the block isn't in the numbers, leave the flag alone.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Seriously, anyone arguing that penalty was justified and was the correct call is just being a contrarian.

As an aside, where are we getting all of these "I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong" posters?

[8timechamps]

My philosophy is, a shoulder is not a back. If the block isn't in the numbers, leave the flag alone.

That may be your philosophy, but that's not the rule. Clearly a block on the numbers is a block in the back, but the majority of blocking the back calls are not that obvious.

[8timechamps]

As an aside, where are we getting all of these "I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong" posters?

They started popping up after the first loss, then doubled after the Baylor game.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

My philosophy is, a shoulder is not a back. If the block isn't in the numbers, leave the flag alone.

The way that we were taught is it is about helmet position with relation to the blockee's body. If your helmet doesn't go across his chest, there is a chance you can be called. His helmet is clearly behind the player thus the umpire is going to see the helmet outlined against the back of the jersey and then a block/push being thrown.

[Dale Ellis]

It's not the job of the official to decide whether or not the "intent" of the rule is in effect on a specific play,

That's the exact job of the officials, and for you to say otherwise,tells me you have never officiated a sporting event.

Intent does not apply on every rule, IE off sides, too many men on the field, etc. But when there is a play like this and when there is very minimal contact made 15 yards behind the play, when that contact had not effect on the play and was not egregious, yet more of a slight bump, any good official should no better.

I bet in 08 when one of our players touched Colt McCoy out of bounds and he took a flop he could have won an academy award on, you agreed with that call as well. If not, please explain why, if so, please explain why?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That may be your philosophy, but that's not the rule. Clearly a block on the numbers is a block in the back, but the majority of blocking the back calls are not that obvious.

The problem with this call is that the umpire who threw the flag is 20 yards behind the blocker. It looks like from that angle that he does put the helmet in the numbers.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

That's the exact job of the officials, and for you to say otherwise,tells me you have never officiated a sporting event.

Intent does not apply on every rule, IE off sides, too many men on the field, etc. But when there is a play like this and when there is very minimal contact made 15 yards behind the play, when that contact had not effect on the play and was not egregious, yet more of a slight bump, any good official should no better.

I bet in 08 when one of our players touched Colt McCoy out of bounds and he took a flop he could have won an academy award on, you agreed with that call as well. If not, please explain why, if so, please explain why?

1st -> He did it 3 times and the last one no one touched him. Once again, INTENT says that flag isn't thrown. The rules say it is so they threw it. As a player, you have to figure this crap out and stop after the first call.

Second -> There is a picture above. The block is thrown at the 35, the ball carrier is at the 30. According to my math, that is 5 yards. We are also talking about a speedy WR vs a LB and the speedy WR almost tracked him down after taking 2 more hits.

[sooner_born_1960]

That may be your philosophy, but that's not the rule. Clearly a block on the numbers is a block in the back, but the majority of blocking the back calls are not that obvious.
I only have NFHS rules to go by...

ART. 2 . . . Blocking in the back is a block against an opponent when the initial contact is in the opponent's back, inside the shoulders and below the helmet and above the waist, and not against a player who is a runner or pretending to be a runner.
The back of the shoulder is still the shoulder, so, yeah, it better be on the numbers.

[Dale Ellis]

As an aside, where are we getting all of these "I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong" posters?



The call was made, we won, let's move on. However, had that call cost us the game, I doubt the ones in here patting the official on the back for a job well done, would still be doing so.

[jkjsooner]

I'm arguing that the penalty was correct, because it was. The player's head was clearly behind the shoulder of the pursuit player when he made contact...by rule, that's a block in the back.

It's not the job of the official to decide whether or not the "intent" of the rule is in effect on a specific play, it's their job to enforce the rules of the game. If we are going to start depending on the officials to officiate a game based on the "intent" of every rule, then every outcome would be questioned. The officials call the plays they see, not the ones they don't (in other words, I don't buy the "a penalty could be called on every play" argument).

Officials make bad calls every game, no argument about that from me. This one, however, was correct.

I know it's a different sport but in basketball officials will tell you that they look for someone gaining an advantage by contact when determining if there is a foul or not. I've heard both NBA and NCAA officials state this. Given, there might be some wording to that effect in the basketball rule books but I'm just pointing out that the idea that context does play a role in officiating (at least in bball).

That being said, the block in the back was close enough to the play that it should have been called no matter what role you believe the official should take in this. The block was more of a slight touch and it was behind the play and probably had no impact on the results of the play but it was close enough that it simply couldn't be ignored.

[Dale Ellis]

1st -> He did it 3 times and the last one no one touched him. Once again, INTENT says that flag isn't thrown. The rules say it is so they threw it. As a player, you have to figure this crap out and stop after the first call.

Second -> There is a picture above. The block is thrown at the 35, the ball carrier is at the 30. According to my math, that is 5 yards. We are also talking about a speedy WR vs a LB and the speedy WR almost tracked him down after taking 2 more hits.

you can not assume a tackle would have been made in your defense. You have to look at the play at the time the alleged offense took place. Some would argue, when he pushed the guy, it launched him forward giving him more of an opportunity to make the play.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

[B]The back of the shoulder is still the shoulder, so, yeah, it better be on the numbers.

Your rule quoted states that it is a Rectangle bounded by the following:

Top to Bottom -> Helmet and waist
Side to Side -> Inside the shoulders (this means 1 of 2 things -> either within the outside edge of the shoulder pads or in a narrow neck wide portion over the spine). The first interpretation is what I played under, the second is a little more strict than your interpretation.

[8timechamps]

That's the exact job of the officials, and for you to say otherwise,tells me you have never officiated a sporting event.

Intent does not apply on every rule, IE off sides, too many men on the field, etc. But when there is a play like this and when there is very minimal contact made 15 yards behind the play, when that contact had not effect on the play and was not egregious, yet more of a slight bump, any good official should no better.

I bet in 08 when one of our players touched Colt McCoy out of bounds and he took a flop he could have won an academy award on, you agreed with that call as well. If not, please explain why, if so, please explain why?

You know absolutely nothing about me, please do ***ume otherwise.

And, before I continue, please take note that new posters who come here and declare that everything they say is correct, and if you disagree, "you're wrong" typically don't last long. Just an FYI.

No, it is not the "exact" job of the official to decide whether or not the intent of the rule is in effect on every play. By your logic, every play would have to be reviewed in order to determine if the "intent" was there. Can you tell me what the intent of the clipping rule is? How about a hitting a defenseless player? Or even chop block? Your opinion is that the official made an incorrect call. The rule book says otherwise. I'll stick with the actual rules of the game over your word.

As for '08, I don't remember how I reacted, but if you can find a clip of that play, I'll be more than happy to refresh my memory.

Please let us know your qualifications on this matter. Since you seem to think you are the final word when it comes to officiating.

[Dale Ellis]

it was close enough that it simply couldn't be ignored.

could have been and should have been. No one is arguing that technically some sort of infraction occurred, but you can't just take a picture and say, "yep, that's a penalty". Ask your friends that officiate if they ever let a call go late in a game because they know it will effect the outcome of the game, yet has no bearing in what is happening at the time if ignored. That's why late in a basketball game you may see a foul not called that would have been called with 5 minutes left in that same game.

The officials job is NOT to effect the outcome of a game via enforcement of the rules. There job is to enforce the rules with in the context of the game, given what is taking place at the time the infraction occurs.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

you can not assume a tackle would have been made in your defense. You have to look at the play at the time the alleged offense took place. Some would argue, when he pushed the guy, it launched him forward giving him more of an opportunity to make the play.

Wow, now we are really stretching this.

[sooner_born_1960]

Your rule quoted states that it is a Rectangle bounded by the following:

Top to Bottom -> Helmet and waist
Side to Side -> Inside the shoulders (this means 1 of 2 things -> either within the outside edge of the shoulder pads or in a narrow neck wide portion over the spine). The first interpretation is what I played under, the second is a little more strict than your interpretation.
Yes, the numbers pretty well cover my interpretation.

[jkjsooner]

I bet in 08 when one of our players touched Colt McCoy out of bounds and he took a flop he could have won an academy award on, you agreed with that call as well. If not, please explain why, if so, please explain why?

Which of the three incidents in that game are you referring to? ;-)

Those were horrible calls along with the call where our receiver caught the ball in the endzone, secured it, took two full steps, and then got hit and dropped the ball. Exactly how many steps does it take before you've completed the catch and when does that hit become a personal foul?

[8timechamps]

I know it's a different sport but in basketball officials will tell you that they look for someone gaining an advantage by contact when determining if there is a foul or not. I've heard both NBA and NCAA officials state this. Given, there might be some wording to that effect in the basketball rule books but I'm just pointing out that the idea that context does play a role in officiating (at least in bball).

That being said, the block in the back was close enough to the play that it should have been called no matter what role you believe the official should take in this. The block was more of a slight touch and it was behind the play and probably had no impact on the results of the play but it was close enough that it simply couldn't be ignored.

I'm not arguing that there are not rules in place to keep a player from gaining an advantage, because there are. But, that's why those rules are in place, to remove as much doubt as possible. Officials are charged with the responsibility of calling a game with split-second decision making. My argument is in this case, there is no gray area when it comes to a block in the back call. If an official sees it, it will be called 99.9% of the time.

I understand what you're saying though, but my argument is more about the specific call made Saturday.

[cvsooner]

As an aside, where are we getting all of these "I'm right and if you disagree with me you are wrong" posters?The GOP debates.

[Dale Ellis]

And, before I continue, please take note that new posters who come here and declare that everything they say is correct, and if you disagree, "you're wrong" typically don't last long. Just an FYI.

I never said "everything" I say is correct. If I get banned for stating I'm correct, so be it.


No, it is not the "exact" job of the official to decide whether or not the intent of the rule is in effect on every play.

The intent of the rule is much different from player intent. If you understand the intent of the rule, then there's no reason to review every play.


Can you tell me what the intent of the clipping rule is?

Sure, do I really need to? It's like many other rules, it's designed to prevent one player from gaining an unfair advantage over another player, or to protect a player from injury.
I think you are confusing what a players intentions are with, the intent of the rule when it was written.

Why is this concept so foreign to you? Taking the play as a whole, what happened during that play, the rule and the intent of the rule, it was a bad call. I'm not saying every block in the back call is a bad call, I'm saying you have to look past the written rule sometimes to make your determination, and anyone who has ever officiated KNOWS that.

[cvsooner]

There is no rule that says that a flag shouldn't be thrown because it doesn't affect the play. Do you really want to give refs the leeway to determine if rules infractions "affect the play"?No. But that does seem to be the practice nowadays. I get more aggravated over the stuff that doesn't get called (like the pushoff in the end zone with eight seconds to go at Baylor).

[Dale Ellis]

Wow, now we are really stretching this.

watch the replay, either the wr has a retro rocket in his ***, or the push propelled him forward. Frankly, I think the rocket theory is a stretch.

[cvsooner]

If an official sees it, it will be called 99.9% of the time.

Only if he's wearing a Sooner uniform. Everybody else...about 80 %, I'd say.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Yes, the numbers pretty well cover my interpretation.

NFHS Umpire goes over it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9QRr3d4UqM (2:34 ish)

[sooner_born_1960]

I can't see it unless it's imbedded.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

again, you have to understand the intent of the rule. Had that been in the BCS championship game, and the same call been made, and cost OU the game, you'd be in here screaming bloody murder instead of defending a horrible call.

99.9 % of the posters? probably..JKM? No..

[cccasooner2]

I can't see it unless it's imbedded.


r9QRr3d4UqM

[NormanPride]

99.9 % of the posters? probably..JKM? No..

Dale trolls all.

[8timechamps]

I never said "everything" I say is correct. If I get banned for stating I'm correct, so be it.



The intent of the rule is much different from player intent. If you understand the intent of the rule, then there's no reason to review every play.



Sure, do I really need to? It's like many other rules, it's designed to prevent one player from gaining an unfair advantage over another player, or to protect a player from injury.
I think you are confusing what a players intentions are with, the intent of the rule when it was written.

Why is this concept so foreign to you? Taking the play as a whole, what happened during that play, the rule and the intent of the rule, it was a bad call. I'm not saying every block in the back call is a bad call, I'm saying you have to look past the written rule sometimes to make your determination, and anyone who has ever officiated KNOWS that.

You're not going to get banned for stating your opinion, my comment was more about the folks here that will engage in a discussion with you (like this). If you come here and declare "I'm right, you're wrong", you'll soon be ignored.

I understand player intent versus intent of the rule. My argument is that the rules are in place to minimize the officials decision making. There are very few judgement calls in football, and that's by design. The rule is specific on clipping, there is no qualifier for the rule. If there is a block in the back, it gets called. That's the rule, that's how it is officiated.

Again, please enlighten us with your credentials. If you are an official (not a Pop Warner official), then I want to make sure you never call any game I am a part of.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I love Dale Ellis though

[8timechamps]

I love Dale Ellis though

He can hit the three, fo sho!

[stoops the eternal pimp]

He was a beast on Tecmo Basketball

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

99.9 % of the posters? probably..JKM? No..

I stopped letting our losses get to me a long time ago. I was at OU during the Gardere era.

[8timechamps]

He was a beast on Tecmo Basketball

See, I didn't have Tecmo Basketball...but give me some Ronnie Lott on Tecmo Football (wasn't it just TecmoBowl?), and it's all over for you!

[C&CDean]

I stopped letting our losses get to me a long time ago. I was at OU during the Gardere era.

You poor, poor bastard. God I hated that guy.

[Dale Ellis]

There are very few judgement calls in football,

False.


If there is a block in the back, it gets called. That's the rule, that's how it is officiated.

again, if you want every foul to be called on every play where one could or according to your standard ( it's in the book so call it) SHOULD be called, then enjoy 6 hour games and 250 yards in penalties.

[8timechamps]

False.



again, if you want every foul to be called on every play where one could or according to your standard ( it's in the book so call it) SHOULD be called, then enjoy 6 hour games and 250 yards in penalties.

Like I said, I'll take the rules over your opinion.

/The End.

[cvsooner]

You poor, poor bastard. God I hated that guy.I'm sure Texas will sculpt a statue of him someday.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You poor, poor bastard. God I hated that guy.

I hated him, I hated the Cash brothers, I hated Kenyon Rasheed being out in Huffman shooting jump shots 3 days before he fumbled the game away. You experience that and other losses just don't affect you.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Cash brothers...bleh

[NormanPride]

After being in the Pride for five years, football was burned into my soul. It determined whether or not we had Christmas Day with our families, it determined where we celebrated new years, and it determined how long we had to sit on a bus to get wherever the team went.

After being out of the Pride for six years, I am learning to live like I did before. It is a nice feeling.

[tulsaoilerfan]

So if this is a penalty where was the flag in the Tech game? Travis clearly got blocked in the back on a bubble screen with the official standing right there

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So if this is a penalty where was the flag in the Tech game? Travis clearly got blocked in the back on a bubble screen with the official standing right there

There are weird exceptions to the rule, like you can't be blocked in the back inside the tackle box.

[cccasooner2]

There are weird exceptions to the rule, like you can't be blocked in the back inside the tackle box.

That just seems wrong.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T2W281SRL._SS400_.jpg

[cvsooner]

That just seems wrong.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T2W281SRL._SS400_.jpgHey, I have that tackle box! It's a good 'un!

[Lott's Bandana]

Hey, I have that tackle box! It's a good 'un!

So do I.

Guess the designer hit a home run with that one.

[I Am Right]

Its a conspiracy!!!!

[cvsooner]

Block and tackle, clarified.
http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/ahd4/A4blotac.jpg

[Dale Ellis]

Like I said, I'll take the rules over your opinion.

/The End.

let me ask you something, baseball rules state that if a player steps on or in front of the plate and offers at the ball, that player will be called out, so if you're calling a game and a player hits a walk off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th inning in game, to give his team the win, but about 1 inch of the toe of his cleat was touching the plate, do you think that umpire should call him out?
Do you think that's what the intent of that rule is?

No umpire in his right mind would make that call because they understand the intent of the rule. The intent of any rule is not to change the outcome of a game or to have an effect on any given play. Sometimes a call will have an effect on a play and every umpire/ref understands that, but regardless given the circumstances, you have to make the call.

Then there are examples such as the one I just gave, where the umpire has to understand the "intent" of the rule and as such, he also understands that he can't make that call in that situation.

Now if you want to go by the exact letter of the rule EVERY TIME, it's going to cause more problems than it solves. You obviously have never officiated a sporting event at any level, or you would understand the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not saying that "by the book" he didn't block him in the back, I'm saying looking at everything as a whole, knowing the intent of the rule, In MY opinion he should not have made that call. I will retract my statement accusing those who disagree with me of being contrarians.

[NormanPride]

Can we still call you a contrarian?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Not me...I'm only 35.

[Dale Ellis]

Can we still call you a contrarian?

only when I disagree with you though.

[cleller]

I was wondering how a thread about a block in the back had stretched into 5 pages.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

let me ask you something, baseball rules state that if a player steps on or in front of the plate and offers at the ball, that player will be called out, so if you're calling a game and a player hits a walk off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th inning in game, to give his team the win, but about 1 inch of the toe of his cleat was touching the plate, do you think that umpire should call him out?
Do you think that's what the intent of that rule is?

No umpire in his right mind would make that call because they understand the intent of the rule. The intent of any rule is not to change the outcome of a game or to have an effect on any given play. Sometimes a call will have an effect on a play and every umpire/ref understands that, but regardless given the circumstances, you have to make the call.

Then there are examples such as the one I just gave, where the umpire has to understand the "intent" of the rule and as such, he also understands that he can't make that call in that situation.

Now if you want to go by the exact letter of the rule EVERY TIME, it's going to cause more problems than it solves. You obviously have never officiated a sporting event at any level, or you would understand the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not saying that "by the book" he didn't block him in the back, I'm saying looking at everything as a whole, knowing the intent of the rule, In MY opinion he should not have made that call. I will retract my statement accusing those who disagree with me of being contrarians.

Let me change your scenario here -> Based Loaded Full Count 2 outs Tying Run on 3rd -> Pitcher throws a pitch on the black part of the plate and the batter gets hit on the elbow. With your mishmashing of the rules you have on idea what to call here. By Rule, its a strike since any legal pitch thrown in the strike zone is a strike. However, the batter didn't intend to get hit so in your rules its a ball because that isn't the intent of the rule.

I feel like I've been sucked into Pirates of the Caribbean -> "And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules"

[8timechamps]

let me ask you something, baseball rules state that if a player steps on or in front of the plate and offers at the ball, that player will be called out, so if you're calling a game and a player hits a walk off grand slam in the bottom of the 9th inning in game, to give his team the win, but about 1 inch of the toe of his cleat was touching the plate, do you think that umpire should call him out?
Do you think that's what the intent of that rule is?

No umpire in his right mind would make that call because they understand the intent of the rule. The intent of any rule is not to change the outcome of a game or to have an effect on any given play. Sometimes a call will have an effect on a play and every umpire/ref understands that, but regardless given the circumstances, you have to make the call.

Then there are examples such as the one I just gave, where the umpire has to understand the "intent" of the rule and as such, he also understands that he can't make that call in that situation.

Now if you want to go by the exact letter of the rule EVERY TIME, it's going to cause more problems than it solves. You obviously have never officiated a sporting event at any level, or you would understand the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not saying that "by the book" he didn't block him in the back, I'm saying looking at everything as a whole, knowing the intent of the rule, In MY opinion he should not have made that call. I will retract my statement accusing those who disagree with me of being contrarians.

This isn't about a baseball call, so your baseball analogy doesn't hold water. Nice try though.

Again, and for the third time, please tell us about your credentials? What exactly makes you such an expert? Like I said, I'll take the rule book over your opinion...just as the official did Saturday.

And yes, I expect the rules of the game to be enforced "EVERY TIME". That's why there are rules. Once again, the rules of football are designed to take the human element out of the decision making process (thus the advent of instant replay). Baseball embraces the human element in officiating, one of the flaws in MY opinion.

[Scott D]

It was a legit block in the back, anyone complaining about it is just upset because of other non calls during the course of the game.

The "Intent" as it's been so carelessly bandied about is to call a penalty for a block that is illegal. the "Interpretation" by that referee is that the block was by definition illegal, therefore a penalty. The fact that this has gone 3 pages is asinine.

[8timechamps]

It was a legit block in the back, anyone complaining about it is just upset because of other non calls during the course of the game.

The "Intent" as it's been so carelessly bandied about is to call a penalty for a block that is illegal. the "Interpretation" by that referee is that the block was by definition illegal, therefore a penalty. The fact that this has gone 3 pages is asinine.

BOOM!!


(unfortunately, that's not going to stop Dale Ellis....but, I'm done trying to reason with that chick).

[Dale Ellis]

However, the batter didn't intend to get hit so in your rules its a ball because that isn't the intent of the rule.

Did you take too much cough medicine today? I never said anything about the "players" intent. I was talking about what the intent of the rule is. Big difference that anyone with half a brain should be able to discern.

[Dale Ellis]

BOOM!!


(unfortunately, that's not going to stop Dale Ellis....but, I'm done trying to reason with that chick).

What happen to all that "stop acting like you're right and everyone else is wrong" chit? Isn't that just what you gals are doing now?

[Dale Ellis]

Look in my opinion I don't think you call that, in your opinion you think it was the correct call. Why are you guys getting all Charlie Manson on a brutha?

[Dale Ellis]

This isn't about a baseball call, so your baseball analogy doesn't hold water. Nice try though.


never said it was about baseball, sorry of for the uber complicated baseball analogy that obviously flew WAY over your head. I used the baseball analogy to show that sometimes, just because, by the letter of the rule book, a penalty could be called, doesn't mean you ALWAYS have to call it, or always SHOULD call it.


And yes, I expect the rules of the game to be enforced "EVERY TIME".

again, welcome to 6 hour football games. If you honestly think that umpires and referees call every thing they SEE, you have no business on this thread because you're living in fantasy land.

You ask any NFL official if he calls a penalty EVERY time he sees one, and I promise you he'll tell you NO!


Again, and for the third time, please tell us about your credentials?

sure, right after you provide yours, deal?

As I've said, any official in any sport understands what I mean when I say you have to understand the intent of the RULE, in order to enforce it properly.

[StoopTroup]

I think they are pussifying Football. Like they said during that play.....Coaches teach players to continue to throw blocks so that guys don't continue down field and get another shot on our Running Backs and Wide receivers or in this case our LB. Originally a block in the back was to stop injuries. I just don't see how some of these calls do that.

Whaley got chopped down. There wasn't anything that could really be done to stop that. It was a freak play. The ISU Player in this play was never in any danger of getting hurt.....more than likely he might have continued on to try and stop Travis or get blocked maybe by Alexander, Proctor or Hurst. He was taken out of the play by a shove....not a block to the back.

I remember this game in Jr. High our Team got beat by this Team 63-35. I remember on a kick off where I found a kid that had turned his back on me to try and lay a block on one of our guys that had gotten past him on the kickoff. I shoved him as hard as I could right between the shoulder blades and he went face first into the turf. That was a block in the back. I got called for it and sat out the next series after getting an *** chewing. I'm glad I didn't hurt him. I would have felt bad. I watched him pick the turf out of his face mask. They had a RB we couldn't stop. I stopped him every time he came to my side that day so IMO it wasn't my Fault we lost. The School should have fired our Coach IMO. :D ;)

The only thing that makes me feel bad about this play is that Travis didn't get his TD. He deserved it as he made the play. The refs suck. Screw the rulebook. :D

[Dale Ellis]

This isn't about a baseball call, so your baseball analogy doesn't hold water. Nice try though.


never said it was about baseball, sorry of for the uber complicated baseball analogy that obviously flew WAY over your head. I used the baseball analogy to show that sometimes just because some penalties that, by the letter of the rule book could be called, you don't call it.


And yes, I expect the rules of the game to be enforced "EVERY TIME".

again, welcome to 6 hour games.


Again, and for the third time, please tell us about your credentials?

sure, right after you provide yours, deal?

As I've said, any official in any sport understands what I mean when I say you have to understand the intent of the RULE, in order to enforce it properly.


I want the rules to be enforced but if you do not understand the basic concept of what the intent of the rule is, then you can not properly enforce that rule. You think if a guys on the 5 yard line running into the end zone and a guy at the 35 gets a slight nudge in the back, I'm going to call it, HELL NO! Now if the guy gets clobbered from behind or knocked on his ***, yes, I'm going to call that. I don't know why that is so hard for some to understand.

[NormanPride]

Look in my opinion I don't think you call that, in your opinion you think it was the correct call. Why are you guys getting all Charlie Manson on a brutha?

Don't talk that way about Uncle Charles.

[Scott D]

You keep using intent of a rule. Then what you say has little to do with that. Clearly the intent of the rule is to prevent an unfair advantage with an illegal block.

The interpretation was that the action violated the intent of the rule, therefore a penalty. It's pretty clear cut.

[Breadburner]

Leroy Lizard has been re-incarnated.....

[Dale Ellis]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but here goes. I went to a site called refstripes.com and ask for the opinion of any football officials. I described to them what took place on the play in question.

Here are just a few of their comments.


This situation and the one with the late hit in A&M v Texas game get into the big question of philosophy and letter of the rule. This philosophy often is set by the supervisor and the ones who grade the games. Officials in these games are going to make calls that will get them the best grades and in the long run keep thier jobs.

How I read the OU/ISU play, there is no advantage gained and there does not seem to be a big safety issue, I would pass.


there's a concept called "point of attack" that would be applied for things like this. If it's a matter of player safety or sportsmanship, flag is thrown every time regardless(i.e. Taunting, clipping, block below the waist) but for things like holding and block in back where no one's safety is at issue, then there needs to be some discretion.

[Dale Ellis]

You keep using intent of a rule. Then what you say has little to do with that. Clearly the intent of the rule is to prevent an unfair advantage with an illegal block.

The interpretation was that the action violated the intent of the rule, therefore a penalty. It's pretty clear cut.

See my previous post.

[toast]

I hate to beat a dead horse...

evidently not

[Scott D]

You keep using intent of a rule. Then what you say has little to do with that. Clearly the intent of the rule is to prevent an unfair advantage with an illegal block.

The interpretation was that the action violated the intent of the rule, therefore a penalty. It's pretty clear cut.

See my previous post.

So that guy might not have called it. There are plenty of calls in plenty of games that will be called based on the referees involved. The field judge is a prime example of that as he was wiling to let wr and db fight for the ball. Another ref might throw a flag nearly every time there is downfield contact.

It doesn't change the fact that in the ref that matters saw the situation as being an illegal block.

[8timechamps]

Dale Ellis (aka, troll using a different name),

Sorry pal, but the call was made by an official on the field. An NCAA official, not some internet message board official. I'm sorry this has taken up so much of your life, but I'm over it already, you need to be too.

As for the credentials, I'm a high school football coach, but I never questioned the call, so why would be credentials matter? You're the one saying the official made the wrong call, and that ANY official should KNOW that. It's clear you don't have any credentials, at least none at high school or above or you would have given them the first, second or even the third time I asked.

I'm closing this thread because it is to the point of beating a dead horse. And, although you say otherwise, I think you enjoy beating it (the dead horse that is).